Marriage: The Icon of Trinitarian Existence

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." 

Oneness demands a plurality for it to exist.  Without a plurality, oneness is nothing more than a redundancy that needs not be brought up.  For example, whenever God said that He is "one," ("the Lord your God is one...") this would've been a redundant and unnecessary saying if God is a monad, if He is not a Trinity, a plurality in one.  For Him to even say that He is one means that He implicitly exists as a communion.

On the other hand, plurality demands oneness for plurality to truly exist.  If there is no oneness, plurality cease to be a reality.  Plurality, then, would be replaced by several "ones."  Without oneness, plurality would not be able to relate to the extent where a plurality could even be conceived of.  Without oneness, there would be no relation that would thereby enable a pluralistic reality in the truest sense.  All that would be left would be the meandering of isolated individuals.  It would be merely individualism and where individualism exists, plurality cannot. 

For oneness and plurality to exist both need oneness and plurality.  Both lose their essence whenever both are not in place. 

Thus, here lies the secret to marriage and truly life in general upon this great planet and plane of existence in which we so happen to find ourselves.  Oneness and plurality are both necessary for existence because we are created by and after the One who is ultimate existence; the One who exists both simultaneously as oneness and plurality.  It is for these reasons that "it is not good for man to be alone."  For, God in His being is not alone.  For humanity to adequately reflect the image of God there has to be more than one person present.  In other words, there just can't be oneness.  For God, in and of Himself, exists as more than one person.  He exists as three persons; one essence.  This is what the Church has always confessed down through the ages.   

There are two words, two very important words, in the oft cited marital origins passage that I previously quoted at the start of this chapter: "and they will become one flesh."  These words are "they" and "one." 

They-ness would not exist without the oneness and the oneness without the they-ness.  Of course, most Western Christians exclusively focus on the second word "one" in negligence of the "they."  However, the "they" is equally as important as the "one."  It is not less important, nor is it more important.  It, again, is of equal importance.  Just as the three-ness of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is of equal importance to His oneness, the they-ness of spouses is of equal importance to the oneness of their marriage.  Leaning too far in one direction or the other produces disastrous results. 

An overemphasis on the oneness will depersonalize the relationship.  It will make it cold.  What will take precedent is not the spouses cherishing and celebrating one another for who they truly are but the emphasis will mainly lie upon the notion of upholding the institutional unity which they find themselves bound by.  The particularity and diversity between the two spouses will not be celebrated but will be seen as something to be thwarted for the sake of maintaining the unity.  In modern day, this plays out in those marital relationships where couples stay together for the sake of staying together, not for the sake of edifying and celebrating each other.  Spouses cease in giving themselves fully to one another and will just do enough to get by (again, for the sake of maintaining a notion of unity). 

However, an overemphasis on the they-ness will have a disastrous effect as well.  It will individualize the relationship and eventually depersonalize it as well.  Spouses will not see marriage as a means of giving oneself wholly to the other but will see the opposite spouse as merely a means to a self-gratifying end.  It will lead to a marriage of objectifying the other spouse.  Focusing too much on the they-ness will lead to individuality; to two people seeking individual gain from a marital relationship.  In modern day, this plays out in something like this: Spouses will set standards for the other to meet; standards which are derived from a selfish sense of desire from or for the other.  Whenever the opposite spouse fails to meet these imposed and selfish expectations, the imposing spouse will no longer see the need in maintaining the relationship.  The notion is, "If my spouse no longer gives me what I need, why stick around?"  In such a relationship, oneness is not a priority in the truest sense and, thus, there is no real commitment to unity.  Instead of valuing and being defined by the personhood of the other spouse, the individual merely attempts to impose a definition on the other person while they simultaneously refuse to be defined by the other.  In other words, a spouse (or both spouses) seek to define one another while refusing to be mutually defined by the other.  It is nothing more than a cheap attempt for a power grab through manipulation.  It is the endeavor to make the opposite spouse into who you want them to be for your own selfish gain rather than attempting to value them for who they truly are. 

Both modes of emphasis are atrocious and only lead to decay in relationships.  One leads to stale and unhappy marriages while the other one pretty much leads to divorce because that is all that it can do in the end.  One is an attempt at unity regardless of the other spouse; the other just doesn't regard the other spouse or the marriage at all. 

The they-ness and oneness are both crucial for marriage to exist properly and freely. 

I will repeat what I have already said several times: oneness can only happen where they-ness is present and they-ness can only happen where oneness pursued.  Marriage, from the very beginning, was made to reflect both aspects.  Anything less than a reflection of both can't be true marriage.  For, it has no capacity to be so. 

"...a man will leave his father and mother..."

For marriage to exist, a leaving must take place.  Genesis speaks of leaving the father and mother.  In our day and in our context, this can pan out a bit differently, though.  This has less to do with physical leaving as it does with ontological identity.  This verse is not about leaving the family (parents and siblings) in a physical way.  It is about leaving (deprioritizing) the communion that once defined you as a person.  It is about being defined primarily by a new communion...that of husband and wife.  The leaving that is meant to take place is not a form of familial negligence or total abandonment.  It is not a matter of cutting ties completely.  Its about a new relational ontology...about being defined by a new relational priority.  This fact is self-evident enough but it is astonishing how many people today don't pick up on this.  The leaving of father and mother (or the familial relations that once primarily defined you) is more ontological than physical.  Again, even though there is a physical leaving of the former familial relations, the physical leaving is not what takes precedent.  Someone can be physically absent from their parents yet still be ontologically bound to them and primarily defined by them even in the context of marriage. 

For example, a close friend of mine once dated a girl who, although physically separated from her parents geographically, was still absolutely bound to them in an ontological way.  She literally didn't know how to exist without them and even in the context where new relationships were present.  There was no separation of her being from them.  It was such an extreme dilemma that my friend had no chance whatsoever with this girl.  There was literally no more room in her life for a new and significant relationship.  As a result, she did not know how to value him as a person nor did she make any space for his personhood within her life.  There was no chance for them to grow into "one" because she was still and only "one" with her parents, even though she was a grown woman. 

Thus, a leaving must take place for marriage to begin, for one, and survive.  If it does not, one person will be choked out of a relationship because the other spouse who refuses to leave her previous defining relationships will not make room for the unique and unrepeatable humanity of the incoming spouse.  There will absolutely be no room for the two to grow into something new and "one" if one of them, or both of them, cling to what is old.  Space needs to be given if oneness is going to even have a shot.  This is why the leaving behind of the father and the mother is a must. 

"...and they will become on flesh." 

As I previously stated, oneness cannot become a reality for the married couple if oneness with previous defining relationships is not abandoned in an ontological way.  There is a two-fold process to marriage which actually reflects conversion to Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Both stages are of paramount importance and are helpful for understanding the outworking of marital relatedness. 

First one must, again, leave their past relationships ontologically as they would leave their idols and any attempt to be defined by them.  As a convert to Christianity would forsake all former idols for the sake of knowing and loving Christ, so to the spouse must leave behind familial relations for the sake of knowing and loving the other spouse. 

Next, the couple must pursue oneness as a convert would pursue oneness with the Triune God.  As I said earlier several times, oneness cannot be pursued where they-ness doesn't exist.  Both spouses have to pursue oneness in order for it to become a reality.  The pursuit is that of taking on a whole new dynamic of reality.  It is not merely an ethical or romantical pursuit.  This line from Genesis is not just a poetic notion penned to arouse fuzzy feelings within us.  The author is speaking of taking on a new way of existence, a new relationship that defines life for us. 

It is at this point, and only at this point, that marriage begins to image true existence: whenever oneness and they-ness are pursued simultaneously within the marital relationship because it is at this point that the marriage reflects the life and love of the Triune God.  It begins existing in the Way that God, Himself, exists.  It will become in the truest sense a martial love which reflects the God who is love. 

Just as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit love one another, so to the spouses will love one another.  Just as the members of the Trinity are defined by one another (you cannot, for example, conceive of Jesus apart from the Father and the Spirit), so to the spouses will define each other.  Just as the members of the Trinity would lose their themselves, their distinct personhoods that are defined by one another, so to the spouses would lose portions of their personhood if the relationship is disengaged. 

Marriage only works whenever oneness is pursued by both spouses and where the they-ness of them both is cherished in the process.  As it is with the Triune God, so shall it be with us who are made in His divine image. 

The difference between oneness in God and oneness in our marital relationships is that God exists as one where we must acquire it through constant effort only by/through God's enabling grace.  Oneness for us includes a wonderful process of "becoming"... "they will become..."

Oneness is not something which drowns out the uniqueness of the persons involved but it is something which amplifies each person's uniqueness.  Oftentimes it is thought that people need to compromise themselves entirely in order for them to make a go of marriage, as if they need to negate themselves and their own uniqueness.  This is certainly not the case!  To use an illustration, (I was in the southern part of the country whenever I wrote the first draft to this chapter) think of Sweet Tea.  Sugar...it is delightful.  Iced Tea...quite amazing.  Whenever we put them together they achieve something greater than they ever would've by themselves (unless you do not like Sweet Tea!).  The best part of this is that neither substance is diminished in the process.  In Sweet Tea, the sugar is still very much there and the Tea is very much still there even though they have become something new and exciting together. 

The same is so true of marriage.  Put the husband and wife together and they achieve something greater than they ever would have by themselves.  They achieve a "oneness" which brings them into a new reality which they never could've known apart from one another.