One Flesh - a biological perspective

[steve]

Note that Tamar was not actually a prostitute.

She only submitted to Judah. She might have dressed as a prostitute, but in reality she offered her body to one man only, and then kept herself solely for that man. The whole prostitute thing was a deliberate disguise. She was not actually a prostitute and never engaged in prostitution, as she never slept with multiple men and never accepted payment.

Also, the one that she slept with was next in line after the last brother was constrained from giving her first husband an heir.
He was not a rando.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Note that Tamar was not actually a prostitute.

She only submitted to Judah. She might have dressed as a prostitute, but in reality she offered her body to one man only, and then kept herself solely for that man. The whole prostitute thing was a deliberate disguise. She was not actually a prostitute and never engaged in prostitution, as she never slept with multiple men and never accepted payment.

I know that.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Also, the one that she slept with was next in line after the last brother was constrained from giving her first husband an heir.
He was not a rando.

This is true. But was she married to him?

 

[rockfox]

But the entire starting point of this thread (go back and read the first post again to refresh yourself) is that there may actually be a physical way that the two become "united". Not physically joined together, but united in substance. They are now made out of the same "flesh", whereas previously they were made out of different "flesh".

Maybe they are two persons yet one substance? Like another notable relationship in the Bible which Christians have from the beginning warred over how to understand.

Sex before marriage either makes you:
- Obliged to marry that woman, or
- Already married to that woman
depending on what your view on "one flesh" is. So some people in this discussion would believe one of the above statements, and the rest the other. The practical effect is the same - you break it, you buy it. You have sex with a woman, you are obliged to marry her.

There is no temporary relationship formed by having sex. There is a permanent obligation - an obligation to marry and be faithful to that woman.

When people say "sex before marriage is not sin", they do NOT mean "so you're free to do it as much as you like". What they mean is that if a couple jump the gun and have sex before their wedding, they are not sinning. The order of things doesn't really matter. What matters is that they actually commit to each other for life - provided they do that, it is irrelevant when they first started having sex.

That is all. Do NOT interpret this as a licence for immoral behaviour.

But that's not whats going on in the 1 Cor 6 example passage in our discussion here now is it?

 

[FollowingHim]

Maybe they are two persons yet one substance? Like another notable relationship in the Bible which Christians have from the beginning warred over how to understand.

Exactly!
Can't believe I'd never noticed that simple parallel before. Thankyou.

But that's not whats going on in the 1 Cor 6 example passage in our discussion here now is it?

That is more complex. I was giving a simple answer to one specific person who seemed to be going down a problematic line of reasoning.

 

[HomesteadWife]

This is true. But was she married to him?

From my understanding of the providing an heir to your deceased brother provision in scripture the next brother in line was to have sex with and get his brothers wife pregnant, that would be considered the elder brothers child.

I don't think it required marriage between the man and his brothers wife. Since Judah withheld his youngest son from Tamar, to fulfill this she went to the next closest relative, which was Judah.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

From my understanding of the providing an heir to your deceased brother provision in scripture the next brother in line was to have sex with and get his brothers wife pregnant, that would be considered the elder brothers child.

I don't think it required marriage between the man and his brothers wife. Since Judah withheld his youngest son from Tamar, to fulfill this she went to the next closest relative, which was Judah.

I agree that they most likely did not need to marry.
Just like if one of my wives/concubine had a handmaiden I could lay with them and have kids and not be married as well.
But have completely the right to do so.

 

[rockfox]

Exactly!
Can't believe I'd never noticed that simple parallel before. Thankyou.

And even if it isn't a one to one match, it's still another example of marriage as a mystery and reflection of spiritual things.

 

[MemeFan]

Maybe they are two persons yet one substance? Like another notable relationship in the Bible which Christians have from the beginning warred over how to understand.

What happens with substance if somebody dies?

That happens with substance if she marries (legally) again?

What will happen with substance in afterlife?

I would rather not go in "substance direction". It opens even more questions.