Meat One Flesh: Restoring God's words around "marriage"

[FollowingHim]

Is not obligation there precisely because one flesh union was formed

Yes, but when we say "one flesh" we may mean different things.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Yes, but when we say "one flesh" we may mean different things.

Yes, but formation of one flesh union is still followed by "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Or do you mean to say there are two categories of one flesh unions? Which is possible.

 

[Mark C]

Is not obligation there precisely because one flesh union was formed?

Where does this idea come from that 'marriage' is formed by PROHIBITED relationships?

Yes, sexual union consummates a marriage, and the Covenant that was hopefully already initiated by 'offer and acceptance.'

But a man who takes a virgin, particularly but not only, against her will is not necessarily "married." Her father can reject him. (He still pays...)

Do you honestly think David would have given her to him? And he would have known better anyway!

Yes, I would argue that a sexual union is when a "100% marriage" begins. But ONLY when it is not otherwise FORBIDDEN by Torah. (Two men, one obvious example. Incest, another.)

 

[ASyers41]

Is not obligation there precisely because one flesh union was formed? And by marrying you mean keep her? What do you think is universal definition of "getting married" that would work across various situations of a woman (a slave, a captive woman, a widow, a prostitute, orphan woman)?

For example: In the context of Joseph speaking to Potiphar's wife saying, "My master does not concern himself with anything concerning me in the house, and he has committed all that he has to my charge. 9 There is none greater in this house than I. He has kept nothing back from me but you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?”. Would it not be save to deduce that if Joseph was horny he could have formed one flesh union with a female servant independently of Potiphar, if felt the need to avoid sining against God and satisfy youthful strong desire. Or would there still be a requirement for Joseph to pay dowry, and/or ask slave's father for permission first or approval after, would there be a need for a contract verbal or nonverbal, to do all that to to avoid sining against God.

This would be my exact argument on why a one flesh union is indeed an act that signifies marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Biblically, only one man can be married to a woman at a time. If another man has sex with his wife, that is STILL his wife, but adultery was committed against him. The man who committed adultery is NOT married to the woman just because he had sex with her.

So, with that in mind, Paul stated that having sex with the prostitute was becoming one flesh with her.

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

One flesh, in and of itself, without other prerequisites, cannot mean marriage........

So what does? Divorce dissolves a one flesh, it doesn’t dissolve a covenant or a marriage. If divorce is the antithesis of one flesh, and based on Christ’s words it is, what else is there for one flesh to be?

 

[Mark C]

This is nonsense:

So what does? Divorce dissolves a one flesh....

Says who? Zec?

Do the children of that "one flesh" dissolve after 'divorce'? Even if it was just one time?

To be "one flesh" is an ACT. Once done, it remains done. It can happen over and over. (Ideally, frequently...)

...it doesn’t dissolve a covenant or a marriage.

Read Deuteronomy 24:1-3....again. The process described ENDS a marriage. And "she may go and be another man's..."

THAT arguably ends any continuing "one flesh" activity with the now former-husband.

If divorce is the antithesis of one flesh, and based on Christ’s words it is, what else is there for one flesh to be?

Rejected for lack of any Scriptural support. Define "antithesis," and where is THAT, exactly? To much specious, unsupported, sputum.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is nonsense:


Says who? Zec?

Do the children of that "one flesh" dissolve after 'divorce'? Even if it was just one time?

To be "one flesh" is an ACT. Once done, it remains done. It can happen over and over. (Ideally, frequently...)


Read Deuteronomy 24:1-3....again. The process described ENDS a marriage. And "she may go and be another man's..."

THAT arguably ends any continuing "one flesh" activity with the now former-husband.



Rejected for lack of any Scriptural support. Define "antithesis," and where is THAT, exactly? To much specious, unsupported, sputum.

Christ says that divorce dissolves a one flesh. It’s in both of His teachings on divorce. It’s the main thrust of my argument in the one flesh thread. You haven’t done any of the reading. There are only five passages in all of scripture that deal with one flesh and you haven’t read two of them? The two that come from Christ Himsef?

Why are you wasting everyone’s time? You’re not serious about any of this.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Matthew 19:5-6 - In this passage the Pharisees have attempted to test Jesus by asking Him a difficult passage involving putting away a woman. Jesus prefaces His answer by quoting Genesis 2:24, repeating the last part of the verse, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh," reinforcing the importance of that segment of the verse. He then adds a powerful conclusion, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." These two verses make it impossible for me to not recognize the phrase "one flesh" as the name God uses for what we describe as "marriage". We'll go in depth on this momentarily.

Mark 10:8 - In this passage the Pharisees are again testing Jesus around the topic of divorce and again, starting in verse 7, He quotes Genesis 2:24 and again He repeats the final line of the verse for added emphasis; "so they are no more twain, but one flesh." I am unsure if this is the same instance that was relayed to us in Matthew 19:5-6 or a different instance. I've heard it taught both ways. I believe the consensus on this forum is that these are separate events; one dealing with lawful divorce and one dealing with unlawful putting away. But again, I am unclear on that aspect of the two accounts.

There are the two relevant passages @Mark C . If you need to have a discussion about the word “antithesis” you can reference any dictionary you like but for Christ, one flesh stands as the opposite state of divorce and putting away. So divorce dissolves one flesh.

Deuteronomy 24 harmonizes very well with that.