Yes, but when we say "one flesh" we may mean different things.
-
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"
- Thread starter The Revolting Man
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
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.)
Last edited:
This would be my exact argument on why a one flesh union is indeed an act that signifies 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?
This is nonsense:
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...)
THAT arguably ends any continuing "one flesh" activity with the now former-husband.
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.
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.
For someone who claims to be anal retentive about the misuse of words, you should understand "dissolve." You can't even get the TENSE right.
The irony is palpable.
Because “dissolve” is what’s important here, not that you didn’t know what Christ teaches on divorce.
I mean that when some e.g. @The Revolting Man say "one flesh union" they mean "marriage" - the two words are used as interchangeable synonyms. While when others like myself say "one flesh union" they mean something slightly narrower, that should occur within marriage but may occur outside it, e.g. with someone else's wife, with such a union being "one flesh" but not "marriage". The former say one flesh creates a marriage, the latter say one flesh creates an obligation to marry. A lot of misunderstanding can occur when we use such terms without recognizing we may be thinking something different.
My point was that I agreed the situation under discussion formed a one-flesh union - but I didn't want you to misinterpret my words to think I was saying it formed a marriage
It is obvious to all that one flesh act with a virgin obligates a man to pursue keeping the girl.
Is there responsibility on a man if an act resulting in one flesh union with a prostitute? (Genuinely curious what would be the outcome from various views)
Is there responsibility on a man if an act resulting in one flesh union with a prostitute? (Genuinely curious what would be the outcome from various views)
I think if you knowingly create a one flesh union with someone that means you are under obligation to keep it we see this lived out in the story of Hosea imho. This again goes back to my point of be careful who you make a union with because you are stuck with whom you make that covenant.
I agree with @ASyers41 . Forming a one flesh obligates the man to love that woman with the love of Christ, irregardless of her actions. It obligates a man not to put her away except for sexual immorality. If you form a one flesh then you’re obligated to that one flesh.
No. Because if there was, there would be dozens or even hundreds of men who would be obligated to marry that one woman. Which is polyandry, and forbidden. The law does not require sin.
We know every man who unites with a prostitute is one flesh with her. In this case, one flesh is not marriage, it's a diabolical mess we're told to run a mile from.
Intercourse is transfer of ownership that can be nullified by previous patriarch. It is not polyandry. Polyandry does not exist biblically.
If what you are saying is true about one flesh union act is not equate to marriage then how does 1 Corinthians 6:16 contribute to severity of what Paul warns us about. That verse does not have much meaning. It would be just easier to say that sex with a harlot is an abomination (different severity), like it was said about many other sexual sins. Yet in this case a motivation/reason was provided to avoid sex with a prostitute.
One flesh union act is marriage, sex with prohibited people and animals is abomination. A prostitute returning to her previous customer is abomination, a prostitute getting a new customer after you is an adultery. (I think, I am learning out loud)
A man can form one flesh union with a prostitute. He cannot form one union with what is prohibited. Intercourse with an animal does not obligate that man to continue to provide "congecial rights" to that animal, two do not become one here. That is abomination.
"What? Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.”. " - by adding this Paul wanted to emphasize severity of the act. With the understanding you hold to, this portion does not have much weight. Unless it would say that it is abomination. But in this case Paul may be saying, "you just created a bond that obligates you to that prostitute". With your understanding, a person may respond to Paul's reasoning, "so what, I say white lies sometimes".
Let's please not...
If anal sex occurs, it is the same argument as the PIV- they are physically "one flesh". Gays do this all the time but we soundly reject that, but why? Here's why: anal sex is inherently filthy- Scripture calls it abomination. Fecal matter on a penis is dangerous to the next vagina that is in contact. The penis and vagina are naturally clean, and the anus is naturally filled with bacteria.