4. One Flesh
10. GNOSTICS
In other eras, women have chosen a different quite remarkable path. They decided that the end of time was near, and that it was preferable to elevate their own state, their own wisdom was superior, they declared themselves as partners with God, named Sofia, and declared men as useless and unnecessary. This was a form of Gnosticism against which the apostles spoke, and had existed since pre Canaanite days. It has nevertheless survived, and we can find Gnostics (in different forms) in our Sydney suburbs today. This self promoting, "I have all wisdom and wisdom will die with me" attitude, is not the submission to the needs, wishes and desires of others, and love that God through Christ called on us to have for each other as He loved us. We need to think more seriously about submission to each other, Ephesians 5:21.
11. SO WHAT PATH TODAY?
The sexual matters discussed by Jesus uphold monogamy as the cornerstone of Christian morality. Adultery is condemned as giving cause for divorce. He even condemned the thinking of it, which high standard is almost impossible to meet, Matthew 5:28.
12. READY FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Jesus affirmed “one flesh” fidelity as a sign of what the Kingdom of God will be like. It holds within it another opportunity to bear His image now. Creation was the paradise image where the covenant of one flesh was made. The fall was where that image was destroyed and the covenant broken. So, why is it that women are condemned to the fall theology, and not helped to rise to the creation theology? Monogamy meets the essential needs of nurture and emotional stability, and so this social good, combined with a spiritual dimension in a godly community, and can bring a divine enrichment. If this dimension is denied to a woman, she will not now suffer in silence. She has been taught, not by the church, that she does not have to turn the other cheek, and forgive seventy times seven, for there are other verses that support her point of view. There is no value in decrying her scriptural education, because she has Christ on her side. She has also been taught, again not by the church, that she can invest emotion heavily into this spouse and children. She does not need this spouse to protect her, for the state will, but she does need his positive feelings about her, a return investment, for her family stability and marriage survival. If a spouse conspicuously and outrageously fails to show forth the image of God, the relationship is doomed to failure.
Hardness of heart is not an Eden principle, it is a Fall principle, and so divorce is not an ideal situation. Hardness of heart inspired the divorce permit with the exceptive clause that Jesus allowed (or was it the writer, Matthew, under inspiration, who made the allowance?) and it was Paul who said that one could allow the unbelieving partner to depart, and that a brother or sister was not under bondage in such cases. Conversely, if the unbelieving partner in a monogamous marriage, stayed, they then were sanctified and were integrated into the life of the believer. None of this deflects the principle of one flesh. By inference though, if a remarriage takes place, the church needs to grapple with that, in the same way that it would any breakdown of principle. Any individual member would not feel happy if the situation was ignored. However any church, or member, could not condone an unsanctified union that is not regarded as permanent and we fiercely discourage such practice. If non Christian people live together believing their relationship to be temporary, then it is best not to sanctify such a union because of family pressures, or custom, or vogue. Unchastity is not improved by adding the sin against the Holy Spirit. Under Australian legal arrangements it is unlawful to marry with qualifications. But in other countries, it is not unlawful to have two or more covenants.
