The oneness Jesus spoke of, between himself, the Father, and those in his Church, needs to be compared with the oneness that would unite a husband and a wife. You ask if all of them are congruent (accordant: conformable. But note that in the geometric sense, that means that figures coincide exactly when superimposed.)
Reference is made to Genesis 2:24 as it 'fits' with John 17:21-23 and Ephesians 5:22-32. Let's start with Jesus' words where he prays to his Father in heaven about his followers then, and all who would later believe on the basis of their word:
"...that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one." John 17:21-23 A.V.
This shows how important it was to Christ that his Church should be united, so that the world would see something of the healing and saving power of Christianity. It should not be a fractured society. There should be no judging 'according to the flesh' but acceptance on the basis of spiritual realities, not human characteristics. The unity Jesus prayed for in his Church was the kind that exists between the Father and the Son. We can be one if we all have the same relationship with God. Our unity is based on the life of God in our souls. Christ lives in us by the indwelling Holy Spirit. But this closeness goes so deep, the early church theologians had a special word for it, perichoresis. It conveyed how, not only were the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit beside, with, and towards one another: they dwell in each other.
"I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." (John 14:11) "...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you". (John 17:21) "I in them and you in me (John 17:23). This goes far further than anything that can be known physically, as this book explains:
"Words such as these suggest a kind of union and interpenetration
which is incredibly close and intimate, far beyond anything we can
experience as human beings. This is why in John 14:9, Jesus can say to
Philip, 'Anyone who has seen me has sen the Father.'
It is obviously impossible for us to have such a close relationship
with any other human being...
The fact that Christ and the Church are 'one flesh' (Ephesians
5:29-32) indicates not simply a close bond between him and each of the
other members of his body, but also a very close bond between the
various members themselves. They, too, are one flesh, deeply involved
in each other, and they must express this in their collective
lifestyle... the unity of the Godhead results from the Father being
the Father, the Son being the Son and the Spirit being the Spirit.
Shared Life, Donald Macleod, pp 69-72, Christian Focus 1994
Now, let us compare the association of the Assembly with the sacred, unique union between husband and wife. Without doubt, there are some similarities to be seen. But can one 'set' be laid atop the other, geometrically, so that that the figures coincide exactly when superimposed? Quoting from the same theologian:
"Equality, diversity, community: all of these are reflections of the
fact that we bear the image of God. Can we say the same of order in,
for example, a husband's authority over a wife?... The New Testament
writers do not regard the order, Father, Son and Holy Spirit as
sacrosanct. As the so-called Athanasian Creed reminds us, 'In this
Trinity none is before, or after another: none is greater, or less
than another.' Besides, it is a fact that the Bible never appears to
ground the order it insists o for human life in relations between the
persons of the Trinity.
Our submission to government for example, is based on the fact that
government is God's servant (Romans 13:4). When it comes to the
authority of the husband over the wife the Bible mentions several
reasons, but none of them has any connection with an order in the
depths of the Godhead. Paul and Peter cite, instead, such things as
that the man was created first (1 Timothy 2:13), that it was the woman
who was deceived (vs. 14), that the woman was created for the man, not
the man for the woman (1 Corinthians 11:9), and that the woman is the
weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). We must not forget, of course, that the
husband's authority, whatever its precise extent, always involves
corresponding obligations. If he behaves tyrannically and selfishly,
he has no right to claim support from the Bible. The very passage
(Ephesians 5:22-33) which tells the wife to 'obey' also tells the
husband to love, nourish and cherish - which surely includes giving
the wife scope to express herself and to develop her own talents."
(Ibid., pp 59- 61)
The union of a man with a woman in marriage is 'according to the flesh' as it is physical, fleshly. (There is no marriage in heaven, Jesus said.) The union of believers within the Godhead is spiritual, beginning on earth with the man or woman being born again of the Spirit, and based on the deepest spiritual union possible. The physical union of Genesis 2:24 was recorded in the Bible before humans (of both sexes) began to get any real idea about the spiritual union in store, through the advent of the Son of God, which surpasses anything we could ever know physically, on earth. If anything, Genesis 2:24 can only be an allusion to John 17:22-23 (not the other way around), merely showing an indirect link. If marriage was a model for spiritual realities, then what would become of the many who never married? Would they be unable to understand spiritual union with Christ? No, because shadows are never the realities.
