I agree, it seems that "if" they find a man with a married woman they would be put to death.
The story as to agree the husband is who gives The GET.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat One flesh is “marriage” and here’s why.
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
I agree, it seems that "if" they find a man with a married woman they would be put to death.
The story as to agree the husband is who gives The GET.
Interesting...
When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry; for the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the LORD.” - Hosea 1
Alternate translations include
A wife of harlotry
A wife inclined to harlotry
A wife of prostitution
A wife of promiscuity
A wife of fornications
A prostitute
But "take to yourself a wife/woman" is wording that indicates a commitment to take her as his, not merely have sex with her one time, is it not?
Isn't a much more simple explanation that these women still belonged to David, and he chose to care for them but would no longer have sex with them as they were defiled by his son so they lived as widows, rather than actually Absolom's widows?
"12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’"
The point here is that God is going to allow his wives to commit adultery against David in broad daylight while David to Uriah did it secretly.
If Bathsheba still belonged to Uriah after David slept with her, then how do you support the claim that David's women no longer belonged to him after Absolom slept with them?
Or David had never actually slept with them to begin with but was very careful to not even appear to be doing so afterwards.
Suppose that's possible, but seems like adding a lot to the text to make an idea (they were now absoloms widows) fit rather than just what seems obvious. They were David's wives/concubines, God punished him by allowing Absolom to do to 10 of his women what he did to Uriah and 1 woman.
Then after all was said and done rather than stoning them to death like he could have based on the law, but super hypocritical considering, he perhaps showed mercy to them as God had shown mercy to him and Bathsheba, them still having their lives as adulterers/adulteress. He still provides food and shelter for them but he would not have sexual relations with them any longer. Could be a daily reminder to himself of his offense to God and Uriah, so that he did not stray again. Who knows.
The why really isn't relevant, we are all guessing where it doesn't say explicitly. But one interpretation (they were still his wives living "as" widows, unless he divorces them) checks out with other scripture, the other, that they were absolom's wives because he had sex with them, and now his widows, but David was taking care of them for the rest of their lives, makes no sense.
Last edited:
It’s not adding. They were his women but that doesn’t mean he had taken them. They may have been simply servants. It’s not a big deal either way to me it’s just another option.
Here is a GREAT example...
(Genesis 29:18-30) And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me? And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also. And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
I love you too man. Remember, I can please some of the people some of the time, but I can't please all the people all of the time.
NO!!! Stay on topic.
No, because we are talking about what MAKES one flesh NOT what separates one flesh.
That is because sex is one flesh.
I quoted those verses because I said this... "We also know that a harlot was common in the Bible." Remember the verse says... Leviticus 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.
I would like to point out that YaHWeH was telling Moses to "Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron" Leviticus 21:1
Also, does YaHWeH really need to SPELL IT OUT EVERWHERE?? Take a virgin hop in bed, and have sex with her so you will be married.
True, BUT I am. But we do have this in the bible...
Genesis 29:22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
Genesis 29:23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
So we do have a BIG get-together here.
I am.
In my reply, I said all of that "discombobulated mish mash" to point out that YaHWeH gave Eve to Abam v22 "and brought her unto the man." To be one flesh. Adam did NOT take Eve from YaHWeH. YaHWeH set an example for us, just like YaHWeH set an example on how to work, 6 days work 7th-day rest. Man IS following YaHWeH's example reread what I said to FollowingHim above.
YaHshua knew his Father's example, that's why he said what he said in Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So i see a conflict between Matt 19 and 1 Cor 6 as regarding the permanence of the one flesh. In both places the oneflesh exists but in one the one flesh should not be done away but in the other the oneflesh is obviously temporary. It is this discrepancy that pointed me in the direction of oneflesh being a baby. Cleaving is not marriage in it entirety, one flesh is not marriage in its entirety. These two are incredibly important elements but are not the sum total of "marriage". We are left to cultural norms regarding what ever type of transaction takes place that society might deem marriage. In one way, "When in Rome, do as the Romans" when those "do" dont violate Gods rules for behavior. Otherwise we are free in our libertarian economy to do as our God directs.
Off-gridinwv
New Member
Be
Because they were given by God to Absalom and the text doesn't say they lived "AS"widows. They were David's slave wives and they were given to Absalom and after his death maybe David just wanted to keep them as slaves, Idk
Why do you think the oneflesh relationship with a harlot is temporary?
I hear ya, just seems odd to punish a man by allowing his wives/women to commit adultery, as a result of him taking another man's wife, and them being ones that mattered little to him anyway. If I was punishing my son for stealing someones property, and did so by letting another boy take things that mattered little to him, it wouldn't be much of a punishment...
Either way, this is an interesting offshoot and theory, but not sure it weighs on this thread too much, as even if we conceded that God Himself gave Absolom the women and severed the marriages Himself, that's clearly a specific divine event and not the subject of this conversation, which is man severing that one-flesh union...
One does not normally marry a whore or harlot or pristitute. Now he CAN like God commanded the prophet Hosea but he is likely to be disappointed.
This temporary nature of the one flesh is what made me think "well, what about..." and thats why i came up with the flesh being the baby's flesh created from the cleaving of the woman. It still makes more sense to me rather than some sort of mystical coming together of mind and soul malarkey to which i say the same can be said of close personal gay friends. By the way, young David and Johnathan were very close personal friends and the gay community holds them up as being gay too. That personnaly disgust me as David would not violate Gods Law (until later). I tire of people "spiritualizing" every conundrum of life.
This temporary nature of the one flesh is what made me think "well, what about..." and thats why i came up with the flesh being the baby's flesh created from the cleaving of the woman. It still makes more sense to me rather than some sort of mystical coming together of mind and soul malarkey to which i say the same can be said of close personal gay friends. By the way, young David and Johnathan were very close personal friends and the gay community holds them up as being gay too. That personnaly disgust me as David would not violate Gods Law (until later). I tire of people "spiritualizing" every conundrum of life.
I'm no hebrew scholar, so I won't pretend to be, but the majority of the English translations word it that way, grain of salt.
Either way it doesn't matter, the only way they could be Absolom's widows is if they were no longer David's wives, so either God severed the marriages, or Absolom and the women did with sex. I can get on board with God declaring them null and void, and the sex with Absolom having nothing to do with it, and that's super interesting in itself, but not relevant to this discussion being an isolated hand of God type event/description.
But if the argument is Absolom having sex with David's wives made them his wives, and it's the sex that did the marrying and the divorcing simultaneously, I can't make sense of that.
Off-gridinwv
New Member
You seem to have a lot of questions and not many answers. I've already given numerous scripture in other posts that prove a man marries a woman by going in unto her. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Whoa there, back up a step, you're jumping to conclusions too quickly.
You are first presupposing that one-flesh = marriage, but then supposing that marriage only exists if there is a covenant agreement to marry or if the two parties decide to cohabitate. So if they don't then cohabitate, you assume they are not married. And because one flesh = marriage, and they are no longer married, they are no longer one flesh. (Incidentally, this line of thought requires jumping back and forth between the idea that marriage = one-flesh and marriage = one-flesh + covenant.)
What if the one-flesh union is something distinct and unique, something that is formed whenever a couple have sex, and is not something we can just contract out of by choosing not to marry? Maybe one-flesh is either:
- A physical change that occurs in the bodies of the two people, that means they are truly different and united in some way after sex. Or
- A spiritual change that occurs in the two people, that means they are spiritually united in some way after sex.
In either case, they are one flesh - and may be one flesh for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether they cohabitate, or even how many other partners they have and become also united with.
Might not the one-flesh union with a prostitute be permanent, even if it is not followed by marriage?
Wait a minute, this is an example of sex forming a marriage. If there was any covenant in this scenario it was for Rachel. Ol’ Jake got tricked into sleeping with Leah sand it was still valid.
The majority of Israel and the line of Judah came from a “marriage” that was formed out of a drunken reverse rape. Jacob didn’t even know who he was sticking it in and it still counted.
I’m sorry but I don’t see how given the example of one of the most important one flesh relationships having been based on the grossest of sexual encounters anyone can still claim a covenant can have anything to do with it.
Come on scholars, deal with this new evidence Brother Edward has brought to us. Why were Jacob and Leah bound? There was no covenant. There wasn’t even consent. Or sobriety.
It is postulated that a prostitute can be one-flesh with many men like the men can be with women. I say YES. It is also theorized that one-flesh means marriage. I say NO. But wait, there's more: if one-flesh means marriage then polyandry is alive and well (but we know that is frowned upon) but polygyny is acceptable. How does one put asunder the one-flesh? It is more than cut up to the point of each half going away from the other.
I think you are defining "covenant" too narrowly and artificially (only the equivalent of a formal marriage contract), and then dismissing everything that does not look like what you have imagined a "covenant" is. I think this needs to be considered far more broadly. "Covenant" is the agreements and understanding around a marriage - for instance, the father's decision to give his daughter away - while "consummation" is what it is.
The covenant with Rachel was the obvious two-way agreement between Laban and Jacob.
The covenant with Leah comprised Laban's decision to give her to Jacob, and Jacob's acceptance of the fact that she was now his wife (he did not dispute this fact when confronting Laban the following morning). This was a far less formal "covenant". But it was still a covenant of sorts, as it was the agreement between the people involved.
Remember that a covenant can be one-way. God gave Noah a covenant that he would not destroy the earth by water again. This was not a two-way contractual agreement. It was a covenant granted by God. In the same way, Laban granted Leah to Jacob in a one-way covenant.
The covenant is what made that sex permissible. If Laban had not chosen to give Leah to Jacob, and he had taken her against Laban's will, then there would have been sex with no covenant. The sex would have been impermissible, theft of the daughter from the father.
So anything is a covenant then. You can have a covenant because no matter what you’re going to have one. Even if it’s a one sided con perpetrated on a drunk man.
I may be defining covenant too narrowly but you’re not defining it at all. You’re letting any word in a sentence be a covenant. Just so you can have a covenant.