Meat One flesh is “marriage” and here’s why.

[The Revolting Man]

Alright. Strap in. I’ve been planning this thread for years. I know it’s an emotional topic with heavy implications for many people’s most important relationship. But I don’t care. This topic is too important for us to fall back on emotion. This is Biblical Families and we can’t offer an explanation of how to form a valid and binding “marriage”. That’s disgraceful.

Turn with me if you will to Matthew 19:6. You were right @NickF , I though you were talking about 1 Corinthians. On to the text:

6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So we should be done here. These are the red letter words of Jesus. A man and a woman stop being two when they are one flesh. And He is explicit that God joins them together at the one flesh. And it is the one flesh that is in contrast to the man divorcing his wife. The opposite of being divorced is one flesh.

Now as far as I’m concerned you have to be in an extreme state of denial in order to get past Genesis 2:24, but there is simply no way past Matthew 19:6 and the words of our Lord and Savior.

Getting a divorce breaks the one flesh. One flesh is the thing that divorce destroys. One flesh then is the state opposite of divorce. One flesh is marriage.

Now before you go screaming off in to the night shouting about this or that, remember that I haven’t (in this thread) postulated on how to form one flesh. My thesis is that one flesh is the phrase Christ used to describe “marriage” in a legally binding teaching on divorce. And I don’t see any way around that. I’m open to be enlightened.

 

[Hisdaughter]

Alright. Strap in. I’ve been planning this thread for years. I know it’s an emotional topic with heavy implications for many people’s most important relationship. But I don’t care. This topic is too important for us to fall back on emotion. This is Biblical Families and we can’t offer an explanation of how to form a valid and binding “marriage”. That’s disgraceful.

Turn with me if you will to Matthew 19:6. You were right @NickF , I though you were talking about 1 Corinthians. On to the text:

6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

I am trying to keep up.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am trying to keep up.

I was expecting more immediate blow back. Maybe the argument is tighter than even I realized.

 

[NickF]

6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

So we should be done here. These are the red letter words of Jesus.

Why should it be done here? You're going to go on a single verse. When your interpretation is contradicted numerous times in scripture. Sorry, unconvincing.

A man and a woman stop being two when they are one flesh.

Agreed

And He is explicit that God joins them together at the one flesh.

Incorrect, it is not explicit that God joins them together at the moment they unify their flesh. Just that God does the joining of the two.

And it is the one flesh that is in contrast to the man divorcing his wife.

It is the two being unified that is in contrast to the man separating the two.

The opposite of being divorced is one flesh.

The opposite of being divorced is being together.

Now as far as I’m concerned you have to be in an extreme state of denial in order to get past Genesis 2:24, but there is simply no way past Matthew 19:6 and the words of our Lord and Savior.

There's no reason to deny anything in those passages. You would need to be in an extreme state of denial to continue to hold the sex only position when numerous times throughout scripture that idea is proven incorrect.

Getting a divorce breaks the one flesh.

Getting a divorce does break the one flesh bond as they aren't having sex anymore.

One flesh is the thing that divorce destroys.

Divorce does not only destroy the sexual relationship, it also destroys all other relationships. Namely the laws requiring a man to provide for her, and laws regulating their relationship. You could call those laws a covenant. That's what God calls those laws.

One flesh then is the state opposite of divorce. One flesh is marriage.

This is not proven or correct. One flesh is one flesh. That's what scripture says. To say more is to add to scripture.

Now before you go screaming off in to the night shouting about this or that, remember that I haven’t (in this thread) postulated on how to form one flesh.

You have stated unequivocally in other threads that one flesh is sex and sex equals marriage.

My thesis is that one flesh is the phrase Christ used to describe “marriage” in a legally binding teaching on divorce. And I don’t see any way around that.

Understood, He did use that phrase, the teaching is unassailable, it just doesn't say what you want it to say. The understanding and interpretation of that teaching MUST conform to the rest of scripture. Sex equaling marriage does not conform to the whole counsel of scripture.

I’m open to be enlightened.

Then read the Law. I've asked you to read the law and you won't for some strange reason. God has some serious things to say about those who refuse to hear the law.

Proverbs 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.

Can you please explain to me why it's to much of a burden to spend a couple hours reading some scripture?
I am not being snarky or angry, short, or demeaning. If I come across that way it's completely unintended. I have great respect for you but I am at a loss for why someone so zealous of the Law would reject the idea that God has modeled the marriage relationship for us throughout all scripture, has shown us how marriage is to be conducted through His relationship with Israel, Judah, and us Gentiles. God says law is a covenant, promises and commitments are covenants. Responsibilities are covenants. Why is it so hard to accept that the relationship between a man and a woman is so much more than inserting tab D into slot C? It's not just sex, it's never been just sex, that's just a part of the relationship. It's the reward for being in a Godly relationship with a woman.

I'm sorry, but there is just too much proof that sex does not always equate to a marriage relationship. Ipso-facto, sex cannot be the one singular defining criteria for establishing that relationship. It's logically impossible for that to be the singular defining characteristic for the relationship we call "marriage". It's impossible because we have not just one, but several instances in scripture that definitively show that sex did not create a marriage between a man and a woman. You cannot prove it when it's been proven to be impossible.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You're going to go on a single verse.

How many times does Jesus have to speak for you to believe Him? He calls the union between a “husband and a wife” one flesh. That’s the only claim in this thread. And you can’t deny that this is true. Jesus calls TTWCM one flesh. Focus on what we’re talking about.

When your interpretation is contradicted numerous times in scripture. Sorry, unconvincing.

My interpretation in this thread is that Jesus calls marriage one flesh and that is incontrovertible.

is the two being unified that is in contrast to the man separating the two.

And the Union is called one flesh by Jesus.

The opposite of being divorced is being together.

Which Jesus calls one flesh.

You would need to be in an extreme state of denial to continue to hold the sex only position

I’m not holding the sex only position. I’m holding the position that Jesus uses the phrase one flesh to describe marriage.

Getting a divorce does break the one flesh bond as they aren't having sex anymore.

So a divorce is the cessation of sex, which is the breaking of the one flesh relationship?

One flesh is one flesh. That's what scripture says. To say more is to add to scripture.

So one flesh is meaningless? It’s just sex and nothing else? Why does the phrase get used so much in such important context and always adjacent to marriage? You’re not thinking Nick, you’re in fight mode.

You have stated unequivocally in other threads that one flesh is sex and sex equals marriage.

Fine but that doesn’t color every other idea in scripture. It is hard to see how one flesh isn’t the phrase Jesus uses for marriage.

The understanding and interpretation of that teaching MUST conform to the rest of scripture

And the rest of scripture has to reconcile every other passage. But again, you’re arguing against a completely different idea here. There is no scripture that contradicts that Jesus calls marriage one flesh. This is why I say you’re not thinking. You keep arguing against something I’m not saying here.

Sex equaling marriage does not conform to the whole counsel of scripture.

It does but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what phrase Jesus uses to describe marriage. ***SPOILER ALERT*** It’s one flesh.

Then read the Law. I've asked you to read the law and you won't for some strange reason.

Don’t be insulting. I’ve been engaging these ideas as deeply and intensely as I can for close to two decades now. You didn’t even have a wife when I came in to poly and patriarchy.

The truth is that I won’t delve in to the intricacies of the word “covenant” for the exact same reason that you won’t deal with whether or not Jesus uses the phrase one flesh to describe marriage.

You know that the implications of that have astounding implications for other discussions. I know that if I take the bait on a 284 verse word study that I’m conceding that covenants are connected to marriage (which Jesus calls one flesh) and consenting to a weeks long debate that completely obscures the point.

So I’m not getting distracted by side quests. You did not get an integrated definition of the word “covenant” from a 284 verse word study. It’s a distraction.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Any thoughts?

Also Wife and Woman in Hebrew is the same word.

עוֹנָה - Marriage
From an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together
The following spelling is supported by Strongs and Gesenius: עונה.

STRONGS H5772:Abbreviations
† [עוֺנָה] Qr, [עֵינָה] Kt noun feminine only suffix Hosea 10:10: Qr plural עוֺנֹתָם Baer, singular עוֺנָתָם Ginsb; > עֵינֹתָם Kt; but read עֲוֺנֹתָם, see עָוֺן 1a.

† [עֹנָה] noun feminine cohabitation (Late Hebrew עוֺנָה time, also = Biblical Hebrew; possibly response or correspondence, commerce, from above √; or else euphemistic, specific time, SS (compare BaES 17, from √

); Thes from עון dwell); — suffix עֹנָתָהּ Exodus 21:10 (E) i.e. her marriage rights. — Hosea 10:10 see H5771 עָוֺן

 

[NickF]

How many times does Jesus have to speak for you to believe Him? He calls the union between a “husband and a wife” one flesh. That’s the only claim in this thread. And you can’t deny that this is true. Jesus calls TTWCM one flesh. Focus on what we’re talking about.

I have no problem with the claim that married people are indeed one flesh. But Jesus does not say that's all marriage is. You're ignoring the topic of the passage and that segment of scripture is not about marriage, it's about divorce. You're falling prey to the same fallacy that the mono-only people do. Taking a passage of scripture about one subject namely divorce, and trying to make it a passage about marriage. The reason Jesus gave to show divorce should not be treated flippantly is that in the beginning God designed marriage to be for the lifetime of the people involved. They should not be separated. He wasn't giving a lesson on how to get married, or what marriage was. He was teaching on why people should not be divorcing their wives for any reason.

My interpretation in this thread is that Jesus calls marriage one flesh and that is incontrovertible.

You can interpret all you want. Jesus does not say "marriage is one flesh". He says that the one flesh union should not be severed.

And the Union is called one flesh by Jesus.

Which Jesus calls one flesh.

I’m not holding the sex only position. I’m holding the position that Jesus uses the phrase one flesh to describe marriage.

You're implicitly saying that marriage is nothing but one flesh, that's been your argument from day one. I disagree and have proven that to be impossible with scripture. The one flesh by logic must be a component and not the critical cornerstone of marriage. When two people are joined in a marriage covenant and become one flesh, they should not sever that relationship.

So a divorce is the cessation of sex, which is the breaking of the one flesh relationship?

divorce does result in the cessation of sex, and the breaking of the one flesh relationship among other things. Namely the totality of the relationship which is by definition a covenant.

So one flesh is meaningless? It’s just sex and nothing else?

I'm not saying it's meaningless. One flesh is one flesh is what I'm saying. I'm not ascribing to that phrase anything else than what scripture ascribes to it.

Why does the phrase get used so much in such important context and always adjacent to marriage?

It's not used "always adjacent to marriage". It's important because it's sex, and that tends to be important to people.

You’re not thinking Nick, you’re in fight mode.

I'm thinking quite well and clearly, I'm not upset and definitely not in "fight mode". I'm spending most of my time chuckling about this whole debate.

And the rest of scripture has to reconcile every other passage.

Then why have you ignored the passages that prove marriage is not just sticking a dick in a woman? If there is scripture proving that marriage is not just sexual union, then marriage cannot be "just sex".

But again, you’re arguing against a completely different idea here. There is no scripture that contradicts that Jesus calls marriage one flesh.

I didn't say there was scripture that contradicts what Jesus said. But you're reading into what He said to mean something He did not say.

This is why I say you’re not thinking. You keep arguing against something I’m not saying here.

I'm thinking perfectly fine. I'm arguing against your central point and not allowing you to falsely frame the whole argument.

NickF said:
Sex equaling marriage does not conform to the whole counsel of scripture.

It does but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about what phrase Jesus uses to describe marriage. ***SPOILER ALERT*** It’s one flesh.

I proved that claim false. And the passage you're referring to is a phrase Jesus uses to describe a reason to not divorce your wife.

Don’t be insulting. I’ve been engaging these ideas as deeply and intensely as I can for close to two decades now. You didn’t even have a wife when I came in to poly and patriarchy.

I'm not insulting you. I don't know how you could possibly engage on these ideas for 20+ years and not read all the scripture surrounding the matter. Honestly I don't give a flying fig for how long someone has been studying something if they're demonstrably incorrect. I don't have to be older, or have a wife for longer to be correct about something. And having a wife for longer does not make you more correct. The facts are what matter.

The truth is that I won’t delve in to the intricacies of the word “covenant” for the exact same reason that you won’t deal with whether or not Jesus uses the phrase one flesh to describe marriage.

I have no problem dealing with the fact that Jesus used the phrase one flesh to describe people in a marriage covenant. What I won't do is accept a proven false premise that one flesh is the end all be all defining characteristic of said relationship. No problem engaging on that phrase, I've done so numerous times on the forum.

You know that the implications of that have astounding implications for other discussions. I know that if I take the bait on a 284 verse word study that I’m conceding that covenants are connected to marriage (which Jesus calls one flesh) and consenting to a weeks long debate that completely obscures the point.

The implication is that if you read the law on the matter you might come to an understanding that would require you to be wrong. Do you think a covenant is a document?

So I’m not getting distracted by side quests. You did not get an integrated definition of the word “covenant” from a 284 verse word study. It’s a distraction.

It's not a distraction to use Torah to understand God's design for and rules on marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have no problem with the claim that married people are indeed one flesh.

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. You admit that one flesh is inextricably linked to marriage right?

But Jesus does not say that's all marriage is.

What else did He say it was?

Taking a passage of scripture about one subject namely divorce, and trying to make it a passage about marriage.

Marriage and divorce are the same topic. You can’t understand divorce if you don’t know what marriage is. Divorce is the undoing of a marriage.

Jesus does not say "marriage is one flesh

He literally does. Right there in the passage. I even highlighted it for you.

. I disagree and have proven that to be impossible with scripture

No you haven’t. Those were sophomoric arguments at best. Almost none of them were about marriage, a rule you accuse me of breaking. You were talking about bestiality and homosexuality and other perversions. One flesh is not “insert tab A into any random slot B” and it’s a ridiculous straw man to suggest so.

When two people are joined in a marriage covenant

Where is this covenant in scripture? Again, you accuse me of not reading the relevant verses but you can’t cite me one verse that requires or describes a covenant in connection to marriage? How dare you insult my study? Show me one scripture that links a covenant to marriage. Malachi 2 is interesting but doesn’t count.

Namely the totality of the relationship which is by definition a covenant

And where is this in scripture? Where is this anywhere other than your imagination? You don’t have scripture. You don’t have God’s Word. Why do you keep repeating this over and over while indicting me for not reading random verses with connection to the topic? You have a tradition, marriage is a covenant, that you are using to make null the word of God with absolutely no proof that such a thing is true.

It's not used "always adjacent to marriage".

Where is one flesh used that is not adjacent to marriage? 1 Corinthians 6? I can make that case very well. I think Inhave a thread on it somewhere.

Then why have you ignored the passages that prove marriage is not just sticking a dick in a woman?

Because there are none. We can go through them one by one if you want.

But you're reading into what He said to mean something He did not say.

Which is better than what the covenant crowd does since they invent something He didn’t say at all to mean something He didn’t say at all. At least I’m using His words.

I proved that claim false.

Where? You haven’t proven anything.

I don't know how you could possibly engage on these ideas for 20+ years and not read all the scripture surrounding the matter

I have read all the scriptures surrounding the matter. I’ve read all the scripture, multiple times. The scriptures you’re trying to hide behind don’t address the matter. If they do then lay it out for us.

The facts are what matter.

Yes they are. And here the facts once again: there is no connection between marriage and covenants anywhere in the Bible. There are multiple and undeniable connections between marriage and one flesh. The fact is that you have no facts.

It's not a distraction to use Torah to understand God's design for and rules on marriage.

Absolutely not. It’s a complete distraction to use God’s Torah to read about covenants when what you want to do is understand His design and rules on marriage. Because neither the design or the rules say anything about a covenant.

You have all made this covenant up in your heads. It doesn’t exist in the Bible. It is a whole man-made phenomenon.

Now let me complicate matters a little bit with an opinion I’m not sure I can completely defend through scripture. One flesh is a covenant. It does not need a covenant. You don’t make a covenant so you can become one flesh. When you become one flesh you enter a covenant. But either way, there’s nothing permanent that’s happened until sex has occurred.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Is no one going to deal with the fact that Christ used the phrase one flesh to describe what is undone by divorce? This doesn’t seem significant to anyone? A divorce undoes a one flesh relationship according to Jesus.

If we are confirming to Christ’s standard then we would say “one flesh” instead of “marriage”. Can anyone refute this?

 

[Maddog]

Tangent question here- remember the law of the levirate marriage? Does scripture say that the deceased man had married or had become one flesh with his woman? He had MARRIED her but produced no child. Why was it NOT written that they had indeed become one flesh?

 

[Edward]

Is no one going to deal with the fact that Christ used the phrase one flesh

Yes I am, I am working on it right now.

 

[DustinM]

Genesis 2:23 - The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh."
Matthew 19:5-6, Ephesians 5:31, Mark 10:8

Gen 29:14 - “Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And Jacob stayed with him a month.”

Judges 9:2 - “Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh.”

2 Sam 5:1 - "Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh."

Some of my thoughts:

Adam is clearly saying the same thing here, she is now his bone and flesh, which further is said in scripture in describing family ties.

A man takes a woman, joins her to himself, she becomes one flesh with him, a part of his body/house/family and is 100% considered by him and anyone else, his bone and flesh, or his family, and what God has joined together in that way, no man should separate, including the man himself (improperly divorcing).

I think there's some deeper considerations there regarding how Eve was immediately "now" bone and his flesh, while it says that the man and woman shall become one flesh, but that's not primary to the discussion here, though it is interesting in how a relationship develops and the woman usually adapts to the man. (Emulating her being physically pulled from his own body like Eve).

So one flesh, it would seem as simple as we can make it, means the woman becomes a part of his body, his family, his house. How do you become one flesh? Be a man who's left his father and mother, take a woman, make a commitment that you're adding her to your family/body, and treat her in the way in which God has told you to all throughout scripture.

Sex is obviously a part of that, a pretty critical one I think, but it cannot be all there is, because sex alone does not make a family tie (unless a baby comes from it, but I know that's a can of worms on this topic).

If a man takes a 2nd woman, do the same thing as the first without reducing any rights of the first, now you have 2 women who are your bone and flesh, or one flesh with you.

Don't divorce or send her away for anything other than sexual immorality... and I think that about covers the basics.

That's where I'm at on it all at least, food for thought.

 

[AbrahamSolomon]

Genesis 2:23 - The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh."
Matthew 19:5-6, Ephesians 5:31, Mark 10:8

Gen 29:14 - “Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And Jacob stayed with him a month.”

Judges 9:2 - “Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh.”

2 Sam 5:1 - "Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh."

Some of my thoughts:

Adam is clearly saying the same thing here, she is now his bone and flesh, which further is said in scripture in describing family ties.

A man takes a woman, joins her to himself, she becomes one flesh with him, a part of his body/house/family and is 100% considered by him and anyone else, his bone and flesh, or his family, and what God has joined together in that way, no man should separate, including the man himself (improperly divorcing).

I think there's some deeper considerations there regarding how Eve was immediately "now" bone and his flesh, while it says that the man and woman shall become one flesh, but that's not primary to the discussion here, though it is interesting in how a relationship develops and the woman usually adapts to the man. (Emulating her being physically pulled from his own body like Eve).

So one flesh, it would seem as simple as we can make it, means the woman becomes a part of his body, his family, his house. How do you become one flesh? Be a man who's left his father and mother, take a woman, make a commitment that you're adding her to your family/body, and treat her in the way in which God has told you to all throughout scripture.

Sex is obviously a part of that, a pretty critical one I think, but it cannot be all there is, because sex alone does not make a family tie (unless a baby comes from it, but I know that's a can of worms on this topic).

If a man takes a 2nd woman, do the same thing as the first without reducing any rights of the first, now you have 2 women who are your bone and flesh, or one flesh with you.

Don't divorce or send her away for anything other than sexual immorality... and I think that about covers the basics.

That's where I'm at on it all at least, food for thought.

I agree. sounds very much with to take or given a Wife/Woman/Women to Own.

Wife/Wives Terms of Agreement: Obey your Husband
Husbands Terms of Agreement: Obey G-d.

Marriage
From an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together
The following spelling is supported by Strongs and Gesenius: עונה.

 

[The Revolting Man]

while it says that the man and woman shall become one flesh, but that's not primary to the discussion here,

No, that is the exact primary discussion here.

Be a man who's left his father and mother, take a woman

Fair enough, I’ll concede it.

make a commitment that you're adding her to your family/body

Where is this in scripture?

and treat her in the way in which God has told you to all throughout scripture.

Which way is that? And if you ever fail to treat her that way does that then end the “marriage”?

Sex is obviously a part of that

It’s the only part we’re told about.

 

[FollowingHim]

Sex is obviously a part of that, a pretty critical one I think, but it cannot be all there is, because sex alone does not make a family tie (unless a baby comes from it, but I know that's a can of worms on this topic).

Except we are specifically told that sleeping with a harlot makes you one flesh with the harlot. So sex is all that is required to become "one flesh". However, there may be more to marriage than just being one flesh - that's what's really being debated regarding covenants.

 

[Maddog]

Except we are specifically told that sleeping with a harlot makes you one flesh with the harlot. So sex is all that is required to become "one flesh". However, there may be more to marriage than just being one flesh - that's what's really being debated regarding covenants.

Bingo! So there IS a difference in having some sort of agreement in existence? What if someone had a 1 year agreement with his woman? After that maybe a renewal. Does it always have to be "for life"? (hope this doesnt pop a cork somewhere) And what about the non-legal concubine-woman-wife that happens to be the church secretary-unmarried to anybody else for sure? Are they married or not? Is that legitimately an "affair" or secret poly marriage? I have seen alot of pastors repenting of their masculinity- read that horn-dog chase after secretary thing. "I am so sorry for being a defective pastor and having a sex drive, I promise it wont happen again...." PuhLeeeeze!

 

[FollowingHim]

What if someone had a 1 year agreement with his woman? After that maybe a renewal. Does it always have to be "for life"?

Here you have to bear in mind that it is not all about covenants either - one flesh is deeply involved too! And as Jesus said, what God has joined together, let not man separate. If a man had a 1-year agreement with a woman, so they became one flesh - God joining them together - if they were to separate at the end of the year they would be separating what God has joined together.

You cannot contract out of a law (secular or Biblical).

I could write an employment contract that says I can flog my employees for misbehaviour - but even if they sign it, that aspect of the contract is invalid, because it is illegal. I'll still be prosecuted if I actually flog them, and the contract would offer no defence.

In the same way, I cannot contract out of the obligation to honour the permanence of the one-flesh status created by God. Even if I sign such a contract, the contract is invalid.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Except we are specifically told that sleeping with a harlot makes you one flesh with the harlot. So sex is all that is required to become "one flesh". However, there may be more to marriage than just being one flesh - that's what's really being debated regarding covenants.

I’m mad at you right now so this isn’t a compliment but when I calm down I’ll be relieved someone at least gets the core of the debate.

 

[DustinM]

No, that is the exact primary discussion here.

Fair enough.

make a commitment that you're adding her to your family/body

Where is this in scripture?

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall become one flesh."

cleave: to cling, keep close. Given that you have to choose to do that, that would be committing to clinging or keeping close, or what am I missing?

"and treat her in the way in which God has told you to all throughout scripture."

Which way is that? And if you ever fail to treat her that way does that then end the “marriage”?

I see what you're getting at... I could have left that part out of the statement. No failure in that way would not end the marriage.

 

[DustinM]

Except we are specifically told that sleeping with a harlot makes you one flesh with the harlot. So sex is all that is required to become "one flesh". However, there may be more to marriage than just being one flesh - that's what's really being debated regarding covenants.

Are you referring to 1 Cor 6?