One flesh = a kinship bond, nothing to do with sex or children

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I will argue that “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 best translates as the permanent and covenantal kinship bond between a biological man and a biological woman when they enter a marriage. I will, also, argue that this phrase does not directly reference the sexual union or the conception of children within that marriage.

The key to understanding what “one flesh” means can be found in the immediate context v. 18-23 provide. God says it is not good for the man to be alone and that He will make for him a helper. After no suitable helper is found amongst the other living creatures, God put Adam into a deep sleep and took a part from his side. This part of Adam was then used to build a biological woman. Upon seeing this woman, Adam exclaimed that she was “bone of my bones” and “flesh of my flesh”.

So, what can we conclude?

1. This one flesh status is founded in the union of a man and his complementary helper (a biological woman).

2. The idiomatic expressions “bone of my bone” and “flesh of my flesh” are both used as covenantal and kinship formulas: Genesis 29:14, Judges 9:2-3, 2 Samuel 5:1, 2 Samuel 19:13-14.

3. One flesh, if interpreted using these above formulas, indicates that marriage creates a kinship bond between the man and the woman like one has with blood relatives. They become related to each other similarly as brother and sister are. Note that such bonds are always considered permanent. This aligns with the idea behind the indissolubility of marriages.

4. It, also, indicates that such marriages carry with them analogous familial commitments. These commitments have been historically conferred through contractual agreement. Such marriage vows help ensure the proper function and durability of the family unit. This may look differently depending on the culture (e.g. agrarian vs industrial), but the goal is that each member subordinates his or her individual good to the good of the whole family.

5. The incest laws in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 (and possibly even Deuteronomy 24:1-4) illustrate the application of this kinship-spouse principal to the situation following divorce or death of one of the partners. Since a woman becomes in marriage a sister to her husband’s brothers, a daughter to her father-in-law, and so on, she cannot normally marry any of them should her first husband die or divorce her.

6. Since this bond is permanent it indicates that the one flesh status of these unions exists continuously throughout the life of the marriage, not just momentarily. Therefore, a momentary sexual union cannot be part of the definition of one flesh. Plus, sexual relations do not always persist throughout a marriage – due to age, injury, or anatomical dysfunction.

7. Also, this rules out procreation for being part of the definition of one flesh due to the fact that not all marriages are capable of producing children.

On a side note, this actually demonstrates how polygamy can be a legitimate expression of family. Just as someone is capable of having multiple kinship bonds with numerous extended family members (brothers, sisters, aunts, grandparents), a man is theoretically capable of having multiple “one flesh” bonds with any number of wives at the same time. For example, Jacob was one flesh with both Leah and Rachel. Plus, if the author of Genesis 2:24 was Moses, he too was a polygamist (Numbers 12:1). Surely he knew the meaning of his own words.

The translators of the New English Translation (NET) agree:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family.
 

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The translators of the New English Translation (NET) agree:

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become a new family.
They are terribly wrong.
===================================
Other points posted likewise defy Scripture:
3. One flesh, if interpreted using these above formulas, indicates that marriage creates a kinship bond between the man and the woman like one has with blood relatives. They become related to each other similarly as brother and sister are.

Since a woman becomes in marriage a sister to her husband’s brothers, a daughter to her father-in-law, and so on, she cannot normally marry any of them should her first husband die

Therefore, a momentary sexual union cannot be part of the definition of one flesh.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They are terribly wrong.

The translation notes for this choice parallel my argument.

74 tn Heb “and they become one flesh.” The perfect with vav consecutive carries the same habitual or characteristic nuance as the preceding verbs in the verse. The retention of the word “flesh” (בָּשָׂר, basar) in the translation often leads to improper or incomplete interpretations. The Hebrew word refers to more than just a sexual union. When they unite in marriage, the man and woman bring into being a new family unit (הָיָה + לְ, hayah + lamed preposition means “become”). The phrase “one flesh” occurs only here and must be interpreted in light of v. 23. There the man declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one’s “bone and flesh” is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Gen 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judg 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Sam 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Sam 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Sam 19:13, see 2 Sam 17:2; 1 Chr 2:16–17). The expression “one flesh” seems to indicate that they become, as it were, “kin,” at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically. In this first marriage in human history, the woman was literally formed from the man’s bone and flesh. Even though later marriages do not involve such a divine surgical operation, the first marriage sets the pattern for how later marriages are understood and explains why marriage supersedes the parent-child relationship.


Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006), Ge 2:24.

Other points posted likewise defy Scripture:

Perhaps on point 5 you are thinking about levitate marriage? The key word is "normally".

Interestingly, levitate marriage also points to the legitimacy of polygamy since the new husband is not required to be single.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 Cor 6:16 (NET)
Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."

First Corinthians chapters 5 - 7 are some of the most perplexing passages to understand. We are missing half the conversation. Paul is responding to a letter he received from a group within the Corinthian church. Concerning chapter 6, there are numerous interpretations that have been presented.

First, we must understand in which way Paul is using "body (soma)" here. He seems to use it in various ways throughout this letter and others. Is he speaking about the collective members of the church or just the individual believer? As Westerners, we think that the "you" in this verse is directed at us as an individual. However, the Greek word here is plural.

Second, we must know what type of prostitute this is. Is Paul talking about a secular prostitute or a temple prostitute? Or, even more interestingly, is this a particular prominent temple prostitute or prostitute-figure - like Aphrodite, who was known as the patroness of prostitutes. The Greek actually says "the prostitute" in this verse. If a prostitute with some type of idolatrous connection is in view here, this passage could mean not to co-mingle allegiances between one deity over another - Christ vs Idol. In this case, by participating in an activity that occurs during the festivities of idol worship - having sex with temple prostitutes. Some former-pagan Christians thought their freedom extended to even such activities as long as they knew the idol was not real. This is the same argument Paul makes about eating sacrificed meat in an idol's temple later in this letter (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Paul might have used the one flesh analogy to represent the relationship one has with the deity they worship.

This matches my definition of how "one flesh" is actually about being covenant and kinship bound. These metaphors (marriage and adoption) are used many times in Scripture to represent our relationship with God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. This one flesh status is founded in the union of a man and his complementary helper (a biological woman).

Allow me to strengthen this point. In v.18 we see God say, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper fit for him" (ESV). Other translations say, "as his counterpart" (LEB), "who corresponds to him" (NET), "suitable for him" (NIV84 and NASB95), and "as his complement" (HCSB).

The Hebrew word used here is a compound prepositional phrase only used here and literally meaning "like opposite him". It expresses the idea of being complementary. If equality in role was being expressed then the more natural phrasing would be simply "like him". A contrast in biological sex and design is clearly seen. This helper wasn't created for mere assistance in daily work or procreation, instead the "help" provided was companionship - hence how this fixes the original problem of Adam being alone. It didn't take any partner to solve this dilemma, it took an "opposite" partner. It took a woman.
 
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟103,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1 Cor 6:16 (NET)
Or do you not know that anyone who is united with a prostitute is one body with her? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
God's word, clear text that needs no explanation.
First Corinthians chapters 5 - 7 are some of the most perplexing passages to understand. We are missing half the conversation. Paul is responding to a letter he received from a group within the Corinthian church. Concerning chapter 6, there are numerous interpretations that have been presented.

First, we must understand in which way Paul is using "body (soma)" here. He seems to use it in various ways throughout this letter and others. Is he speaking about the collective members of the church or just the individual believer? As Westerners, we think that the "you" in this verse is directed at us as an individual. However, the Greek word here is plural.

Second, we must know what type of prostitute this is. Is Paul talking about a secular prostitute or a temple prostitute? Or, even more interestingly, is this a particular prominent temple prostitute or prostitute-figure - like Aphrodite, who was known as the patroness of prostitutes. The Greek actually says "the prostitute" in this verse. If a prostitute with some type of idolatrous connection is in view here, this passage could mean not to co-mingle allegiances between one deity over another - Christ vs Idol. In this case, by participating in an activity that occurs during the festivities of idol worship - having sex with temple prostitutes. Some former-pagan Christians thought their freedom extended to even such activities as long as they knew the idol was not real. This is the same argument Paul makes about eating sacrificed meat in an idol's temple later in this letter (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Paul might have used the one flesh analogy to represent the relationship one has with the deity they worship.

This matches my definition of how "one flesh" is actually about being covenant and kinship bound. These metaphors (marriage and adoption) are used many times in Scripture to represent our relationship with God.
Lengthy conjecture to jumble and question a clear text.

If I read your dismissal, I get the feeling that you are OK with adultery or sex outside of marriage as long as there is no expectation of commitment. You are so wrong with your understanding of what marriage/sex is and the purpose of it. The purpose of marriage/sex is as stated in Genesis 1:28 is to reproduce. This is the first command given to man. The "helper" relationship union between a husband and wife is a side benefit of marriage, but is not the purpose of marriage.

Further look to Matthew 19:1-9 to learn that Jesus taught divorce to be wrong based on how they were made, male and female and how they reproduce, united in the flesh. Note that the only acceptable reason for divorce is sexual immorality. Any other divorce leads to adultery. Sorry, nothing about their feelings or level of commitment to each other in the entering of marriage or exiting of it. Only sexual acts are listed.

Further, your devolving marriage to be about a kinship bond will only give more encouragement to gay marriages. The fact that nature in our anatomy, male and female, dictates a very specific act that brings about offspring. Just because some are unable to reproduce, does not invalidate the purpose of male and female "uniting". Exceptions do not make points of rule. Exceptions only highlight the rule.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God's word, clear text that needs no explanation.

Clear? We are individualistic Westerners that live in a post-industrial society more than 1,900 years removed culturally and geographically from when these texts were written. And as I mentioned in my comment above, we are missing half the conversation.

This passage is not as clear as you assume. You are proposing dangerous hermeneutics. Context cannot be left out of the equation. This is how bad theology forms.

If I read your dismissal, I get the feeling that you are OK with adultery or sex outside of marriage as long as there is no expectation of commitment. You are so wrong with your understanding of what marriage/sex is and the purpose of it. The purpose of marriage/sex is as stated in Genesis 1:28 is to reproduce. This is the first command given to man. The "helper" relationship union between a husband and wife is a side benefit of marriage, but is not the purpose of marriage.

Where did I say adultery was acceptable? As for reproduction, I am not saying this isn't one of the purposes for marriage. I'm saying reproduction is not required for one to be in a "one flesh" relationship. As such, reproduction is not what makes a man and a woman "one flesh". Certainly you are not suggesting that married couples that are unable to reproduce are not "one flesh".

Further look to Matthew 19:1-9 to learn that Jesus taught divorce to be wrong based on how they were made, male and female and how they reproduce, united in the flesh. Note that the only acceptable reason for divorce is sexual immorality. Any other divorce leads to adultery. Sorry, nothing about their feelings or level of commitment to each other in the entering of marriage or exiting of it. Only sexual acts are listed.

Here is where context is vitally important. Matthew is recording an argument in a highly abbreviated form. He is writing to a high-context listener who did not require all the details to make sense of the argument. For modern low-context readers to understand, we must fill in this missing context.

High and Low Context

For example, without knowing how Jews normally divorced in the first century this passage will never make sense to you. I bet you did not know there were two different types of Jewish divorce at this time - one type based on the teachings of Rabbi Hillel and one type based on the teachings of Rabbi Shammai. The Pharisees were asking about the "any cause" divorce teachings of the School of Hillel. There is too much to go over in this thread, but Jesus is not saying divorce is only acceptable for "sexual immorality". However, you wont believe me because you think you understand the "plain meaning" of the text.

I suggest you read: Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context: David Instone-Brewer: 9780802849434: Amazon.com: Books

Further, your devolving marriage to be about a kinship bond will only give more encouragement to gay marriages. The fact that nature in our anatomy, male and female, dictates a very specific act that brings about offspring. Just because some are unable to reproduce, does not invalidate the purpose of male and female "uniting". Exceptions do not make points of rule. Exceptions only highlight the rule.

Did you not see my first point?
 
Upvote 0

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,829
✟114,245.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Blind post: I read an interesting article which linked to a peer-reviewed article in PubMed... the article stated that this happened quite by accident, but here it is. If a man does not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], it becomes reabsorbed into his system. When a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a woman, her body also absorbs it. The surprising finding is that men's dna is found in the brains of women. They ruled out being pregnant with boys. There is one explanation....a woman retains the dna of every man she sleeps with. Although not discussed in the articles, I suspect that there is more of a man's dna if he is her husband and they have an active sex life over a long time as opposed to a one-time fling.

But also consider the biblical text. The finer nuance of the verses about two becoming one alludes to this as a process of becoming "as" one. That is, they pick up on each other's microexpressions, they can sense each other, they start to think the same and if they are together for a long time, they even start to sort of look the same, like they could be brother and sister. My guess is that the absorbed dna influences her long-term development.

I am not convinced that the OP is correct, that it has to do with lifelong commitment so much as it has to do with truly becoming as one....like a well-attuned dance couple who move together as though they are one unit. Additionally, if it were a lifelong commitment, then God himself would not have made concession for divorce.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Blind post: I read an interesting article which linked to a peer-reviewed article in PubMed... the article stated that this happened quite by accident, but here it is. If a man does not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], it becomes reabsorbed into his system. When a man [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a woman, her body also absorbs it. The surprising finding is that men's dna is found in the brains of women. They ruled out being pregnant with boys. There is one explanation....a woman retains the dna of every man she sleeps with. Although not discussed in the articles, I suspect that there is more of a man's dna if he is her husband and they have an active sex life over a long time as opposed to a one-time fling.

This exchange (and absorption) of DNA happens outside of sexual encounters too. Any number of bodily exchanges can lead to similar conclusions. For example, blood transfusions, skin grafts, organ and bone marrow transplants, etc. I'd also be interested in the possible exchange from donor-based in vitro fertilization procedures.

But the bigger question is: so what? Who cares if we absorb other peoples DNA? How does it negatively affect us? Should we only get blood transfusions from our spouses?

But also consider the biblical text. The finer nuance of the verses about two becoming one alludes to this as a process of becoming "as" one. That is, they pick up on each other's microexpressions, they can sense each other, they start to think the same and if they are together for a long time, they even start to sort of look the same, like they could be brother and sister. My guess is that the absorbed dna influences her long-term development.

Your guess? Let's not make assumptions. This is also not what the text suggests. Post #6 above might be helpful here.

I am not convinced that the OP is correct, that it has to do with lifelong commitment so much as it has to do with truly becoming as one....like a well-attuned dance couple who move together as though they are one unit. Additionally, if it were a lifelong commitment, then God himself would not have made concession for divorce.

Can you cite some theological sources or at least some verses? I'm not exactly sure what you even mean. Or better yet, can you interact with my carefully listed points and tell me where I am wrong....specifically?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,829
✟114,245.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
Just because your points were listed carefully does not make them right. The assumptions I made bring home the point that science has not unleashed the bottom line yet, but as research goes, it raises questions for the development of further hypotheses. If I were a medical researcher, I would take my assumptions and formulate a hypothesis and then test it. There is nothing wrong with this process - or my assumptions.

I think when the Bible was written, they were not considering skin grafts or blood transfusions. They were also ruled out in the early findings. There were no other explanations. You ask how it negatively affects us. I never suggested it negatively affects us. I suggested that this is part of the process of becoming one flesh - as opposed to your assertion that becoming one is about kinship through covenant. It is an alternative which suggests your assertion may not be a correct interpretation.

I don't have to cite biblical sources to support my own assertion that becoming one is a lifelong process akin to a dance. It does help to know human behaviour and long-term relationships. And God delivered the law... and there has always been concession for divorce. In fact, God divorced Israel for a time and pursued Judah before taking Israel back. That is pretty indisputable evidence that shows the impermanence of covenant. However, most of us are not Jewish... so the Mosaic law does not apply, even if Jewish marriages were expected to be permanent.

I am still not convinced that your OP is even close to correct. *shrug* You can believe what you like. I prefer to study the Word as it pertains to the human condition and the gracious salvation of the Lord.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think when the Bible was written, they were not considering skin grafts or blood transfusions.

And they certainly weren't considering the DNA within sperm!

You ask how it negatively affects us. I never suggested it negatively affects us. I suggested that this is part of the process of becoming one flesh - as opposed to your assertion that becoming one is about kinship through covenant. It is an alternative which suggests your assertion may not be a correct interpretation.

Yes, you've made a suggestion, but you have not offered any evidence that suggests that this "alternative interpretation" was what the author of Genesis understood his words to mean. The best interpretation is always going to be one where both the original author and their original audience would have understood. My interpretation attempts to do just that by using biblical references and context.

I don't have to cite biblical sources to support my own assertion that becoming one is a lifelong process akin to a dance. It does help to know human behaviour and long-term relationships. And God delivered the law... and there has always been concession for divorce. In fact, God divorced Israel for a time and pursued Judah before taking Israel back. That is pretty indisputable evidence that shows the impermanence of covenant. However, most of us are not Jewish... so the Mosaic law does not apply, even if Jewish marriages were expected to be permanent.

The institution of marriage was established thousands of years before the Mosaic Law came into existence. It was part of God's design for humans even before the Fall. When I reference Leviticus, its not in an attempt to apply its jurisdiction over Christians. Instead, it is being used as historical context. Also, the existence of divorce proves only that covenants can be broken. However, they were never intended to be broken. This is why broken vows equate to sin. Marriage was designed to be permanent. Do you not agree with this?

I am still not convinced that your OP is even close to correct. *shrug* You can believe what you like. I prefer to study the Word as it pertains to the human condition and the gracious salvation of the Lord.

Good luck.
 
Upvote 0

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,829
✟114,245.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
And they certainly weren't considering the DNA within sperm!

They knew the human condition.

Yes, you've made a suggestion, but you have not offered any evidence that suggests that this "alternative interpretation" was what the author of Genesis understood his words to mean. The best interpretation is always going to be one where both the original author and their original audience would have understood. My interpretation attempts to do just that by using biblical references and context.

They understood the human condition. The text itself proves it.

The institution of marriage was established thousands of years before the Mosaic Law came into existence. It was part of God's design for humans even before the Fall. When I reference Leviticus, its not in an attempt to apply its jurisdiction over Christians. Instead, it is being used as historical context. Also, the existence of divorce proves only that covenants can be broken. However, they were never intended to be broken. This is why broken vows equate to sin. Marriage was designed to be permanent. Do you not agree with this?

Yes, sometimes broken vows equate to sin - but who usually asks for the divorce? Most often, not the one who has broken the vow, as demonstrated by God when he divorced Israel for a time. And also, love trumps promises. Sometimes the loving thing to do is divorce.

I believe that Adam and Eve were possibly created with the intent of permanence of marriage. However, God also knew when he created them with free will, that sin would enter - and he had a plan of protection: divorce.

Good luck.
I have Jesus. I don't need luck. But thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't have to cite biblical sources to support my own assertion that becoming one is a lifelong process akin to a dance.

I am trying to prove what the biblical term "one flesh" means in its historical and theological context. I'm confused why you don't think using biblical sources is important in determining this meaning.

For example, let's look at the story of Jacob. When Laban found out that Jacob was his sister's son, he told Jacob, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh!" What follows is Jacob's instant integration into Laban's family unit. Jacob was invited to share and participate in the interests of the family. This is because kinship involves both obligations and...wait for it...solidarity. This type of solidarity (mutual support) is also found in marriage relationships. This is what the text means by being "one" with your spouse.

Genesis 2:24 states this "oneness" happens on the first day of marriage, as it also happened on the first day of Jacob's arrival. What you're suggesting is a never-ending process that takes time and is not immediate. Therefore, it cannot be with the author of Genesis meant.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,829
✟114,245.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
I am trying to prove what the biblical term "one flesh" means in its historical and theological context. I'm confused why you don't think using biblical sources is important in determining this meaning.

For example, let's look at the story of Jacob. When Laban found out that Jacob was his sister's son, he told Jacob, "Surely you are my bone and my flesh!" What follows is Jacob's instant integration into Laban's family unit. Jacob was invited to share and participate in the interests of the family. This is because kinship involves both obligations and...wait for it...solidarity. This type of solidarity (mutual support) is also found in marriage relationships. This is what the text means by being "one" with your spouse.

Genesis 2:24 states this "oneness" happens on the first day of marriage, as it also happened on the first day of Jacob's arrival. What you're suggesting is a never-ending process that takes time and is not immediate. Therefore, it cannot be with the author of Genesis meant.
Jacob was integrated into the family not because of marriage, but because he was already family. If I had a niece show up on my doorstep that I hadn't met before, I would invite her in because she is already family. Jacob is a poor example for becoming one in a marriage situation.

With marriage it is a much bigger process...starting with the first time the couple is supposed to have sex - the very sex that leaves his dna in her brain, and the very sex that produces oxytocin - the bonding hormone. And this happens, though, even when two people are not married and have sex. I am suggesting that it is an ongoing process that begins with the marriage consummation. After all, and again, I am guessing, the more often the sex, the more of his dna is in her brain...a reasonable guess. Additionally, the more sex, the more the oxytocin for deeper bonding. I am also saying that it is not about being one, but becoming as one. There is a huge difference. You can study the language used when describing this process...not in English because English loses the nuances of original text.
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jacob was integrated into the family not because of marriage, but because he was already family. If I had a niece show up on my doorstep that I hadn't met before, I would invite her in because she is already family. Jacob is a poor example for becoming one in a marriage situation.

This is not a poor example. Adam uses the same kinship terminology to identify his wife as Laban does to identify Jacob.

Genesis 2:23 - This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!
Genesis 29:14 - Surely you are my bone and my flesh!

With marriage it is a much bigger process...starting with the first time the couple is supposed to have sex - the very sex that leaves his dna in her brain, and the very sex that produces oxytocin - the bonding hormone. And this happens, though, even when two people are not married and have sex. I am suggesting that it is an ongoing process that begins with the marriage consummation. After all, and again, I am guessing, the more often the sex, the more of his dna is in her brain...a reasonable guess. Additionally, the more sex, the more the oxytocin for deeper bonding. I am also saying that it is not about being one, but becoming as one. There is a huge difference. You can study the language used when describing this process...not in English because English loses the nuances of original text.

What happens if a couple is unable to have sex? What happens if the man is unable to produce sperm? Are they not able to be "one flesh"?
 
Upvote 0

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist
Jan 1, 2017
824
404
the South
✟40,394.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. This one flesh status is founded in the union of a man and his complementary helper (a biological woman).
Allow me to strengthen this point. In v.18 we see God say, "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper fit for him" (ESV). Other translations say, "as his counterpart" (LEB), "who corresponds to him" (NET), "suitable for him" (NIV84 and NASB95), and "as his complement" (HCSB).

The Hebrew word used here is a compound prepositional phrase only used here and literally meaning "like opposite him". It expresses the idea of being complementary. If equality in role was being expressed then the more natural phrasing would be simply "like him". A contrast in biological sex and design is clearly seen. This helper wasn't created for mere assistance in daily work or procreation, instead the "help" provided was companionship - hence how this fixes the original problem of Adam being alone. It didn't take any partner to solve this dilemma, it took an "opposite" partner. It took a woman.

On the same note, a marriage must be between "opposites" due to the nature of the family hierarchy. In complementarian theology, the head of the household is a gender-based role assumed by the male husband. If becoming "one flesh" is indeed synonymous with becoming a "new family", then it must have the same hierarchy. As such, if two men were to come together in like fashion, this would undermine the hierarchy by introducing two potential heads. And if two women were to come together in like fashion, this would undercut the hierarchy by leaving it headless. Think of it as a monarchy with two kings or two queens.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
According to the Hebrew text literally word-for-word mechanical translation of Genesis, "one flesh" means "a flesh unit":

2:24
אֶחָּדעַל כֵן יַעֲזָּב אִׁיש אֶת אָבִׁיו וְּאֶת אִׁמוֹ וְּדָּבַק בְּאִׁשְּתוֹ וְּהָּיוּ לְּבָּשָּׂר
Upon So he~ will~ Leave Man At
Father~ him and~ At Mother~ him and~
he~ did~ Adhere in~ Woman~ him and~
they~ did~ Exist to~ Flesh Unit

therefore a man will leave his father
and his mother and he will adhere
with his woman and they will exist

a flesh unit


1 Corinthians 6:13-20 is about the body of believers being the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is not for immorality. Therefore, we should glorify God in our body, not to sin against our own body.

Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:13-20 NASB)

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, "flesh" σάρξ in "one flesh" as in verse 16 means:

1. flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood)
2. the body, as a skillful combination of related parts
3. a living creature
4. human nature
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0