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

[Maddog]

Why would that marriage not be one flesh?

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.

 

[Mark C]

On the other hand, a man can become "one-flesh" by having sex with a prostitute and yet Not call her married to him.

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.'

 

[Maddog]

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.'

So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?

 

[FollowingHim]

So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?

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.

 

[The Revolting Man]

B

So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?

Because it’s not a sin to form one flesh. I’m confused. Can you explain? I am misreading something?

 

[Keith Martin]

Did anyone here ever have the 'pleasure' of embarking on the Spindletop ride at Six Flags Over Texas?

 

[Maddog]

B

Because it’s not a sin to form one flesh. I’m confused. Can you explain? I am misreading something?

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.

 

[The Revolting Man]

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.

It’s wrong and a bad idea, precisely because it forms one flesh with a woman who has no intention of keeping it.

 

[Keith Martin]

So if one "marries" and does not form "one flesh", are they still married? And why would Paul say "they have not sinned"?

Because it’s not a sin to form one flesh. I’m confused. Can you explain? I am misreading something?

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.

It’s wrong and a bad idea, precisely because it forms one flesh with a woman who has no intention of keeping it.

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.