-
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
And yet they’re listed in an order. They’re arranged sequentially, in the order they would have happened in a narrative.
So I’m re-reading this and am struck again by how smart I am. I mean I’m really something, at least I am when I proof read and don’t get so spun up I’m tap-tap-tapping so fast my thumbs wipe out on the screen and I burn a hole through the screen protector.
The other thing I notice is that I completely forgot about this thread and failed to finish developing the thought.
In five of the six instances where the phrase “one flesh” is used the context is undeniably the man/woman relationship. The one exception might not be an exception. I failed to study in to it.
Two of the times one flesh is used, it is held up as the opposite of divorce and putting away. A man and a woman who are one flesh are capable of being divorced, covenanted men and women are not capable of being divorced unless their covenant is an extension of their one flesh. In fact the divorce only effects the one flesh relationship. We are given no indication that the divorce is dissolving a covenant, despite the fact that the divorced people can, under specific circumstances go on to form a new one flesh relationship. Presumedly they would then have two covenanted relationships?
Help me out here covenant people, what is the covenant status of a divorced person who lawfully forms a subsequent one flesh? What happened to the covenant? Are there two covenants?
That wasn’t the thought I intended to develop but it just occurred to me. If “marriage” is formed by a covenant and divorce only effects one flesh, how can there be a new “marriage”? Can there be two men with active covenants with the same woman? Why not? How is the covenant dissolved?
For the lawful divorce laws to make sense at all then one flesh has to be the totality of “marriage”.
The other thing I notice is that I completely forgot about this thread and failed to finish developing the thought.
In five of the six instances where the phrase “one flesh” is used the context is undeniably the man/woman relationship. The one exception might not be an exception. I failed to study in to it.
Two of the times one flesh is used, it is held up as the opposite of divorce and putting away. A man and a woman who are one flesh are capable of being divorced, covenanted men and women are not capable of being divorced unless their covenant is an extension of their one flesh. In fact the divorce only effects the one flesh relationship. We are given no indication that the divorce is dissolving a covenant, despite the fact that the divorced people can, under specific circumstances go on to form a new one flesh relationship. Presumedly they would then have two covenanted relationships?
Help me out here covenant people, what is the covenant status of a divorced person who lawfully forms a subsequent one flesh? What happened to the covenant? Are there two covenants?
That wasn’t the thought I intended to develop but it just occurred to me. If “marriage” is formed by a covenant and divorce only effects one flesh, how can there be a new “marriage”? Can there be two men with active covenants with the same woman? Why not? How is the covenant dissolved?
For the lawful divorce laws to make sense at all then one flesh has to be the totality of “marriage”.
One flesh is sexual union. This is clear in scripture and that's all it is... Just screwing.
False framing and eisegesis.
Incorrect, it changes much. Inheritance, the right of the woman to demand food, clothing, sexual congress etc... Her representation in the assembly... Much is changed, not just sex.
The responsibilities and ownership are ended when the covenant is ended. Adultery did not transfer the marriage from one man to another. Sex does not make or break the covenant relationship. A woman in covenant with a man (betrothed) who breaks that covenant can be subjected to the exact same penalty as adultery. This is further proof that sex does not create the union, it merely is a part of what is permissible within that union.
How do you come to this conclusion?
"forms a subsequent one flesh" non sequitur. The covenant is ended when the divorce is finalized. God modeled it for us.
Can there be covenants with the same woman. Yes. This is what's so frustrating discussing this with you. Covenant means "promise". It's like a contract or a promise, or a command or a law. It's not just what we call marriage. But you keep using the word incorrectly which means we are all talking past each other. Which is precisely why I asked you to actually study out the word.
This is logically inconsistent with scripture. We need only one instance of sexual intercourse (one flesh) having occurred and there not being a "marriage" or covenant, or anything of the sort to disprove the idea that sexual union creates the "marriage". We have numerous examples. What we call marriage is more than just screwing.
(Genesis 30:21; 34; 46:15), Sechem and Dinah
Sampson and Delilah not married.
Amnon and Tamar 2 Samuel 13
There's the easy three examples...
Covenants don't require a written contract. They can be completely one sided.
Sex cannot equal marriage because we are shown numerous times sex did not create a marriage in at least those three passages. Therefore sex cannot be asserted to be the defining end all be all action that creates what we call marriage. It's absolutely incontrovertibly impossible and illogical to assert that sex initiates and creates marriage.
Taking my wife to the mountains for a few days, so I won't have time to respond for a week or so. Peace brothers! Hope you all have a great week!
I already know the answer to this question, but I am going to ask it anyways. Can a man and a woman engage in other types of sexual behavior, where the male genitalia is placed in another female orifice and have it be a one flesh relationship, or does it require vaginal sex. Again 99.9 percent I know the answer, just wanted to hear thoughts.
Then why dies divorce only dissolve the sex? How is that even logical and how is the “real marriage” dissolved? Christ’s teachings on divorce only reference one flesh and you say that’s only sex. It doesn’t work. Divorce dissolves a “marriage” not sex. Unless sex is the marriage.
Where are we told that?
Then what does? This is the question that can never be answered. How do we form and dissolve this covenant so we are not in danger of the mortal sin of adultery?
And where is that in scripture? Covenants do not appear in any of our teachings on divorce, only one flesh.
And where are promises connected to “marriage” in scripture? All you’ve done now is added a new word that isn’t in the text, bringing the grand total so far to two.
Show me the biblical definition and I’ll use it. You can’t.
You asked me to study out the word to derail the conversation, and you refused to even provide a synopsis of your conclusions to demonstrate the profitability thereof. If you didn’t uncover truths you could share then I question the validity of your hypothesis. Besides, we’re debating “marriage” and almost none of those passages are about that.
On the contrary, it’s the only idea that restricts itself to the scripture. I want to focus on the six passages that purport to be about “marriage” and you want to chase after 300 verses that have nothing to do with marriage. That’s illogical in the extreme.
Two of those don’t take a stand on the status of the parties, they could be married, I assert they were, the text is silent on it though. The other is forbidden incest. In all three there is at least one wildly sinful individual involved. What are you bringing those up for? They illustrate nothing that about how to form valid “marriages “.
Again, what dies that have to do with marriage? Marriage can’t be one sided.
And yet you can show me no other option and I can show you five and possibly six passages that directly tie one flesh and “marriage” or divorce, including Christ’s relationship with the church which is not described as a covenant but as one flesh. Maybe I don’t know what the word incontrovertible means but it’s pretty hard to tell Christ He got it wrong. He can do the impossible though and he loves confounding the wise with the foolish so maybe He was being illogical. Maybe I should take the compliment!
There is one highly speculative juxtaposition of “marriage” and covenant in all of scripture. I’ve shown at least five and possibly six direct links to one flesh and “marriage”, including some of the most important and direct teachings on the topic in all of the Bible. You can’t match that.
Already looking forward to your return.
You may have missed the crux of the biscuit in @The Revolting Man's formulation: it isn't about whether or not a divorce has other effects beyond the end of the sex; those go without saying.
Instead, it's about how we define the end of the marriage. A legal divorce decree has no more to do with the end of a marriage than a legal marriage license has to do with the actual beginning of a marriage. However, it is instructive to look at how the family courts and family law handle the beginning and the end of marital relationships:
- In the case of the beginning, despite there being covenants spoken, a marriage license, a signed document by an official of the non-separated Church and/or State -- if the two come back before the court and believably declare that no sex ended up happening, they are to be granted an annulment, which is a complete legal nullification of the marriage. If they come back and say, hey, we fooled around for a while, but she likes oral and I don't, so we want to part ways, no annulment will be granted other than if a bunch of money passes hands between them and some priests.
- In the case of the end, despite covenants having been spoken in the beginning -- no pronouncement of the end of the covenant is made in court or on the documents: just a legal dissolution of the marriage. But what always happened until Lawrence v Texas muddied the waters (and still does in most cases, anyway) before the courts would grant a divorce: at the very least a declaration that sexual cohabitation had ended between the couple, and in most cases an expectation that some kind of 'proof' of cessation of conjugal pleasures be presented to the courts.
- Therefore, even the legal system prioritizes sex as the primary indication of the existence of marriage.
Excellent point, sex will reset the waiting periods in many states for a divorce proceeding as well.
What is everyone defining as the word covenant with regards to this issue?
As far as I have read in this union (marriage) between man and woman the covenant is defined and declared verbally by the man and accepted verbally by the woman (word covenant) and sealed, consummated by becoming one flesh (blood covenant)
The covenant between YAH and YaH-sa'ra-el (exodus 19 - 24) is a perfect example. Alongside the covenant between MessiYah and his ekklesia which incorporates both the verbal word covenant and blood covenant.
I see both the verbal and blood (one flesh) as inseparable just as 2 sides of one coin where both sides are needed to make it valid.
Therefore to me, on this thread it is the unified understanding of the definition or type of covenant that is being referred to that may be the stumbling block, just like the words, marriage, wife etc
As far as I have read in this union (marriage) between man and woman the covenant is defined and declared verbally by the man and accepted verbally by the woman (word covenant) and sealed, consummated by becoming one flesh (blood covenant)
The covenant between YAH and YaH-sa'ra-el (exodus 19 - 24) is a perfect example. Alongside the covenant between MessiYah and his ekklesia which incorporates both the verbal word covenant and blood covenant.
I see both the verbal and blood (one flesh) as inseparable just as 2 sides of one coin where both sides are needed to make it valid.
Obviously there is a difference between a virgin in her father's house
Therefore to me, on this thread it is the unified understanding of the definition or type of covenant that is being referred to that may be the stumbling block, just like the words, marriage, wife etc
No one is defining the word covenant because they can’t, not from scripture.
I don't suggest we can define any word 'sola scriptura,' from Scripture alone. But we can get a pretty good understanding from context, first use, repeated examples, and the stories themselves.
I see no one has touched my question. The reason I asked this question was to get feedback on whether such actions constitute sin outside of marriage. In other words fornication. I am trying to get a specific definition and exactly what it entails. And whether things that fall short of that are sinful.
I agree, although he may probably call her your Ishah.
What I can say with confidence is that you have verbalized a commitment to @windblown that she has agreed to or accepted and trusts in you, that is the covenant along with the one flesh union.
I don't think totality is correct but maybe the defining factor
Kinda understand where your coming from
I agree
Maybe it's a good question for a new thread so as not to derail this one...
As a response but not an answer I have spoken to women who have stated that as far as they are concerned felatio is more intimate than vaginal penetration.
Yes. I am trying to determine if those things are sinful. I will consider making a new thread.
Thinking on this, I believe a big issue is that as men, sons of YAH and disciples of MessiYah, many do not realize or understand or maybe take seriously enough how important our words and word is.
A man's word being his bond doesn't seem to mean anything anymore. Integrity seems to be a forgotten word, so the understanding of the covenant power of our words may have been lost forgotten or not understood.
So when it comes to the link between our one flesh relationships with our women, many forget what they said in their desire to get the woman into bed and then when something happens the woman says "but you said!"
I thought it was a great question, absolutely on topic, as a test for the theories being presented here. Attempting to answer that might help reveal plot holes.
Yes, the main thing I was trying to find out was if sexual union (vaginal penetration) equals one flesh and would essentially require the man to marry the woman, are other types of sexual activity and penetration sinful outside of marriage or allowable. I have an opinion, but wanted to hear others.
I recall a Christian sex-ed talk when I was a teenager, where the presenter, when asked what the line was for appropriate behaviour pre-marriage, specifically said something like "I'm not going to give you a line. You just want a line so you can go right up to it on your first date, and then you'll slip over it. Just keep your pants on."
This question is not answered in scripture. We can make theories about it and claim we've found a precise line we find theoretically consistent with the remainder of scripture, but in reality there is no line. Scripture has taken an approach similar to that above sex-ed talk. This is correct advice for anyone on how to behave - just take a conservative approach so you don't cross the line wherever it might actually be. But it doesn't help much when looking at it from the other direction, and trying to work out whether past behaviour was sinful.
I don't think we should be looking at this from a legalistic perspective, when there is no clear law written for us to be legalistic about, and we'd only be being legalistic about a line we had ourselves come up with and might be incorrect.
Much more simply:
In terms of future behaviour, if you wouldn't want your own daughter treated that way pre-marriage, don't do it to another man's daughter.
In terms of past non-vaginal-sex behaviour, pray about it. If the Holy Spirit convicts you to pursue marriage as a result, do it.