• 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 is “marriage” and here’s why.

I will here relate the case of the woman at the well: Many times a travelling man would find lodging at a harlot's house. This was a source of income for the harlot to lodge strangers and commit fornication. Not everyone that lodged at a harlot's house committed fornication with her as we see with the spies in Joshua 2:1 with the harlot rahab, they were just there for a place to stay. The woman at the well was a harlot who had joined her body to five men and was lodging one she hadn't been with yet and this is why she marvelled because Christ knew who she had been with and who she hadn't. So in the case of harlot's you have flesh joining flesh (marriage) and then immediately after you have flesh leaving flesh (divorce). Jer 5:7-8, and Hos.2:1-7 support this view.
 
FollowingHim said:
I agree, it's difficult if you want to nail down the technical theological details. However, in general terms, it is very clear that prostitution as a practice is repeatedly spoken against from many different angles throughout scripture - so it is something we are not to do. On the other hand, it is also clear that there is no punishment for a prostitute, because God is compassionate and knows that women do not generally choose prostitution out of a desire to wilfully sin, but rather end up there out of desperation, and he does not add extra penalties to kick them when they're already down. We can't really explain that category of woman legalistically - because God does not treat them legalistically, instead compassionately.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced the harlot is a prostitute.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
I will here relate the case of the woman at the well: Many times a travelling man would find lodging at a harlot's house. This was a source of income for the harlot to lodge strangers and commit fornication. Not everyone that lodged at a harlot's house committed fornication with her as we see with the spies in Joshua 2:1 with the harlot rahab, they were just there for a place to stay. The woman at the well was a harlot who had joined her body to five men and was lodging one she hadn't been with yet and this is why she marvelled because Christ knew who she had been with and who she hadn't. So in the case of harlot's you have flesh joining flesh (marriage) and then immediately after you have flesh leaving flesh (divorce). Jer 5:7-8, and Hos.2:1-7 support this view.
Click to expand...
This via very close to my own view.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
But it says that marriage is honorable in all, it doesn't say marriage is honorable with all. Example: was it honorable for Herod to marry his brother's wife?
Click to expand...

I would say no, but also that it was described as unlawful, so was it a marriage at all? Certainly David + Bathsheba round 1 was both dishonorable and unlawful.

It seems the point of that verse is that we should honor/respect the marriage of all(others and our own), and the marriage bed is to be undefiled, the sexually immoral and adulterers God will judge. So that would imply that the state of marriage is something to be honored.

"David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. 5 The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.” 2 Sam 11

David lays with Bathsheba, who is married to Uriah, and that sex does not make her David's wife or break apart the marriage to Uriah by default.

"Now when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 When the time of mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house and she became his wife; then she bore him a son. But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the LORD." 2 Sam 11

It seems it was only after Uriah her husband had died (and so she was no longer bound) that David was able to take her as a legitimate wife. But he had already had sex with her and a child was produced.

So sex with a married woman (adultery) does not break the original marriage, only the death of the husband, or his divorcing and sending her away, or her death obviously (if the full punishment is carried out).

I think this backs up @therevoltingman's point on *proper* divorce (and I'll add, death) is the only thing that breaks a one-flesh union created by God. No man, including the husband himself, should separate what God has joined together, except for sexual immorality.


So the question is still, what is a union that "God has joined together" ... it could be as simple as a man taking a woman, and having sex with her, after that she is his, but that creates some issues imo.

In the case of a harlot who is sleeping with many men, is she just entering into and out of one flesh unions (marriages + divorces) merely by the sex + the leaving of the man, or is she not actually bound to any of them because none of them claimed her as their woman/wife and she doesn't claim any of them as her husband?
 
DustinM said:
I would say no, but also that it was described as unlawful, so was it a marriage at all? Certainly David + Bathsheba round 1 was both dishonorable and unlawful.

It seems the point of that verse is that we should honor/respect the marriage of all(others and our own), and the marriage bed is to be undefiled, the sexually immoral and adulterers God will judge. So that would imply that the state of marriage is something to be honored.

"David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. 5 The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.” 2 Sam 11

David lays with Bathsheba, who is married to Uriah, and that sex does not make her David's wife or break apart the marriage to Uriah by default.

"Now when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 When the time of mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house and she became his wife; then she bore him a son. But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the LORD." 2 Sam 11

It seems it was only after Uriah her husband had died (and so she was no longer bound) that David was able to take her as a legitimate wife. But he had already had sex with her and a child was produced.

So sex with a married woman (adultery) does not break the original marriage, only the death of the husband, or his divorcing and sending her away, or her death obviously (if the full punishment is carried out).

I think this backs up @therevoltingman's point on *proper* divorce (and I'll add, death) is the only thing that breaks a one-flesh union created by God. No man, including the husband himself, should separate what God has joined together, except for sexual immorality.


So the question is still, what is a union that "God has joined together" ... it could be as simple as a man taking a woman, and having sex with her, after that she is his, but that creates some issues imo.

In the case of a harlot who is sleeping with many men, is she just entering into and out of one flesh unions (marriages + divorces) merely by the sex + the leaving of the man, or is she not actually bound to any of them because none of them claimed her as their woman/wife and she doesn't claim any of them as her husband?
Click to expand...
Mark 6:17-18. The text says Herod married his brother's wife. Was it lawful for him to have her,no. I agree, marrying a woman doesn't always mean it's lawful for you to own her as your wife when she already belongs to someone else. David lays with Bathsheba in round one and she returns to her husband's house,same scenario as with harlots. I'd like to give you something else to think about, in 2sam.12:11 God told David He was going to give his wives to another and he would lie with them in the sight of the sun,which happened in 2sam.16:21-22. In 2sam.18:14-15 Absalom died and in 2sam.20:3 these same concubines we're called widows and all that's ever said about it was that Absalom went in unto them.Concerning the last question,yes harlot's are in and out of one flesh unions.
 
Off-gridinwv said:
Mark 6:17-18. The text says Herod married his brother's wife. Was it lawful for him to have her,no. I agree, marrying a woman doesn't always mean it's lawful for you to own her as your wife when she already belongs to someone else. David lays with Bathsheba in round one and she returns to her husband's house,same scenario as with harlots. I'd like to give you something else to think about, in 2sam.12:11 God told David He was going to give his wives to another and he would lie with them in the sight of the sun,which happened in 2sam.16:21-22. In 2sam.18:14-15 Absalom died and in 2sam.20:3 these same concubines we're called widows and all that's ever said about it was that Absalom went in unto them.Concerning the last question,yes harlot's are in and out of one flesh unions.
Click to expand...

So I imagine you're saying that because they are described as living as widows here....

"3 When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to care for the palace, and he placed them in a house under guard. He provided for them, but he no longer slept with them. They were confined until the day of their death, living as widows."

That because Absolom had slept with them once, they were now his wives/women, and since he died, they were now widows?

What is the honorable thing for David to do with the widows of his son? Wouldn't they be free to remarry no longer being bound to Absolom?

"1 Kings 15:5 NIV - For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite."

How do we make sense of David locking away his son's widows and refusing to allow them to remarry? I can try to make sense of David locking up his defiled concubines, but still providing for them, but no longer having sex with them as they have been defiled by Absolom... but I'm curious how you make sense of it in your interpretation.
 
DustinM said:
So I imagine you're saying that because they are described as living as widows here....

"3 When David returned to his palace in Jerusalem, he took the ten concubines he had left to care for the palace, and he placed them in a house under guard. He provided for them, but he no longer slept with them. They were confined until the day of their death, living as widows."

That because Absolom had slept with them once, they were now his wives/women, and since he died, they were now widows?

What is the honorable thing for David to do with the widows of his son? Wouldn't they be free to remarry no longer being bound to Absolom?

"1 Kings 15:5 NIV - For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite."

How do we make sense of David locking away his son's widows and refusing to allow them to remarry? I can try to make sense of David locking up his defiled concubines, but still providing for them, but no longer having sex with them as they have been defiled by Absolom... but I'm curious how you make sense of it in your interpretation.
Click to expand...
I don't know about you but I would have a problem marrying a woman after my own son had her
 
Off-gridinwv said:
I don't know about you but I would have a problem marrying a woman after my own son had her
Click to expand...

I think you're dodging the question, that's not the point. The point is why lock up women who are no longer your woman, who you don't want to marry who no longer have any bond to you or your son, who you have any duty to care for at all, and stop them from remarrying and carrying on with their lives?
 
DustinM said:
In the case of a harlot who is sleeping with many men, is she just entering into and out of one flesh unions (marriages + divorces) merely by the sex + the leaving of the man, or is she not actually bound to any of them because none of them claimed her as their woman/wife and she doesn't claim any of them as her husband?
Click to expand...
In my oh so not humble opinion this is the biggest problem with sex=one flesh=marriage. I don’t have an adequate explanation for the harlot. I have some propositions and suppositions but no hard, fast explanations.
 
The Revolting Man said:
In my oh so not humble opinion this is the biggest problem with sex=one flesh=marriage. I don’t have an adequate explanation for the harlot. I have some propositions and suppositions but no hard, fast explanations.
Click to expand...

I would agree that sex makes a couple one flesh and that is as God ordained.

Prostitution and adultery would then be abominations of what God had intended for us.
 
I think the answer lies in the distinction between a harlot, prostitute, and an adulteress. Where an adulteress is always a harlot, but a harlot is not always an adulteress, but may be a prostitute. Adulterey itself being commision of a type of theft against another man. The experience of HIS wife being HIS alone. Adulterey does not anull the marriage but does allow grounds for divorce. One does not divorce a harlot or a prostitue.
 
MeganC said:
I would agree that sex makes a couple one flesh and that is as God ordained.

Prostitution and adultery would then be abominations of what God had intended for us.
Click to expand...

RemnantResilience said:
I think the answer lies in the distinction between a harlot, prostitute, and an adulteress. Where an adulteress is always a harlot, but a harlot is not always an adulteress, but may be a prostitute. Adulterey itself being commision of a type of theft against another man. The experience of HIS wife being HIS alone.
Click to expand...

I agree, a Man can not marry a woman who is not free to marry.
 
I also want to point out the similarites between sex and the cutting of a covenant. In Deut. 22 we see a plegeded virgin is already considered a mans wife.
 
Last edited:
RemnantResilience said:
I also want to point out the similarites between sex and the cutting of a covenant.
Click to expand...

Just an Idea: A Prostitute goes from one man to the next so even if there was a One Flesh and it was Marriage the next time she has sex it would be broken anyways. It is a Profession of Breaking One Flesh Agreements.
 
AbrahamSolomon said:
Just an Idea: A Prostitute goes from one man to the next so even if there was a One Flesh and it was Marriage the next time she has sex it would be broken anyways. It is a Profession of Breaking One Flesh Agreements.
Click to expand...
But we must consider each time she plays the harlot she is not divorced from the man until the man divorces her. The offending man does not have the authority to nullify the offended mans marriage, only he does. I also want to point to Hosea 1 for help with defining the above terms.
 
RemnantResilience said:
But we must consider each to she plays the harlot she is not divorced from the man until the man divorces her. I also want to point to Hosea 1 for help with defining the above terms.
Click to expand...

I agree, I also don't think she can't remarry till her Husband is dead. But she might not be a believing Wife.
If she is an atheist who has no G-d and no Laws and leaves her husband it is as if they never was married.
If later she finds G-d and changes her ways she is free to marry from what I get from Paul.

Let me tell you a story about a man who had two wives and he loved both of them.

One day one of his wives pushed on him so hard that he was unable to provide for the other.
G-d had spoke to his ear and said "Be not afraid for your Wife will be Okay" and he lost contact with her and she fell into the sin of a harlot.
But when this had past and was able to regain He took his wife and said "Be not afraid of this sin you have done for G-d said He would Protect you in my absence and you are found not guilty in your sins"

You are right in that The Husband is who ends that marriage as with this story even with her sins it was not on her because her husband was forced to be absence and G-d said "Be not afraid for your Wife will be Okay" No man had sex with her she is of no guilt.
 
Last edited:
AbrahamSolomon said:
I agree, I also don't think she can't remarry till her Husband is dead. But she might not be a believing Wife.
If she is an atheist who has no G-d and no Laws and leaves her husband it is as if they never was married.
If later she finds G-d and changes her ways she is free to marry from what I get from Paul.

Let me tell you a story about a man who had two wives and he loved both of them.
One day one of his wives pushed on him so hard that he was unable to provide for the other.
G-d had spoke to his ear and said "Be not afraid for your Wife will be Okay" and he lost contact with her and she fell into the sin of a harlot.
But when this had past and was able to regain He took his wife and said "Be not afraid of this sin you have done for G-d said He would Protect you in my absence and you are found not guilty in your sins"

You are right in that The Husband is who ends that marriage as with this story even with her sins it was not on her because her husband was forced to be absence and G-d said "Be not afraid for your Wife will be Okay" No man had sex with her she is of no guilt.
Click to expand...
This being off topic, but I would reference Exodus 21:10-11. During the time she was without husband she would be considered haven been "let go free". Considering he did not divorce her and she did not remarry could Deuteronomy 24:4 still apply?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top