Marriage: Authority Granted by God?

[Baptist Believer]

I've heard this alot, but it ain't biblical. Sin does not equal marriage.

Absolutely. God knows the true nature of all things. People sometimes talk about God as if He ignorant of the human condition.

 

[canadyjd]

I've heard this alot, but it ain't biblical. Sin does not equal marriage.

What do you believe Paul meant when he says you "become one flesh" with the pros..tute? He is making reference to the institution of marriage from Genesis...can we agree on that?

 

[canadyjd]

I am referring to 1 Cor. 6: 15-16.

 

[canadyjd]

Absolutely. God knows the true nature of all things. People sometimes talk about God as if He ignorant of the human condition.

Exactly my point. God knows the true nature of what it means to be married. Mankind has distorted His intention for marriage so as to accommodate the desires of the flesh.

 

[Aaron]

What do you believe Paul meant when he says you "become one flesh" with the pros..tute? He is making reference to the institution of marriage from Genesis...can we agree on that?

Taking that meaning would not only do violence to the text in Genesis, but it would also say that a man is one flesh with everyone with whom he has sex. That would mean all the women with whom he had sex are all one flesh, too, through the man. And what if he has sex with a child? Or another man? What of rape? Or is there something magical in the aspect of mutual consent to sin that transforms the sinful act into a blessed estate?

A man and woman can become one flesh only by marriage. Adam said this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh before they came together. And, no, it wasn't about the rib. When Eve was presented, he said, This is NOW bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.

Fornication and sodomy cannot a marriage make.

Something else is being said there. Not allowing violence to Genesis (and the estate of marriage) by presuming Paul is saying that fornication creates a marriage, what do you think Paul could be saying.

 

[canadyjd]

Taking that meaning would....do violence to the text in Genesis....Or is there something magical in the aspect of mutual consent to sin that transforms the sinful act into a blessed estate....A man and woman can become one flesh only by marriage...Something else is being said there....Not allowing violence to Genesis (and the estate of marriage) by presuming Paul is saying that fornication creates a marriage.....

... If Paul is not referring to Genesis when he says you become "one flesh" with the pros..tute, then why use that language? To say he must be referring to something else makes no sense to me.

"Sin" is "falling short" or "missing the mark". God invented s*x. So the s*x part is not the sin. Like so many other things, the "sin" is the distortion of God's intention or purpose.

Can we agree that God's intention is for the man and the woman to be chaste until they come together as man and wife and then stay faithful to that person for their entire life?

Anything less than that is sinful...it misses the mark or falls short of God's intention. Can we agree on that?

 

[poor-in-spirit]

Taking that meaning would not only do violence to the text in Genesis, but it would also say that a man is one flesh with everyone with whom he has sex. That would mean all the women with whom he had sex are all one flesh, too, through the man. And what if he has sex with a child? Or another man? What of rape? Or is there something magical in the aspect of mutual consent to sin that transforms the sinful act into a blessed estate?

A man and woman can become one flesh only by marriage. Adam said this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh before they came together. And, no, it wasn't about the rib. When Eve was presented, he said, This is NOW bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.

Fornication and sodomy cannot a marriage make.

Something else is being said there. Not allowing violence to Genesis (and the estate of marriage) by presuming Paul is saying that fornication creates a marriage, what do you think Paul could be saying.

God through Paul is most definitely connecting sex with marriage friend.

God established the physical mating of man and woman in the marriage commitment as the only allowance for sex without sin. Any other arrangement in any way is sin. The physical mating of two flesh into one is the consummation of their heart's commitment to each other. This was God's intent from the beginning and always has been hence the reference God made through Paul.

Paul is merely reinforcing the gravity of the sins of sex outside of the one man, one woman commitment by reminding us what sex was intended for by God. That is what the reference to being joined to a whore means in this context.

 

[Aaron]

God through Paul is most definitely connecting sex with marriage friend.

But not fornication.

God established the physical mating of man and woman in the marriage commitment as the only allowance for sex without sin. Any other arrangement in any way is sin.

And . . . ?

The physical mating of two flesh into one

Sex is not the act of becoming one flesh.

Paul is merely reinforcing the gravity of the sins of sex outside of the one man, one woman commitment by reminding us what sex was intended for by God. That is what the reference to being joined to a whore means in this context.

Paul is indeed magnifying the gravity of the sin, but he isn't calling fornication marriage.

So what does it mean to be "joined to a harlot?"

 

[Aaron]

... If Paul is not referring to Genesis when he says you become "one flesh" with the pros..tute, then why use that language?

What does it mean to become one flesh. Fornication doesn't join two.

That's not what Paul is saying.

 

[canadyjd]

What does it mean to become one flesh. Fornication doesn't join two.

That's not what Paul is saying.

That is exactly what words of the passage say. You become "one flesh" with the pros..tute.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

But not fornication.

And . . . ?

Sex is not the act of becoming one flesh.

Paul is merely reinforcing the gravity of the sins of sex outside of the one man, one woman commitment by reminding us what sex was intended for by God. That is what the reference to being joined to a whore means in this context.

Paul is indeed magnifying the gravity of the sin, but he isn't calling fornication marriage.

So what does it mean to be "joined to a harlot?"

One more time friend, no one is claiming fornication as marriage. What God is telling you is that to have sex outside of marriage takes His intention (sex consummating marriage) and twists it into sin (fornication).
Does that help you understand the point being made?

 

[canadyjd]

One more time friend, no one is claiming fornication as marriage. What God is telling you is that to have sex outside of marriage takes His intention (sex consummating marriage) and twists it into sin (fornication)....

Paul says that the sin (s*x with a pros..tute) results in you becoming "one flesh" with her. The exact language used in Genesis to refer to the relationship between a husband and wife.

I believe the original intent of God is that when a man and woman "know" each other in an intimate way, they are considered married in the eyes of God. They are expected to be chaste prior and faithful for life.

There is no provision given by God to view an intimate relationship between a man and a woman to be anything other than a marriage in the eyes of God.

To view an intimate relationship between a man and a woman as anything other than marriage is missing the mark, falling short, of God's original intention.

Hence, Paul tells us that to be intimate with a pros..tute results in you becoming "one flesh" with her. That truth, though hard to hear, is faithful to God's original intent for male/female relationships.

 

[poor-in-spirit]

There is no provision given by God to view an intimate relationship between a man and a woman to be anything other than a marriage in the eyes of God.

To view an intimate relationship between a man and a woman as anything other than marriage is missing the mark, falling short, of God's original intention.

Hence, Paul tells us that to be intimate with a pros..tute results in you becoming "one flesh" with her. That truth, though hard to hear, is faithful to God's original intent for male/female relationships.

Ah, my mistake friend. I assumed you understood it harshly but metaphorically. Fornication is sex of any type outside of the marriage commitment. It is sin and can never be interpreted as marriage in God's eyes. It is actually introducing a contradiction in Scripture to believe this way and there are no contradictions in His Word, only misunderstanding. An action cannot be considered honorable and at the same time sin in God's eyes.
Does this make sense?

My apologies to both you and mostly brother Aaron for misunderstanding your posts.

I, at one time did lean toward the same view you do. At the time it was serious debate regarding the meaning of the pastor/deacon husband of one wife qual. After deeper study it became clear that sin is the breaking of God's order as well as His orders. It is taking God's order or command and breaking it. Once broke it is no longer God's order and therefore sin.

Fornication breaks God order and orders and God clearly describes it repeatedly as the primary sin to avoid as NT believers. He obviously hates it so equating it to marriage in His eyes is contradictory error and makes no sense. It is the only sin one can commit against their own body. It will never be considered marriage in His eyes,

Because there is no commitment, there is no marriage, only sex, hence fornication.

 

[canadyjd]

It is sin and can never be interpreted as marriage in God's eyes....Fornication breaks God order.....It will never be considered marriage in His eyes.......Because there is no commitment, there is no marriage, only sex, hence fornication.

Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, does in fact use the same phrase "one flesh" that is used to describe marriage to also describe having relations with with a pros..tute which is probably the ultimate example of "no commitment". He also says, "do you not know...." in reference to this truth. Those people also did not understand that such relationships result in you becoming "one flesh".

 

[Aaron]

That is exactly what words of the passage say. You become "one flesh" with the pros..tute.

No, it's not, but it looks that way to someone who doesn't understand marriage.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.​

So, first understanding that it is God that joins together and not sex, what could Paul be saying in that passage?

 

[Aaron]

One more time friend, no one is claiming fornication as marriage.

You haven't read everyone's posts.

 

[canadyjd]

No, it's not, but it looks that way to someone who doesn't understand marriage.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.​

So, first understanding that it is God that joins together and not sex, what could Paul be saying in that passage?

This is the main point of the original question. We are allowing a human understanding of marriage to dominate our perception of marriage..

I asked several questions are easy to answer. Do you believe that God's original intent was for both the man and woman to be chaste before and faithful for life after thay come together as man and wife? Of course, right? God made no provision for s*x outside of marriage, right?

God instituted marriage by say, "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Correct? The coming together was central to the marriage...."leave"...."cling"..."become one flesh".

You say the s*x doesn't mean your married, but Paul says that if you join yourself to a pros..tute you become one flesh with her. He even quotes the Genesis passage regarding marriage.

Your response is to say Paul must be talking about something other than marriage because God would not view that as marriage.

I humbly suggest you are allowing a human understanding of marriage to cloud a plain reading of scripture.

 

[Aaron]

This is the main point of the original question. We are allowing a human understanding of marriage to dominate our perception of marriage..

I asked several questions are easy to answer. Do you believe that God's original intent was for both the man and woman to be chaste before and faithful for life after thay come together as man and wife? Of course, right? God made no provision for s*x outside of marriage, right?

God instituted marriage by say, "for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." Correct? The coming together was central to the marriage...."leave"...."cling"..."become one flesh".

You say the s*x doesn't mean your married, but Paul says that if you join yourself to a pros..tute you become one flesh with her. He even quotes the Genesis passage regarding marriage.

Your response is to say Paul must be talking about something other than marriage because God would not view that as marriage.

I humbly suggest you are allowing a human understanding of marriage to cloud a plain reading of scripture.

Here is a question for you.

We are told Joseph took Mary as a wife before Christ was born. We're also told they abstained from sex until after He was born.

While on the way to Bethlehem, were Mary and Joseph one flesh?

 

[canadyjd]

Here is a question for you.

We are told Joseph took Mary as a wife before Christ was born. We're also told they abstained from sex until after He was born.

While on the way to Bethlehem, were Mary and Joseph one flesh?

No

 

[canadyjd]

Luke says Joseph was betrothed to Mary when they made the trip to Bethlehem.