Guest Greg Davies Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) Now this "one flesh" concept is interesting. It is very interesting. Consider if you will 1 Corinthians 6:16. It seems that much of Christianity has developed this mystical, eternal, spiritual bond theory. But in Eph 5:32, Paul makes it clear that this mystical bond concept is true only for Christ and the church. Yes, a man/woman marriage is to reflect this reality as an example of it, but it is not the same. It can be dissolved by death and divorce. Divorce only effects it from a legal aspect. The bond of/in the flesh is until death. The I Cor 6:15-17 reference seems to confirm my point that the mystical bond concept has to do with Christ and His Body. The Corinthian believers were in the midst of a culture of paganism where the heathen worship involved prostitutes and sexual acts as worship. To apply this "great mystery" (Eph 5:32) to human marriages is certainly romantic but a religious mindset. When the Greek for "mystery" was translated in the Latin Vulgate, they used the word "sacrementum" and this led to the Catholic doctrine of the indissolubility of the marriage bond. Greg. Edited March 12, 2008 by Greg Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalcald Posted March 12, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,258 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/16/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/22/1960 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Legally I think we should return to the common law ideal; if you live with a member of the opposite sex as husband and wife you ARE legally married like it or not, and thus when you decide to fly the coop you will indeed have all of the legal responsibilities implied in divorce, division of assets, child support, etc. This is the real reason people shack up to avoid the legal and financial constraints of divorce, because they know in their heart this relationship is not for life. As far as gays go there can never be a marriage there as a marriage by definition must include a husband and a wife. The term marriage is meaningless with two women or two men. Sure you can call it some legal arrangement or some sort of union, but it is and can never be a marriage. Marriage is not something human beings invented. Remember Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Legally I think we should return to the common law ideal; if you live with a member of the opposite sex as husband and wife you ARE legally married like it or not, and thus when you decide to fly the coop you will indeed have all of the legal responsibilities implied in divorce, division of assets, child support, etc. This is the real reason people shack up to avoid the legal and financial constraints of divorce, because they know in their heart this relationship is not for life. As far as gays go there can never be a marriage there as a marriage by definition must include a husband and a wife. The term marriage is meaningless with two women or two men. Sure you can call it some legal arrangement or some sort of union, but it is and can never be a marriage. Marriage is not something human beings invented. Remember Christ's words "what GOD has joined together". Divorce is removing something God has joined, not the parties, not the pastor, not society, thus it is a serious thing. Anyway that is way of topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheya joie Posted March 12, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,054 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 351 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 12, 2008 Leah literally drugs and rapes Jacob, stealing him from her sister, and yet she gave birth to 6 of the 12 children, including Judah, who the lineage of Jesus would be through. Rachel on the other hand, who was an innocent victim in all of this, lived an obviously unfulfilled life, and died having given birth to just two of the children. Then Jacob marries two more women, one was the third daughter of Laban (a fact that escapes the notice of most),a nd one of his older sons was committing incest with his 4th wife. In the end, Jacob came to love Leah more than Rachel, and actually requested to be buried beside her instead of Rachel. A little known factoid is that Jacob had 21 daughters and 12 sons. Genesis 46:15 These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three. 12 sons + 21 daughters = 33 children The point is, God blessed this mess. Let me refute the two bolded passages above. First, Jacob was not married to three of Laban's daughters. In Gen 29:16, we read, And Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. Two daughters, not three. The confusion comes in a misreading of this verse: Gen 29:29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid. In this statement there is a series of nouns followed by appositives: Rachel [noun] his daughter [appositive] Bilhah [noun] his handmaid [appositive]. In a different punctuation, this could be 'And Laban gave to Rachel (his daughter) Bilhah (his handmaid) to be her maid.' The first noun/appositive pair refers to Rachel, identifying her as his daughter, while the second noun/appositive pair refers to Bilhah, identifying her as his handmaid. The Message puts the verse this way: '(Laban gave his maid Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid.),' which makes it a bit easier to see that Bilhah is the maid and not one of his daughters. Second, let's look at the verses leading up to Gen 46:15: Gen 46:5 And Jacob rose up from Beersheba: and the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him. 6 And they took their cattle, and their goods, which they had gotten in the land of Canaan, and came into Egypt, Jacob, and all his seed with him: 7 His sons, and his sons' sons with him, his daughters, and his sons' daughters, and all his seed brought he with him into Egypt. 8 And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn. 9 And the sons of Reuben; Hanoch, and Phallu, and Hezron, and Carmi. 10 And the sons of Simeon; Jemuel, and Jamin, and Ohad, and Jachin, and Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman. 11 And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. 12 And the sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah, and Pharez, and Zerah: but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul. 13 And the sons of Issachar; Tola, and Phuvah, and Job, and Shimron. 14 And the sons of Zebulun; Sered, and Elon, and Jahleel. 15 These be the sons of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob in Padanaram, with his daughter Dinah: all the souls of his sons and his daughters were thirty and three. From this we see that the 33 sons and daughters are Jacob's (at that time) living descendants through Leah who were listed by name in verses 10-14. The list continues on from there: Gen 46:16 And the sons of Gad; Ziphion, and Haggi, Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, and Arodi, and Areli. 17 And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah, and Isui, and Beriah, and Serah their sister: and the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel. 18 These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls. 19 The sons of Rachel Jacob's wife; Joseph, and Benjamin. 20 And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. 21 And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard. 22 These are the sons of Rachel, which were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. 23 And the sons of Dan; Hushim. 24 And the sons of Naphtali; Jahzeel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shillem. 25 These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban gave unto Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven. 26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; 27 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. I know those are probably minor points, and certainly OT from this discussion. But 'factoids' like that get my goat; I find it hard not to speak up and refute them. [/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 12, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 12, 2008 Legally I think we should return to the common law ideal Common is in effect in some areas after a specified time period. I do not know if it is federally recognized though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ddavid from NC Posted March 12, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 196 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,343 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 I don't see how it can be a union that God has joined when one of them is divorced without biblical grounds. I don't see how it can ever be right And can you see that a marriage can be 'right' if a woman committed adultery with another man and then married her former husbands murderer ? Oddly enough GOD ended up accepting Davids and Bathshebas marriage even tho it had horrible beginnings. I dont believe MAN is in any position to judge a marriage and whether it is 'right' or not based on how it began. OP concerns God's added blessings to a marriage not His recognition of a marriage. David family suffered a lot as a result of his adulterous beginning in his marriage...baby's death, sibling rivalry, incest, children competing for his throne. His marriage was burdened not blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ddavid from NC Posted March 12, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 196 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 1,343 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/15/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 The situations are hypothetical but common to our times. 1. What if a relationship that began as adultery results in divorces for one or both parties, and they decide to marry because they are "in love"? Will God bless the marriage that had an illegit start? 2. What if casual sex results in a pregnancy and the couple decide to marry? Will God bless the marriage that had an illegit start? That's the original question(s). Will God add His blessings. Yeah they are married, but will God bless them in this ignoring of the boundaries of holy matrimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Greg Davies Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 OP concerns God's added blessings to a marriage not His recognition of a marriage. David family suffered a lot as a result of his adulterous beginning in his marriage...baby's death, sibling rivalry, incest, children competing for his throne. His marriage was burdened not blessed. Except for the fact that Jesus came through all this mess. What an amazing God! Greg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 13, 2008 False. *IF* what you claimed were actually true the Moses would have been a heretic for allowing remarriage after divorce, woudlnt you agree ? Matthew 19:8 Jesus replied, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_yaash Posted March 13, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 940 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/10/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted March 13, 2008 Thus the serious nature of this. Consider if you will: 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." interesting that you post a passage that blows your own argument dead out of the water, no ? Nope, it does not. If 'one flesh' were as you claim, then what you are claiming Paul is saying in this passages is that any harlot a man has sex with is perpetually bound in flesh to him and that sir, is preposterous. Fornication could not exist if that were the case. Thus why fornication is a sin against ones own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Your passage proves conclusively that 'one flesh' is NOTHING more than sex between a man and a woman whether they are married or not. As I previously stated, the exchange is lifelong. As exemplified in the case of a STD. when they are married it is blessed by God and is as it was created to be. And what exactly is it that consumates this marriage? What exactly is it in which this "one flesh" comes to be? When they arent married it is harlotry, and 'one flesh' it remains whether it is done in sin or under a marriage covenant. You are correct, though not in the manner you intended the above. There is no such thing as a 'one flesh bond' that exists after divorce. Please explain: Mark 10:11 He answered, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts