Off-gridinwv
New Member
Then why were they said to be living in widowhood, and because David went not in unto them they lived in widowhood till they died2sam.20:3
-
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
Once time again, I have read the verses, just not recently. If you have something I’ve missed I’d love to see it. I was gobsmacked by the Malachi passage. I have proven time and again that I can be persuaded. But I have to be persuaded. No one gets a courtesy agreement.
And once again, there are no verses about forming a marriage that have a covenant in them. None. Not one. There should be at least one.
Off-gridinwv
New Member
You evidently don't understand my question or your avoiding it. The act of marrying a woman put away is adultery and the only way it could be adultery is if marriage=sex. Got it?
I’d not heard that you had read those verses. Great! And I’m glad you’re open to an alternative. I’ll happily share once I’ve had time to finish my paper.
I disagree as I believe every “marriage” constitutes a covenantal relationship according to the scriptural definition. (Which is not necessarily a contract or written thing).
I’ll leave you guys to hash it out and share my paper when I have the free time to work on it. FYI, I hope we can remain friends even if we disagree and I think you’re an idiot.
I’m happy being friends even if you think I’m an idiot. There’s a club, I’ll get you membership info if you want.That's like saying that the only way I could be an American is because I live in Texas and so the only way anyone can be an American is by living in Texas.
Marriage doesn't have to mean "sex" and only "sex". When you take that position and then try to fit the Bible to it, you end up with the inconsistencies you still have yet to address:
If sex results in marriage, even with a married woman, then why was Bathsheba still Uriah's wife when David had sex with her? Why did Uriah need to die in order for David to actually have her as his wife? You still haven't addressed this hole in your theory.
"Marrying a divorced woman" Could just as easily be unpacked as the act of taking in, having sex with, and altogether "taking her as your own" a woman with who belongs to another man (married) who has been sent away, even with a GET that was for "burnt toast" and thus not a valid reason for divorce, would be "marrying" or uniting or taking to yourself a married woman, so he and she would be committing adultery.
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
This is a multi part process no matter how you try to slice it, if the one flesh bit was as simple as sex the Hebrew language fully supports Gen 2 saying:
"for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, take a woman and go into her, and she is his wife."
The one flesh business is mentioned 1 time in the OT that I can find and then again when Jesus went back to it. All throughout the OT beyond that where is the mention of one flesh in all the text regarding marriages and sex? There are many references to bone and flesh, or what we understand as "my family" ... but where are all the other "one flesh" mentions when directly discussing sexual acts, or adultery, and so on... if one-flesh = sex and marriage?
When Jesus went back to it He added:
"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”
Is God joining together a harlot and a man when they have one-night only sex? If it's sexual immorality, how can God be credited as the joiner of those two in an immoral act?
I genuinely want to understand the one-flesh statement, and what makes up an actual God-joined marriage, and what makes adultery, and proper divorce. I just don't think from what I've seen that the idea that sex=marriage alone stands up to any scrutiny.
Last edited:
Since we have established that a covenant is an agreement or promise, one which can be verbal and not necessarily written, we have ample evidence of covenants being used to form marriages. For example, in Genesis 29:18-19, Now Jacob loved Rachel; so he said, “I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter.” And Laban said, “It is better that I give her to you than that I should give her to another man. Stay with me.” This is an offer made by Jacob and accepted by Laban forming a covenant.
In the book of Ruth we see an example of a man forming a covenant with the woman he intended to have as his wife. We read in Ruth 3:13, Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a close relative for you—good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the Lord lives! Lie down until morning.” Boaz made an agreement with Ruth, an agreement which he then fulfilled and she became his wife. So we see men and women entering into covenants and those ultimately resulting in forming their unions.
In the book of Ruth we see an example of a man forming a covenant with the woman he intended to have as his wife. We read in Ruth 3:13, Stay this night, and in the morning it shall be that if he will perform the duty of a close relative for you—good; let him do it. But if he does not want to perform the duty for you, then I will perform the duty for you, as the Lord lives! Lie down until morning.” Boaz made an agreement with Ruth, an agreement which he then fulfilled and she became his wife. So we see men and women entering into covenants and those ultimately resulting in forming their unions.
Are the concubines ever described one time at all after the sex with Absalom as Absalom's women/wives/concubines?
If the best you can offer is one English translation describing them living "in widowhood" while many others translate it "living as widows", I don't think you have anywhere near the evidence necessary to claim they were Absalom's women/wives and then widows, rather than what is plainly obvious, they were defiled adulterous wives/concubines of David that he put away and never had sex with again, so they lived as widows with no marital rights/sex, legally he could have had them stoned, or sent away with a proper get, but he chose otherwise, we aren't told why, but we are also not told they were Absalom's widows by virtue of his one time sex act with them.
"21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; then all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father. The hands of all who are with you will also be strengthened.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23 The advice of Ahithophel, which he gave in those days, was as if one inquired of the word of God; so was all the advice of Ahithophel regarded by both David and Absalom."
On the one hand you said God is the one who severed the marriages with David and made them available or gave them to Absalom and on the other hand you say it's the sex that made the marriages and the divorces from David... yet Absalom and his highly regarded advisor both were fully under the impression that what Absalom was about to do was wrong, odious, going into his father's wives/concubines and it says he went into his father's concubines, not the women God gifted him.
Why all these mental gymnastics to avoid what is the plain understanding of the story?
Can you be more specific?
Yeshuah said that Moses allowed for divorce.
How do you reconcile that with your seeming belief that divorce isn’t allowed?
Off-gridinwv
New Member
H
Have you never heard of marrying another man's wife? Question 2: God doesn't join every marriage together. Do you think Jer.5:7-8 supports that they brought the harlots home and claimed ownership of them,when the text says they were neighing after their neighbors wife in the harlot's houses. Do you think Hos.2:1-7 supports your twisted confused theology where a whorish woman goes after her lovers and decides to return to her FIRST husband. Have ye not read where the marital status of a woman is determined by whether or not she's a virgin. Lev.21:3; Luke 3:36; 1Cor.7:34. I'm done with you sir. I've done give a heretik way more time than I should have (Titus3:9-10) good day.
Aaaand there’s the pride. Shame on you.
BiblicalLiteralist
Member
Hey look what I found...again...for the 3rd time...
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death—the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you."
I guess Sex != Marriage? Considering she is a virgin...marriage has not been consummated...yet they are both still put to death for adultery...*drum roll* because she was another mans wife!
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 "If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death—the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you."
I guess Sex != Marriage? Considering she is a virgin...marriage has not been consummated...yet they are both still put to death for adultery...*drum roll* because she was another mans wife!
I'm not sure I've taken any position that claims divorce explicitly isn't allowed, if Moses was given a command by the Lord regarding divorce, Yeshuah would not have contradicted that while in the flesh. So if divorce was allowed in Torah, divorce is allowed after Christ, the question is what was He trying to clear up about their misunderstanding of Torah law.
So trying to interpret his teaching on divorce through that lens, it seems to me that Yeshuah was clarifying to these men who were asking if they could divorce for any reason at all, that the only valid reason for divorce was sexual immorality, anything else wasn't a legitimate divorce... I'm open to other takes, this is an on-going part of my study.
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance." - Deut 24
I'm a heretic for asking questions of someone who claims to have it all figured out, while being someone who has stated numerous times I'm trying to figure it out?
You've presented some claims, some are wild and make no sense, some have some meat on the bones, I've simply tried to test it all, if you don't want to engage in that kind of discussion with me, no problem. God Bless.
Sex with a married woman is adultery. That’s laid out in scripture. I’m sure how this would relate to the forming of the marriage. It’s the destruction of the marriage. Sex with a man formed it, sex with another man destroyed it. Seems simple enough.
And as a general reminder, the whole original thrust of the argument in this thread is that Matthew 19:6 shows us that what we call marriage, Jesus called one flesh.
That’s the whole argument of this thread. When asked about divorce Jesus, I’m paraphrasing, said it’s not good to break one flesh. For Jesus, one flesh is the phrase He uses to describe the state we use the word “marriage” to describe.
Is there no one who can’t allow that much? Jesus calls “marriage” one flesh. If not then why not?
That’s the whole argument of this thread. When asked about divorce Jesus, I’m paraphrasing, said it’s not good to break one flesh. For Jesus, one flesh is the phrase He uses to describe the state we use the word “marriage” to describe.
Is there no one who can’t allow that much? Jesus calls “marriage” one flesh. If not then why not?
Oh you poor sons of bitches, the death blow is about to be delivered. Get your affairs in order men. I’m about to bury you all.
Does sex with another man automatically destroy the marriage? Or is it just a permissible reason to divorce?
If sex with another man automatically destroyed the marriage, then if your wife gets raped she's no longer your wife, and you've got no say in the matter, she's now the wife of another man - and you can't take her back either according to Torah.