Being "one flesh"

Would someone please explain what it means to be "one flesh" since it is obvious that it is not physically and literally true. Those two people are still two people. Is it mental (they still have two minds), spiritual (they still have two spirits), psychological (they still have two psyches)? Is it temporary, permanent? How is this "one flesh" different than two fleshes?

 

The verse itself says otherwise. Paul says "harlot" not "wife." Therefore, it is clear that Paul is not talking about marriage.

And I agree with Paul, the harlot is not a “wife” of the man, as I have posted. But In the sexual act they have become one entity, i.e. they exist at that moment in time being bonded together. This is not approved of by God, so it can't be a lasting arrangement. The bonding of the marriage act is negated by sin in the flesh even though the act of marriage was performed.

If he isn’t talking about marriage, what is your best guess of what He means by the harlot and the man are now one in the flesh?

Yes, and Paul does not talk about a wife; he talks about a harlot. The sexual union certainly has a bonding affect, but that is not all that marriage is. Being "one flesh" is the result of sexual union, not the cause of marriage.

Again I have never said Paul is here talking about a wife. I fully agree that is not all that marriage is about. It is about the love of each for the other, and not just for lust of the flesh. Love makes the desire acceptable to God as the two come together to become bonded together for life, following His command to be fruitful and multiply to produce issue that is one from the two that mated. What they have formed is one flesh by coming together in marriage.

Exactly.

There is no other way to be married unless it is as man and wife, using "marriage" for what it means in the context of this discussion.

Pastor, it seems to me the subject was “one flesh”.

Which again shows that marriage is more than sex. Having sex with someone does not make you married to them.

I don’t believe that is the meaning of the verse. Jesus said she did the “marriage act”, for the one she now has is not her husband. She has “had” him. At least one of the five is still alive, making her an adulteress. How did she become an adulteress? By doing the marriage act, outside of her marriage.

Not at all. I am saying that we should go only by the Bible, and on that basis, we must reject your idea that people aren't married until they have sex.

Then how can they become “one flesh” and give it the college try by following the command of God to be fruitful and multiply. If two people make vows, with or without a ceremony, and one decides to leave or divorce, any court would grant a divorce on the grounds the marriage was not consummated. Both are free to go their way and marry someone else, perform the marriage act, and neither would commit adultery, or fornication. They never became “one flesh” to be able to produce one of their flesh.

That is purely speculative, and given your previous confession to go strictly by Scripture, it is surprising. We don't know that God didn't address Eve before the fall. There is no evidence from Scripture than they had to "become one again." That is a prime case of a desired conclusion taking over the text of Scripture. Stick with what Scripture says.

Then show me in scripture where God addressed only the Woman. The scripture says no, and you say yes? It only makes sense for God addressed them as “Adam” for they were one. They had to physically come together again to become man and wife after the fall. I don’t believe I have misread scripture.

The evidence is in scripture as they came back together “in the flesh”, Cain is proof of that. Genesis 4:1, ”And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” They copulated “in the flesh” and became as one to produce one of their own. How much more Biblical can you get?

Yes, without a doubt. But that is not really the issue here.

Agree

Are you talking about the Scripture you posted in this post? I see nothing even remotely connected to your point. Your own texts disprove you, as I have shown.

Aren’t we discussing I Corinthians 6:16; Mark 10:8 and 12, as well as John 4:18? Where are your scriptures to refute what has been presented. You are arguing not with me but scripture that you do not accept. But you must come up with something to back up your belief, explaining how we can be “fruitful and multiply” without becoming “one flesh”.

So now you are saying that one flesh refers to procreation? Surely not ... People who are not married can do that, once again disproving your whole notion of marriage here.

It is not so just now, for this is what I have been saying all along, proving with scripture. We cannot interpret, but must allow Him to do that for us.

What you say is impossible “People who are not married can do that”. People that are not married cannot do that. They have to be married as the act of procreation is what forms a marriage. Is the child produced in Holy matrimony, or unholy matrimony? Either way, it takes a marriage to have a baby.

It seems clear that you have no Scripture that supports you. You tried to take a verse about adultery and make it mean something about marriage. You tried to take Gen 3 and find a command in there to become one flesh again after the fall. That just won't work. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for your time Pastor Larry. I have enjoyed the discussion, having presented His Word understood. We can ask no more. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12.

 

By what biblical standard do you call sex the "act of marriage"? The Bible never refers to it as such, and indeed that is the key of your whole case. Sexual relations do have a tremendous bonding affect between a man and woman, and that is why it is to be reserved for marriage. Two people should not be that close apart from marriage. But that act does not make one married.

He is talking about the illegitimate bond of emotions that they now have. You seem to contradict yourself in that you say he isn't talkign about marriage, but now act like he is talking about marriage. Why doesn't Paul just say that he married a prostitute? Because that is not what he did. He committed adultery.

I still have yet to see you answer this problem: What is adultery or fornication in your scheme? It would seem to be only forming another marriage.

I missed the part where Jesus says she did the "marriage act." Where is that? Why do you suppose "had him" refers to sex alone? It sounds to me like he is saying the "one you are now living with" or something like that. Sex was certainly a part of it, but if she had been having sex with him, then why does Christ say he is not her husband? By your definition that sex creates a marriage, they would have been married.

So now the courts determine what a marriage is? I thought you were arguing against that.

I didn't say that he did.

The Scripture doesn't say either way.

He addressed Adam because of headship, not oneness.

Then tell us where in Scripture you find this command to come together again after the fall? One, I don't think that would have had to be commanded; they would have done it anyway. Two, I don't think that has anything to do with their marital relationship per se.

No one disputes that, but you said After the fall it was then up to Adam and Eve to again become one by performing the required marriage act, to be recognized by God again as “one flesh” in Adam. Yet Scripture says no such thing about "being recognized again." There is no indication that was ever broken.

Yes, but none of those prove your point. In fact, I have shown how all of them are incompatible with your point. It is not that I don't accept Scripture. I do. And I have used your "proof texts" to show that your point doesn't really stand.

That's not my belief. The sex act is a one flesh type relationship, but that is not marriage. Marriage is more than that, not less.

Now it is the act of procreation that forms a marriage? So people aren't married until they are pregnant? That makes less sense than your previous statements. It doesn't take marriage to have a baby. That is what is indicated by illegitimate children, or children out of wedlock.

This Scripture reference has absolutely no bearing here.

 

Artimaeus, I’ll give it one more shot. His Word says the man and wife are “one flesh”, so we may have to leave it at that, along with our endeavors of understanding the Holy Trinity. God commands the couple to “be fruitful and multiply”. It is obvious that the only way Adam and Eve could produce a child was by coming together in Holy Matrimony. This tying together as one in the flesh, can produce the fruit commanded by God.

I believe you said previously you understand about marriage, of which we can clearly see in Deuteronomy 21:11-13, for they become husband and wife after the sex act. As you understand that part, you most likely agree in most societies the couple is married for social and legal reasons, so we can say the couple is now tied together.

So to the world, this couple that tied the knot is now treated as one entity, or in their own distinct existence. The world now sees the married couple as “one flesh”, yet two people. Since we can understand this, let’s apply the same principle coming before God doing it His way. Since He has already given the OK for two unsoiled to come together, so we make the physical vow as the man makes the woman his wife, and the man says along with Adam, you are now mine, for we have become “one flesh”. God accepted Adam’s way, so he will accept our way of tying the knot also. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

General BaptistMarriage

By what biblical standard do you call sex the "act of marriage"? The Bible never refers to it as such, and indeed that is the key of your whole case. Sexual relations do have a tremendous bonding affect between a man and woman, and that is why it is to be reserved for marriage. Two people should not be that close apart from marriage. But that act does not make one married.

Does that act offend? God doesn’t think it is Dirty. It is a necessary part of procreation. He could have made man and woman differently, but He didn’t. He sanctifies by marriage in order for the two to again become “One Flesh”, they being called Adam.

The biblical standard is found in different places in the Bible, but so many refuse to think God really does condone [/b]that[/b] terrible act of copulation. Deuteronomy 21:11-13, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12. Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13. And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.” We can twist and turn this and all other scripture, but God says this is the way it is, and as believers we are to believe Him, not what that other party wishes us to think. It is wonderful, delightful, delicious, and gives pleasure as Sarah would say, as she gave herself to her master, Abraham once more. How far we remove ourselves from the blessings that God give to us.

He is talking about the illegitimate bond of emotions that they now have. You seem to contradict yourself in that you say he isn't talkign about marriage, but now act like he is talking about marriage. Why doesn't Paul just say that he married a prostitute? Because that is not what he did. He committed adultery.

I still have yet to see you answer this problem: What is adultery or fornication in your scheme? It would seem to be only forming another marriage.

But the emotions you speak of is what we call “in heat”, and for we humans that is not in the will of God, when done with other than our wives.

And how did they commit adultery? They became “one flesh” which constitutes a marriage not approved of by God. The harlot did not become his wife, as the profile will not fit God’s standards so this act was done only for lust, for money, and not of love. The glue was never there to hold making the two a permanent flesh. The marriage did not take, so that is why it is called adultery and not a marriage of man and wife. When two come together, male and female, they are married forever; or they have committed fornication in doing the marriage act, or they have committed adultery in the marriage act. They have gone to idol worship for this is what those of Satan do. Satan tries to mimic everything that God does.

Try to think of it in these terms. Is marriage brought about by kissing, oral, or anal sex? This is what the Homosexual would have us believe. It seems the law, homosexuals, atheists, and everybody else knows sex is the tie that binds, in the flesh, except many in the churches, and most are married in the “will of God”. And many of these think sex is repulsive, and you as a Pastor must know this. But don’t many also believe that “blood” is repulsive, so please some will tell you, Pastor don’t mention the “blood”, or hell in your sermons.

We are to know how we commit fornication “in the flesh”. We become one with that person, but if one is saved they quit, and as He forgave us of all our sins, it is no more, and we are not married to the “harlot”. We are to know how we commit adultery “in the flesh”. If these sins cause us to become “one flesh”, did not the sin occur in the act that constitutes a marriage that make the two “one flesh”? We cannot by man change what God has said constitutes marriage of a man and woman. To “be fruitful and multiply” the man and the woman’s seed must come together making “one flesh”.

A paper marriage is just that. One or both of the two can go and marry another, and be in the will of God. But if they have sex with someone else out of lust for that person, then they commit fornication, for they never completed the marriage act of that one of the paper marriage.

I missed the part where Jesus says she did the "marriage act." Where is that? Why do you suppose "had him" refers to sex alone? It sounds to me like he is saying the "one you are now living with" or something like that. Sex was certainly a part of it, but if she had been having sex with him, then why does Christ say he is not her husband? By your definition that sex creates a marriage, they would have been married.

I don’t believe a woman can have two (2) husbands at the same time. She cannot have two heads, so one of her husbands of the five must still be living. The Samaritan woman understood. I wonder why we can’t. The woman was having sex with a man for “she had him”. This alone tells us she is living in sin for she had him out of wedlock performing the marriage act, out of lust for the fleshly body of the strange person. She had him bound up in sin. The man did not have her, for she was already taken. She was committing adultery, as was he for she was not his wife.

So now the courts determine what a marriage is? I thought you were arguing against that.

But Pastor, we have the law of the courts of man that determine marriage for legal reasons, and strange as it may seem, most are based on the Laws of God. Even if that were not so, isn’t it common knowledge that after the marriage public ceremony, the couple normally a short time thereafter join together in their love for one another. If not, then what was the purpose of securing a marriage license. If they just wish to stay “friends”, why go to all of that “legal” trouble. But some people do this, and each have their reasons. The secular courts seem to understand more about God’s laws than do leaders of the church.

I had one consulting as no way could he consummate a marriage, but they wished only to be legally married. He was dieing, (it turned out to be 1 ½ years), and afraid of being alone. He was mobile and could come and go to a certain extent, but many times confined and unable to adequately take care of himself. He found a wonderful woman (believe it or not he found in a bar), for no woman in his church would have him, or be tied down to taking care of him. This “paper wife” was faithful to him to the end, and cared for him when he could not care for himself. He did it out of fear, and for comfort of knowing someone cared. She did it to help relieve his fears, and for money of his retirement plan. Did God condone this marriage. Yes, just as did the law of the land, but this marriage was not the marriage of becoming “one flesh”. Either could break it by departing, as far as God was concerned, as they had not become “one flesh”.

I didn't say that he did.

I believe you left out your remark about Eve. Quote: “That is purely speculative, and given your previous confession to go strictly by Scripture, it is surprising. We don't know that God didn't address Eve before the fall. “Unquote. You intimated that He could have, and all I asked for was a scripture, of which you can’t furnish. You speculate, and I believe God gave us His Word of what was said in the Garden. If we can’t believe God, don’t we then doubt His Word?

The Scripture doesn't say either way.

If we believe the Bible, it says no, for it is not written.[qb]

He addressed Adam because of headship, not oneness.

Agree, but you seem not to acknowledge Mark 10:8, ”And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

Then tell us where in Scripture you find this command to come together again after the fall? One, I don't think that would have had to be commanded; they would have done it anyway. Two, I don't think that has anything to do with their marital relationship per se.

One, He did command, and Two, you are saying what; A sexless marriage brought forth Cain? That is not scriptural.

No one disputes that, but you said After the fall it was then up to Adam and Eve to again become one by performing the required marriage act, to be recognized by God again as “one flesh” in Adam. Yet Scripture says no such thing about "being recognized again." There is no indication that was ever broken.

Genesis 3:7, ”And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”Then God visited them in the Garden, but they hid themselves. They had separated themselves from God, so both would die, because of separate acts. But God continued to address both as man and wife, until it changes back to Genesis 3:24, ”So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” So we are now back to their name was Adam again. This says to me that God has now judged, and the man is placed back into being the head, with whom God will deal. Things can now go on and the two can finalize the marriage by again becoming one flesh. And this is what happened.

The next thing we see is Genesis 4:1, ”And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” What had happened in the Garden was the “engagement to be married”. When Adam knew Eve his wife, they again became one flesh (the only ones that could do so, again). This is what Adam said, and what Jesus said. They had to come together to obey God. If they hadn’t come back together again “in the flesh”, then they would have disobeyed the command of God to be “fruitful and multiply”. Eve would have been a wife to Adam in name only, and the world would have been without man or woman to bring Jesus Christ into the world. But God knew they would get together as Adam loved Eve enough to die for her. What do lovers do? They marry “in the flesh”, and when they do, the world keeps on turning, until God decides otherwise.

Yes, but none of those prove your point. In fact, I have shown how all of them are incompatible with your point. It is not that I don't accept Scripture. I do. And I have used your "proof texts" to show that your point doesn't really stand.

I have seen nothing biblical to disprove the act of marriage is necessary for the married couple to obey His command of “be fruitful and multiply”. It is impossible to do without the two becoming “one flesh”.

That's not my belief. The sex act is a one flesh type relationship, but that is not marriage. Marriage is more than that, not less.

Agree. It is the act of love, and not just of lust and the satisfying of the flesh, for that is “one sided”.

Now it is the act of procreation that forms a marriage? So people aren't married until they are pregnant? That makes less sense than your previous statements. It doesn't take marriage to have a baby. That is what is indicated by illegitimate children, or children out of wedlock.

But your logic is of this world, of which is not the Word of God. ”And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” The shall’s – mean this is a command, as well as future. When they do the will of God they will then be of “one flesh”. When the engaged, or married couple by law, come together as willed by God, then no man is to put this marriage asunder.

This Scripture reference has absolutely no bearing here. </font>[/QUOTE]Galatians 1:11-12 is part of my signature, and I dare say, it has a bearing on just about any subject under discussion. I add it in hopes someone may read it, and believe it. ”But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul has something to say on this matter, and as Christ from heaven revealed to Paul His (Christ’s) heavenly gospel, I believe we should believe the gospel of Paul, for he received his dispensational from no man (not even as when Jesus was man), but from our glorified Christ Jesus. I Corinthians 6:16, ”What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” We have already been over this, of which you disagree as being an annulled marriage, because it is not in the will of God, and can be put asunder. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

Dear ituttut,
You have a number of confused ideas that Pastor Larry has addressed better than I can. But I will comment on the above.
I believe that "as far as God was concerned", they could not just break it by departing. They were married.
You incidentally paint a rather disparaging and probably unfair picture of all the single women in a church not willing to take on marriage and physical care of a person terminally ill. So he went looking in a bar. And found a wonderful woman who would do it for the financial security it would give her.
It is hard to think of anything to say.

Karen