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

[FollowingHim]

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.

In New Zealand, we have a simple divorce system, with only one evidence permitted for divorce. To get divorced you have to have separated for 2 years. If so, either party can get a divorce, no need to prove fault. If not, no divorce is possible. Point being when a secular government distils this down to the simplest form possible, you're right, it all comes back to sex.

 

[NBTX11]

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.

This was not about me. I don't engage in that type of behavior. Ever. Other than with my wife.

However, you did present information that I essentially agree with. It's not addressed in scripture. Therefore, you can't say with biblical authority that it's sinful. I wanted to see if anyone else had other takes on the topic. Namely, are other types of sexual behavior one flesh, and are other types of sexual behavior sinful. This was not about looking for lines. I don't need lines. I don't engage in this behavior and agree with the conservative approach that it's best to stay away from it. I was simply looking for information for my own edification and knowledge.

 

[FollowingHim]

It's not addressed in scripture. Therefore, you can't say with biblical authority that it's sinful.

...but scripture also has sufficient ambiguity that you can be concerned that it may be sinful, particularly when considered against "love your neighbour as yourself" and the fact that every woman is a man's daughter. So it would be equally unwise to argue that it was all ok and you could fool around however you liked provided you didn't have vaginal intercourse. Hence the conservative approach.

 

[NBTX11]

...but scripture also has sufficient ambiguity that you can be concerned that it may be sinful, particularly when considered against "love your neighbour as yourself" and the fact that every woman is a man's daughter. So it would be equally unwise to argue that it was all ok and you could fool around however you liked provided you didn't have vaginal intercourse. Hence the conservative approach.

Good point. I would advise any young person, as I did my own kids when they were younger, to stay away from it and to avoid temptation to do it. I was just hoping someone would have a Bible answer to "is it actually sinful" and provide verse and chapter to prove that one way or another.

 

[FollowingHim]

I think the fact no-one can provide one shows the answer clearly.

 

[NickF]

I want the facts. Since @The Revolting Man seems to have this all figured out.

How is a marriage formed? What is the only defining thing? And who can get married?

I’d like those terms defined and solidified. Because I have consistently said I do not have all the answers but sex cannot logically be the defining thing. So there must be more to it.

What say you Zec?

 

[Mark C]

This question is not answered in scripture.

I would agree that it's not answered as clearly as some (I doubt all) might prefer.
(But I recall Bill Klinton saying he knew that getting a bit of head in the oval orifice wasn't...)

I wanted to see if anyone else had other takes on the topic. Namely, are other types of sexual behavior one flesh...

There ARE examples of 'prohibited relationships' which seem to be of a sexual nature, such as incest, or "a man lying with a man as with a woman." They do not seem to be called "one flesh" (I might even be tempted to consider that they are not POSSIBLE to be such) - but are at least arguably related.

The mind boggles. Is a boy getting fellated by his sister 'incest'? Or should we suggest that, too, is 'off limits'? As for what two rainbow-hued men might do that is prohibited, I tend to think, personally, that ANYTHING that might be gratifying in the 'marriage bed' (which is "undefiled") is probably off-limits.

But the key probably lies in the Hebrew word 'erva', used repeatedly in the incest (et al) verses, as well as the famous-here Lev. 18:18, which probably does NOT utterly prohibit marriage to a sister in her lifetime, but does say that to "expose her nakedness," using that same word עֶרְוָה or erva, is whatever shouldn't be done.

BTW, the famous "first use" of that word is the story of Noach, and his son Ham, which resulted in the cursing of Canaan. There is a LOT of midrash (and even outright argument ) over what Ham actually did, but it was clearly prohibited, even before Moses Wrote it down.

The word is also rendered as having to do with "pudenda," or "genitalia," and that certainly seems to be a bummer for a lot of Samuel's sex-ed kids.

Bottom line: I dunno. But at least I see why some suggest to "err on the side of...caution."

 

[NBTX11]

I would agree that it's not answered as clearly as some (I doubt all) might prefer.
(But I recall Bill Klinton saying he knew that getting a bit of head in the oval orifice wasn't...)

There ARE examples of 'prohibited relationships' which seem to be of a sexual nature, such as incest, or "a man lying with a man as with a woman." They do not seem to be called "one flesh" (I might even be tempted to consider that they are not POSSIBLE to be such) - but are at least arguably related.

The mind boggles. Is a boy getting fellated by his sister 'incest'? Or should we suggest that, too, is 'off limits'? As for what two rainbow-hued men might do that is prohibited, I tend to think, personally, that ANYTHING that might be gratifying in the 'marriage bed' (which is "undefiled") is probably off-limits.

But the key probably lies in the Hebrew word 'erva', used repeatedly in the incest (et al) verses, as well as the famous-here Lev. 18:18, which probably does NOT utterly prohibit marriage to a sister in her lifetime, but does say that to "expose her nakedness," using that same word עֶרְוָה or erva, is whatever shouldn't be done.

BTW, the famous "first use" of that word is the story of Noach, and his son Ham, which resulted in the cursing of Canaan. There is a LOT of midrash (and even outright argument ) over what Ham actually did, but it was clearly prohibited, even before Moses Wrote it down.

The word is also rendered as having to do with "pudenda," or "genitalia," and that certainly seems to be a bummer for a lot of Samuel's sex-ed kids.

Bottom line: I dunno. But at least I see why some suggest to "err on the side of...caution."

Thanks. What I was looking for. Essentially we don’t know so best to err on side of caution. A good principle to go by. I was just trying to scripturally see what is definitive sin and what isn’t. Or as best as we can tell.

 

[frederick]

Thanks. What I was looking for. Essentially we don’t know so best to err on side of caution. A good principle to go by. I was just trying to scripturally see what is definitive sin and what isn’t. Or as best as we can tell.

For those situations where a person is unsure whether something is wrong or right, we have biblical principles to live by; e.g. if it's not of faith it's sin. A believer should be living with a clear conscience. If a believer knows something is sin, don't do it. If something is doubtful, don't do it. But enjoy the liberty you have in Christ. Shalom

 

[Keith Martin]

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.

Boom.

 

[The Revolting Man]

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.

Fornication is a class of sins, basically the totality of laws around sex. There is not one sin of fornication.

A lot of that debate would hinge on how you define “uncover the nakedness”. I don’t think a legalistic definition here is advisable but one could go that route.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I want the facts. Since @The Revolting Man seems to have this all figured out.

How is a marriage formed? What is the only defining thing? And who can get married?

I’d like those terms defined and solidified. Because I have consistently said I do not have all the answers but sex cannot logically be the defining thing. So there must be more to it.

What say you Zec?

I’ve really wasted a lot of time with all of these threads haven’t I?

Sex has to be the defining thing, by your own admission. You’ve already stated that covenants can be anything, even one sided. There’s nothing else that is unique to the marital relationship than sex. If not sex then what?

I’ve shown that one flesh is inextricably linked to marriage AND divorce AND adultery and that covenants aren’t.

Your earlier claim that one flesh is “just screwing” is of course beneath you. You know as well as anyone the deep and powerful spirituality surrounding sex. It can get you killed. Obviously it would never be “just screwing”.

The answers are what they’ve been since the beginning, joining your flesh with a woman’s is a physical act in this realm that unleashes or leashes powerful realities in the other realm. Marriage is a covenant, but that covenant is one flesh. Joining your flesh with a woman is the covenant.

Adultery doesn’t occur because you make a covenant with a married woman, it occurs when you become one flesh with her. Divorce and adultery are controlled by one flesh. How is it logical to assert that “marriage” isn’t?

 

[NickF]

I’ve really wasted a lot of time with all of these threads haven’t I?

Never.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Sex has to be the defining thing, by your own admission. You’ve already stated that covenants can be anything, even one sided. There’s nothing else that is unique to the marital relationship than sex. If not sex then what?

I’ve shown that one flesh is inextricably linked to marriage AND divorce AND adultery and that covenants aren’t.

Your earlier claim that one flesh is “just screwing” is of course beneath you. You know as well as anyone the deep and powerful spirituality surrounding sex. It can get you killed. Obviously it would never be “just screwing”.

The answers are what they’ve been since the beginning, joining your flesh with a woman’s is a physical act in this realm that unleashes or leashes powerful realities in the other realm. Marriage is a covenant, but that covenant is one flesh. Joining your flesh with a woman is the covenant.

Adultery doesn’t occur because you make a covenant with a married woman, it occurs when you become one flesh with her. Divorce and adultery are controlled by one flesh. How is it logical to assert that “marriage” isn’t?

I’ll get to these when I have time. While on this trip I’m very limited.

But I really need to know this…

1. What qualifiers are the exceptions to the rule then if sex creates the relationship/marriage/covenant/whatever? What’s the exception to the rule? Consent? Eligibility of the woman? No exceptions? Does the war bride get a say in the matter?

 

[Mark C]

But I really need to know this…

1. What qualifiers are the exceptions to the rule then if sex creates the relationship/marriage/covenant/whatever? What’s the exception to the rule? Consent? Eligibility of the woman? No exceptions? Does the war bride get a say in the matter?

While I largely agree with what Zec wrote above, specifically when it comes to the physical AND 'spiritual' significance of the 'sex act' (as designed) - where I differ a bit is any claim that 'sex CREATES the relationship/marriage/etc':

A sexual union CONSUMMATES a marital agreement, or can destroy that, and more (witness rape, adultery...) It is a powerful tool, blessing, or...weapon.

As for the 'war bride' and consent (see Deut. 21:10-13) she has 'no say' in the fact that she was captured, or is initially attractive, but does have one indirectly. See v. 14.

If, during that month, she decides to become decidedly UNattractive, or if he later "has no delight in her," which she can clearly have an effect on, she is not to be "dealt with as a slave," or sold for silver, but freed.

I continue to contend that Yahuah's protection for women is consistent throughout Scripture, and that her consent is a big part of the process. She is, for example, responsible in adultery, and guiltless in rape, to the extent of even being given the "benefit of the doubt." (Deut. 22:25-27)

 

[Maddog]

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.

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.

 

[JudahYAHites]

let them marry.

Can you define that? What does it entail?

 

[FollowingHim]

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.

Why would that marriage not be one flesh?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Therefore a man can become ONE FLESH with a whore and NOT be married.

How? I’m not following your line of reasoning.

 

[Maddog]

Can you define that? What does it entail?

THAT is the fundamental question we are bantering about. What is marriage? Is it sex, is it covenant, is it purchase and sale agreement, is it one-sided, etc.

 

[JudahYAHites]

THAT is the fundamental question we are bantering about. What is marriage? Is it sex, is it covenant, is it purchase and sale agreement, is it one-sided, etc.

That's why I asked you the question.

Your statement

Therefore a man can marry and NOT be one-flesh.

Is by default incorrect because you cannot be married WITHOUT becoming one flesh which is the crux of the matter.

You can have a contract, make or cut a covenant, eaten a marriage dinner, have a ceremony but without sex/being one flesh there is NO marriage only ceremonial acknowledgement of an agreement that MUST be consummated.