• 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: Restoring God's words around "marriage"

FollowingHim said:
Why would that marriage not be one flesh?
Click to expand...
I am presenting a contrast- Why does Paul refer to marry when he has used "one flesh" in other passages. Of course the author can use whichever he chooses and that is the conundrum. What is the thinking here- is marrying an older woman that is passed childbearing NOT being one flesh? It is still "marry".
On the other hand, a man can become "one-flesh" by having sex with a prostitute and yet Not call her married to him.
Now before ya'll jump me for asking the same thing from another post in a different way, I still see inconsistencies in interpretation of plain writings and word usage.
 
Maddog said:
On the other hand, a man can become "one-flesh" by having sex with a prostitute and yet Not call her married to him.
Click to expand...
The term in mathematics, and engineering, is called a "necessary, but NOT sufficient, condition."

I have always contended that marriage is a Covenant, entered by mutual consent, and submission (Numbers 30, etc), CONSUMMATED by, well, consummation.

Said 'consummation' is a necessary but not sufficient condition for 'marriage.'
 
Mark C said:
The term in mathematics, and engineering, is called a "necessary, but NOT sufficient, condition."

I have always contended that marriage is a Covenant, entered by mutual consent, and submission (Numbers 30, etc), CONSUMMATED by, well, consummation.

Said 'consummation' is a necessary but not sufficient condition for 'marriage.'
Click to expand...
So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?
 
Maddog said:
So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that in Paul's example they do not form "one flesh"? You seem to be imagining something and then basing your logic on that.

But if you "marry" - which I presume you are taking to mean saying vows, having a wedding etc - and have not have sex yet, you are really now betrothed, not married. That is what betrothal is. Once you have sex you'll be married. But you could theoretically choose never to have sex and remain in that betrothed state your entire life if you wanted to. A betrothed woman is essentially as strongly bound to her man as a married one, given that for her to have sex with another constitutes adultery, so she is his woman and he is her man. But this seems a very pointless hypothetical question, because I can think of very few instances where a man would take a woman to be his own and then choose to never even once have sex with her. And any exception you can propose will be so exceptional it will simply prove the rule. This is a pointless line of thought.
 
Did anyone here ever have the 'pleasure' of embarking on the Spindletop ride at Six Flags Over Texas?
 
The Revolting Man said:
B

Because it’s not a sin to form one flesh. I’m confused. Can you explain? I am misreading something?
Click to expand...
TRM That is MY question. Why didn't Paul use the same phrasing or terminology for the "exact same thing" or maybe it ISN'T. I always thought that sex with a prostitute was wrong and maybe a sin and not just a really bad idea.
 
Maddog said:
TRM That is MY question. Why didn't Paul use the same phrasing or terminology for the "exact same thing" or maybe it ISN'T. I always thought that sex with a prostitute was wrong and maybe a sin and not just a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
It’s wrong and a bad idea, precisely because it forms one flesh with a woman who has no intention of keeping it.
 
Maddog said:
So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
Because it’s not a sin to form one flesh. I’m confused. Can you explain? I am misreading something?
Click to expand...
Maddog said:
TRM That is MY question. Why didn't Paul use the same phrasing or terminology for the "exact same thing" or maybe it ISN'T. I always thought that sex with a prostitute was wrong and maybe a sin and not just a really bad idea.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
It’s wrong and a bad idea, precisely because it forms one flesh with a woman who has no intention of keeping it.
Click to expand...
Yes, as is the case with any situation in which two people form one flesh but one or both has no intention of treating the relationship as a lifelong commitment and structure within which to raise children -- it doesn't matter if it's the woman or the man who lacks that intention.

It's also the case that prostitution in that era (and in all anthropological situations within which polygyny was an option) was predominantly a matter of pagan temple cults exalting their prostitutes to the level of saints, because their services weren't performed to acquire money but instead to acquire either conversion on the part of the man or at least pledged fealty to the gods of the particular temple.
 
Maddog said:
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Therefore a man can marry and NOT be one-flesh.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh
Therefore a man can become ONE FLESH with a whore and NOT be married.

Why didnt the writer use "one flesh" for both instances or even use the word "marry" in both? Paul made the distinction.
Click to expand...
Transformator Reformator said:
The girl is already his, but she is not his wife until he has sex with her.
Click to expand...
https://www.biblicalfamilies.org/fo...6-37-virgin-daughter-betrothed-or-what.17411/

I believe the passage you referenced may confirm that one flesh union is created when a man has intercourse with his virgin slave (I think it talks about a slave girl). The slave virgin is already in his household under his authority but does not become one flesh until he has intercourse with her.
 
Transformator Reformator said:
@Mark C , was Tamar's statement to Amnon her brother true after he raped her? "“There is no cause. This evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou did unto me.” in 2 Samuel 13:16? Why yes or why not?
Click to expand...
I see no reason not to believe she believed what she said. And I presume she meant that she feared she would be killed, which she could arguably see as worse than rape. Plus, the narrative said he now 'hated' her intensely, which may give her more reason to fear.

Why do you ask?
 
Mark C said:
I see no reason not to believe she believed what she said. And I presume she meant that she feared she would be killed, which she could arguably see as worse than rape. Plus, the narrative said he now 'hated' her intensely, which may give her more reason to fear.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
It is reasonable explanation. Thank you.

I asked because if you think that more is necessary to establish one flesh union, then why did she feel the need to remain with her brother who just violated her. I interpreted this in context of verse about seducing virgin and what should be follow up. (Exodus 22:16). But you might be right, that is not what she had in mind (honoring Exodus 22:16).
 
The Revolting Man said:
Yes but in both the past and the present one flesh equals marriage.
Click to expand...
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........
 
Transformator Reformator said:
It is reasonable explanation. Thank you.

I asked because if you think that more is necessary to establish one flesh union, then why did she feel the need to remain with her brother who just violated her. I interpreted this in context of verse about seducing virgin and what should be follow up. (Exodus 22:16). But you might be right, that is not what she had in mind (honoring Exodus 22:16).
Click to expand...
Even if the sex alone did not make a marriage her response is understandable - but check her reaction again.

It doesn't say that she felt she was obliged to stay with him. It says she felt HE was obliged to keep her - the exact opposite.

Her brother now had an obligation to marry her (if he wasn't killed for what he had done). She was now "damaged goods", she would struggle to get any other man as a husband. So having her brother was the best option open to her, and she pushed him to honour that obligation.
 
FollowingHim said:
Her brother now had an obligation to marry her (if he wasn't killed for what he had done)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top