How does a man become one flesh with more than one woman?

[FollowingHim]

That's exactly the way I view.

If "One flesh" = marriage then we have to assume that Paul was saying that every time a man has sex with a prostitute she becomes his wife.

Likewise if "One flesh " = creating a child then we have to assume that Paul was saying that when a man has sex with a prostitute then he does so with intention of having a child with her.

In Genesis 2:24 it says
“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”.
Notice that it says that she is already his wife/woman.
So that shows that "One flesh" does not mean they get married.

In my opinion "One flesh" simply means having sex and think Paul understood that and gave the cleast example that he could.

Just opion.

The big problem in all of this debate is that everyone is trying to define something called "marriage", which the Bible never actually mentions.

The Bible tells us about becoming one flesh.
The Bible tells us about property rights with people (which woman belongs to which man).
The Bible tells us about wedding feasts (confusingly translated "marriages" in certain translations).

It never says "X = marriage" or "Y = marriage" or "X + Y = marriage" - because it never defines this thing called "marriage" at all. It doesn't even use the word. The entire debate is an attempt to define an English word. That's all.

Consider the components that scripture mentions, and everything is plain as day. Try to combine them into a singular concept and make it a religious matter to define that concept correctly, and you'll argue about it until Christ returns.

 

[EWP]

The big problem in all of this debate is that everyone is trying to define something called "marriage", which the Bible never actually mentions.

The Bible tells us about becoming one flesh.
The Bible tells us about property rights with people (which woman belongs to which man).
The Bible tells us about wedding feasts (confusingly translated "marriages" in certain translations).

It never says "X = marriage" or "Y = marriage" or "X + Y = marriage" - because it never defines this thing called "marriage" at all. It doesn't even use the word. The entire debate is an attempt to define an English word. That's all.

Consider the components that scripture mentions, and everything is plain as day. Try to combine them into a singular concept and make it a religious matter to define that concept correctly, and you'll argue about it until Christ returns.

That's why I said
"Notice that it says that she is already his wife/woman.".
From my understanding wife should say woman.
His wife is his woman.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Intercourse=marriage. And that is how one becomes one flesh unit with more than one woman. However this union can be nullified by father if woman was virgin prior to intercourse, if she was not a virgin a father has no authority in such case. That is how I understand. For this reason a man does need to ask woman's father's permission if she is not a virgin. The man in such case should make sure that woman's previous sex partner doesn't not consider her to be his woman anymore (for our contemporary context) or has official divorce certificate.



so, then, the husband being alive, an adulteress she shall be called if she may become another man's; and if the husband may die, she is free from the law, so as not to be an adulteress, having become another man's.(YLT)

So then if, while the husband lives, she is joined to another man, she is called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Also I think she will not be called adulteres if she officially divorced her husband while husband lives.

It appears that authority over a woman is transferred whenever intercourse happens with a new man, with a man there is no transfer of authority when he has intercourse with different woman, he always stays in authority.

 

[theleastofthese]

It appears that authority over a woman is transferred whenever intercourse happens with a new man, with a man there is no transfer of authority when he has intercourse with different woman, he always stays in authority

This explains it so well!

 

[theleastofthese]

@NickF I think he means in cases of divorce where a man has left his wife and presented her with a certificate of divorce or when a husband has passed away. Not as a general rule?

 

[Transformator Reformator]

If I am wrong please correct me. But it seems to me that intercourse is binding order. We see that from story of Tamar after she was raped by her brother. She said to him, “No, because this great offense of dismissing me is worse than the other which you did to me.” (2 Samuel 13:12 MEV). I understand it to mean that when Amnon dismissed his sister which he violated, dismissal would have been worst offense than first offense. Was she inaccurate to testify this for us and later for us to read in 21th century.

at the same time I am wondering when Christ spoke to woman at the well saying, "Well didst thou say - A husband I have not; for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.' (John 4:17-18). Would it mean that there was no intercourse and that is why the man she lived with was not her husband or because she was fornicating without being officially recognized as man's woman (most common understanding). With Romans 7:3 in mind, it seems this woman at the well did not become that man's woman because there was no intercourse, or it was her brother, or just a friend.

 

[steve]

Would it mean that there was no intercourse and that is why the man she lived with was not her husband or because she was fornicating without being officially recognized as man's woman (most common understanding). With Romans 7:3 in mind, it seems this woman at the well did not become that man's woman because there was no intercourse, or it was her brother, or just a friend.

I’ve wondered this also.
Maybe he was quite old or in some way physically unable to consummate.

 

[NickF]

The rest I find no real scriptural support to make the same conclusions you have.

Also I think she will not be called adulteres if she officially divorced her husband while husband lives.

Where does a woman get the authority to both leave and give her husband a writing of divorce? I think this is misinterpreting scripture brother.

It appears that authority over a woman is transferred whenever intercourse happens with a new man,

Scripture references? Easily disproven with Dinah and Shechem. And Absalom and Tamar. They both slept with her, wasn’t her husband/owner/master/lord.

Also the servant man given a woman while in service to a master. He may go free but she doesn’t leave with him because she doesn’t belong to the man sleeping with her, neither do the children.

with a man there is no transfer of authority when he has intercourse with different woman, he always stays in authority.

Correct.

———————-

Intercourse does not scripturally impart ownership over a virgin or a married woman. Exodus 22:16-17

The father has the right to utterly refuse the ownership transfer.

Deut 22:23-27
Make sure you interpret this passage in light of the prior Exodus law.

———

There are numerous scriptural references I’ve shared on this topic. In the middle of my busy season and a consulting tour. So I don’t have time right now to expound.

But if sex is the only thing that creates the marriage. Anytime sex occurs a marriage occurs. We need find only one instance of sex without it resulting in a relationship that we call “marriage”. What we call marriage is a type of ownership, you could call it a covenant based ownership. The example of Christ and each believer is ownership, bought with His means of purchase. We belong to Him despite a future consummation.

This is borne out in scripture numerous times. A virgin woman is called a man’s wife despite being a virgin. A woman who has lain with a man is not described as being his unless he takes ownership of her.

Sex creates an obligation to marry according to scripture. It cannot create an obligation if the obligation is simultaneously fulfilled upon the act of consummation. It’s logically inconsistent and absurd to insist sex is the only defining thing that creates that “marriage” relationship. Too many instances where it’s easily proven with consistent logical application of reason.

Might be time later this week.

 

[FollowingHim]

Remember the three aspects I itemised above are separate. Sex creates one flesh - but it does not transfer ownership, which is a separate matter. That's why you can't sleep with a man's wife and say "Ha, she's mine now". No, you're committing adultery. But you are one flesh.

You don't need to assume sex instantly creates a "marriage" to interpret either of the following passages.

If I am wrong please correct me. But it seems to me that intercourse is binding order. We see that from story of Tamar after she was raped by her brother. She said to him, “No, because this great offense of dismissing me is worse than the other which you did to me.” (2 Samuel 13:12 MEV). I understand it to mean that when Amnon dismissed his sister which he violated, dismissal would have been worst offense than first offense. Was she inaccurate to testify this for us and later for us to read in 21th century.

By having sex with her, he created an obligation upon himself to take her as his wife. She had already said that if he asked, David would give her to him - this property transfer was a separate expectation. The sex was wrong not only because it was incest, but also because the property transfer had not occurred prior to it. And the sex created an obligation to attempt to enact that property transfer. Sending her away was a deliberate choice not to follow through on this clear scriptural obligation, and was a sin.

at the same time I am wondering when Christ spoke to woman at the well saying, "Well didst thou say - A husband I have not; for five husbands thou hast had, and, now, he whom thou hast is not thy husband; this hast thou said truly.' (John 4:17-18). Would it mean that there was no intercourse and that is why the man she lived with was not her husband or because she was fornicating without being officially recognized as man's woman (most common understanding). With Romans 7:3 in mind, it seems this woman at the well did not become that man's woman because there was no intercourse, or it was her brother, or just a friend.

Because this passage is so vague, we are left to imagine what the woman's situation was. Whatever our views on marriage, we can imagine a situation that would fit - I've heard many. So this passage does not teach us anything about marriage.

 

[paterfamilias]

This is part of why I rail at religious types who eschew secular knowledge and secular research. Oftentimes the secular folks will inadvertently validate Biblical wisdom and Biblical truth.

This bit you mention is particularly fascinating because it means that some truths about male and female relationships were patently obvious to illiterate shepherds who were in many ways so much more sophisticated than modern people who can't tell a he from a she.

Agree with all of that save for the can't tell the innie from the outie crowd.
They are lunatics to such a degree that their word on all topics are invalid of consideration or...and this is the vast majority...they are lying. The liars know they are lying. Just an extension of the same mania that is found in a different expression in the militant over the top life long atheists.
See spiteful mutant theory.
In essence, they are working to tear everything down and to destroy all order or normalcy.


Happily as a group populated with mostly remnant normal population, the bevy of single Betty's on the group will find far more builders than burners in this environment.


As to the original question posed in the thread.

I found it easiest to allow the ladies to just work out a calendar for the month...depending on the family, a sit down planning session seems realistic at least once a month but weekly might be needed by some. Appointments, errands, outings, where the husband is sleeping on a given night, gatherings with family, kids sports or what have you.

So long as the husband is aware of where he is on a given night and if he has been swapped, shuffled or bumped for biological necessity or date night or what have you...well, the one fleshing will likely take care of itself just fine.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Where does a woman get the authority to both leave and give her husband a writing of divorce? I think this is misinterpreting scripture brother.

"And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." Also, it can be argued since a wife is his possession if she was physically harmed she could leave based on “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. (Exodus 21:26-27)

Scripture references? Easily disproven with Dinah and Shechem. And Absalom and Tamar. They both slept with her, wasn’t her husband/owner/master/lord.

Regarding Dinah and Shechem, Jacob's response to that was "You have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.” Dinah's brothers responded treacherously going against "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Where did you see that Absalom had relations with his sister Tamar? If you mean Tamar and her half brother Amnon, they did not become husband and wife because Amnon failed in his obligations.

Also the servant man given a woman while in service to a master. He may go free but she doesn’t leave with him because she doesn’t belong to the man sleeping with her, neither do the children.

Great point. That is why I would need to modify what constitutes marriage, or how does a man becomes in one flesh union.

A virgin woman is called a man’s wife despite being a virgin.

wife is english word. Anytime we see wife we could substitute woman and ownership of man over woman remains. It can be said, "a virgin woman is called a man's woman despite being a virgin. (of course because she has been betrothed.

A woman who has lain with a man is not described as being his unless he takes ownership of her.

And how does he take ownership of her. consummation.

Sex creates an obligation to marry according to scripture. It cannot create an obligation if the obligation is simultaneously fulfilled upon the act of consummation. It’s logically inconsistent and absurd to insist sex is the only defining thing that creates that “marriage” relationship. Too many instances where it’s easily proven with consistent logical application of reason.

If you using contemporary meaning then it seems illogical. If terms defined properly then there would be no logical inconsistencies. By just avoiding the word marry, and marriage, the issues get resolved. Regarding observation you bring in this case (logically inconsistency); it can be said when we assign certain meaning to " whoever looks at woman to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart". It is absurd to say that when I am selecting a woman to be my woman (aka wife) I must not have sexual desires for her. But when same phrase would be stated, "whoever looks a wife to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart", then the meaning becomes more clear and palatable for logic. I am stating that when we use words as defined by scripture meaning of one flesh union becomes more clear.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that intercourse is indeed an act through which a man makes a claim of ownership over a woman. ( I am thinking of Rachel who was betrothed to Jacob for 7 years, then there was a party, but because intercourse did not happen, Jacob had no claim over Rachel, as result he had to work 7 more years to get opportunity to consummate the marriage). It is during intercourse where God joints together (not at party or ceremony through some sacrament or government paper). However this ownership can be nullified by previous patriarch (whether father of a virgin, or previous man a woman was with). (David was able to return his women/wives even after they were defiled. Israel was required to divorce their wives from 7 nations which was prohibited by the greatest of patriarchs- our God, and the patriarch with women slaves overrides patriarchy of departing slave/servant). It is best to know that woman's patriarch approve of future claim over a woman through consummation (father's approval, any kind of paper from previous husband about divorce, It seems that patriarchy could be synonymous with authority.

Romans 7:3 seem to confirm this dependent on what translation is selected.

If KJV, So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Conclusion can be drawn from KJV, a divorced woman cannot married until her previous husband dies, I guess we know what she is hoping for. She should have stayed with her previous husband.

If NIV, So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

If Berean Standard Bible So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress, even if she marries another man.

From NIV and BSB conclusion can be drawn that a woman with a husband cannot have sex with other men. This is consistent with definition of adultry as defined by Torah.

If a woman is divorced she does not have a husband. But then there is Matthew 19:1-9, Matthew 5:31-32. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

I am confused now again. I guess I need to come up with biblical definition of what is one flesh union and how binding is it. And I will need to be able to answer couple of questions like: Is ok to acquire/marry women who are not virgins, what divorced women are fair game? does that depend who initiated divorce and what was the cause of it?

If someone could link threads that answer these questions, that would be great. For some reason I am stickler that intercourse=one flesh union=marriage union and perhaps that hinders me from understanding application of everything else.

​

 

[NickF]

Preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that intercourse is indeed an act through which a man makes a claim of ownership over a woman. (

There is not a preponderance of evidence but ok. So rape is an ownership claim? Gotcha.

I am thinking of Rachel who was betrothed to Jacob for 7 years, then there was a party, but because intercourse did not happen, Jacob had no claim over Rachel, as result he had to work 7 more years to get opportunity to consummate the marriage

Um… read your scripture again. 7 days not 7 years. The 7 years was the bride price he agreed to pay.

 

[NickF]

For some reason I am stickler that intercourse=one flesh union=marriage union and perhaps that hinders me from understanding application of everything else.

Agreed, this misinterpretation is hindering your understanding of the other passages.

I could of course me misunderstanding you and your beliefs/interpretation. Will send you a PM.

 

[MeganC]

So rape is an ownership claim? Gotcha.

Yes it is. Much like stealing a car it is a claim of ownership. An illegitimate claim yet nevertheless a claim of ownership.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think the better question @Transformator Reformator is not whether you see rape as an "ownership claim", but rather as a "transfer of ownership". Megan's right that it's a claim of ownership - "I claim I can have this one" - but is illegitimate. The question is whether sex actually effects a real change of ownership in the eyes of God. I contend it does not, as adultery does not dissolve the woman's marriage and give her to the adulterer.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

Um… read your scripture again. 7 days not 7 years. The 7 years was the bride price he agreed to pay.

wow. that is right. Thank you for pointing this out. It is detail that I forgot. Thank you.

but rather as a "transfer of ownership". Megan's right that it's a claim of ownership - "I claim I can have this one" - but is illegitimate. The question is whether sex actually effects a real change of ownership in the eyes of God. I contend it does not, as adultery does not dissolve the woman's marriage and give her to the adulterer.

Since oneness should be permanent as long a husband lives, the answer to question whether sex actually effects a real change of ownership in the eyes of God - it can; unless previous patriarch vetoes it. For this reason divorce is permitted only in case of adultery, because someone else made a claim and now it becomes a disputed situation. But first patriarch has final say. When divorce happens first husband refuses the ownership.

"I claim I can have this one" - but is illegitimate.

20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;

21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty. (Judges 21).

I contend it does not, as adultery does not dissolve the woman's marriage and give her to the adulterer.

I agree, divorce dissolves the ownership and adultery gives a husband permission to disown.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I would venture to say that application of God's principals would dictate for men to follow through on their claim of a woman where intercourse happened provided that previous woman had not had intercourse with someone else already. If she did a man is not under obligation is such case since he reserves the right to divorce her and ownership was never followed through even though obligation to follow through was always there. By her having sex with someone else she is committing adultery against you

I think that is how to remedy situation biblically. A woman may want to go back to her previous man even though he already has someone else or seek a letter of divorce (does not have to be official). And if a man discovers that a woman from previous sexual encounter is still without a man he probably should take her in even if he already has a wife(s). If this principal would apply then men and women in our society would be more careful with who they form one flesh union.

8 But Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord, I give half of my possessions to the poor. And if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I will repay him four times as much.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.
Salvation comes when we redeem a situation God's way.

As opposed to compromised Christian way. Here is an example of where woman when she started having sexual relationship with a pastor at 16 and had relationship for 7-9 years.

 

[Maddog]

I keep resisting the urge to comment but here goes...
I like to think about the old-time agrarian man, the farmer. Let's say any one of us (I) decides to tear down the fence between us and the neighbor, takes the tiller to the neighbor's yard and plants potatoes. Does my removal of the (his) fence mean I own that patch of turf? No. Does that mean my tilling the grass under and preparing the ground for planting make it mine? No. Does that mean planting the seed make the ground and resultant plants mine? No. Can I claim ownership of the potatoes? No. Reason: There was no purchase and sale agreement or as explained before, No transfer of ownership from Mr Neighbor to me. Therefore all the activity was illegal and is a violation of God's Law regarding theft(and adultery). The woman (garden)belongs to somebody and title transfer must happen. Scripture is very strong regarding patriarchal ownership and a proper exchange from one patriarch to another. This is NOT to demean the value of a woman but rather a secure protection of her and the resultant fruit. In no place in scripture is a man prohibited from owning more than one garden. Men, Tend your garden.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I keep resisting the urge to comment but here goes...
I like to think about the old-time agrarian man, the farmer. Let's say any one of us (I) decides to tear down the fence between us and the neighbor, takes the tiller to the neighbor's yard and plants potatoes. Does my removal of the (his) fence mean I own that patch of turf? No. Does that mean my tilling the grass under and preparing the ground for planting make it mine? No. Does that mean planting the seed make the ground and resultant plants mine? No. Can I claim ownership of the potatoes? No. Reason: There was no purchase and sale agreement or as explained before, No transfer of ownership from Mr Neighbor to me. Therefore all the activity was illegal and is a violation of God's Law regarding theft(and adultery). The woman (garden)belongs to somebody and title transfer must happen. Scripture is very strong regarding patriarchal ownership and a proper exchange from one patriarch to another. This is NOT to demean the value of a woman but rather a secure protection of her and the resultant fruit. In no place in scripture is a man prohibited from owning more than one garden. Men, Tend your garden.

I do not understand why you have been resisting to comment. That was great illustration. Thank you.