Marriage is Not a Union of Souls or Spirits
The initial problem with discussion of spiritual union is definitional. What exactly does it mean? Are we talking about association, to whatever degree of intimacy, or about some more ontological union (union of being)? Often people who refer to marriage as a spiritual union or a union of souls begin talking this way when they attempt to describe the completeness of the marriage union. Steele and Ryrie (quoting Ross) conclude their discussion of marriage “intimacy” by saying: ‘To become one flesh means becoming a spiritual, moral, intellectual, and physical unity.”
543 Obviously this does not mean mixing brain cells or sharing a common nervous system, so what does it mean? Perhaps it means nothing more than that the intimacy of marriage involves the couple “seeing things the same way.” They share a common moral standard, think alike, have sexual union. But, still, please, what does common “spirit” mean? Could that be a way of referring to a similar
disposition? I believe this puts the best face on the matter. But note that all such elements of intimacy only occur if the couple makes the effort to integrate their individual concerns. An estranged couple clearly does not share any of these things. Thus, it would be more proper to say that marriage only involves such intimacy, but not that this is what it means to be married.
