What is adultery?

[Abiding in His Word]

Willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one's original living husband or wife.

Hi Ready 1,

Based on your understanding, if a wife commits adultery and the husband divorces her, he may not remarry? And if he does, he is committing adultery with his new wife?

I think I read the word more literally than many...

Then you are using wine when you have a stomach problem, right? And hopefully you are greeting your brothers with a holy kiss and your wife doesn't wear pearls or gold jewelry... no gold wedding bands.

How about Jesus' words about the literal plucking eyes out or cutting off one's hands?

[keithareilly]

Genesis 20
1 From there Abraham journeyed toward the territory of the Negeb and lived between Kadesh and Shur; and he sojourned in Gerar. 2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, “She is my sister.” And Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night and said to him, “Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her. So he said, “Lord, will you kill an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister’? And she herself said, ‘He is my brother.’ In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her. 7 Now then, return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours.”

From this text I understand that one can commit adultery even if one is not aware that one is doing so.
Abimelech took Sarah with all integrity of heart, Nevertheless, God prevented Abimelech from sinning against Him.
Thus, had God not prevented him from joining with Sarah, Abimelech would have committed Adultery without his own knowledge of doing so and while acting in the "integrity of heart and innocence of hands".

Abiding Said...

... In other words, adultery is committed with full knowledge that the other party is married. It's a boundary that's knowingly crossed.

Because of the circumstances with Abimelech, Abraham, and Sarah, I disagree with this definition.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

From this text I understand that one can commit adultery even if one is not aware that one is doing so.

Keith, you are making the text say something it does not say. The incident with Abimelech reflects the truth that God's plans will not be detoured regardless of how mankind interferes. God's protection of Sarah is the same principle as God's protection of Joseph in Egyypt, Daniel in the lion's den, Joseph and Mary from Herod's slaughter of innocent children, etc. It is not a lesson on what is and is not adultery.

Because of the circumstances with Abimelech, Abraham, and Sarah, I disagree with this definition.

Again, polygamy, harems, concubines, etc. was common at that time and in that culture. We know that Abimelech was married when he decided to take Sarah into his harem.

Gen 20:17 Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his maids, so that they bore children.
Gen 20:18 For the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the household of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife.

Abraham was not guilty of adultery when he had relations with Hagar, was he? No, because there was no law at that time regulating multiple marriages. Scripture does not refer to Abraham as an adulterer or a polygamist, but rather a God-fearing,, obedient man who was strong in his faith and hospitable to strangers. Actually the Code of Hammurabi was the law of the land and Sarah's act of sending Hagar away because of her insolence was permitted by that law. God's intervention in that situation is another example of God's protection of His purpose and plans for individuals and nations.

Regulations/definitions about adultery, idolatry, rape, incest, theft, etc. are outlined in the law given from Sinai following the Hebrews 400 yrs. in Egypt.

In summary, sometimes it's difficult to see the intended message behind a passage in scripture, but it's important to not insert a meaning simply because it's what we want it to say.

[keithareilly]

Abiding,

What sin is the text talking about when it says God prevented Abimelech from committing sin against Him?
I believe it is sexual relations with another man's wife.

Whatever that sin was, Had God not intervened, Abimelech would have sinned against God. The text says so. Furthermore, that sin would have been committed without intent, knowledge, or willfully disobedience. If sin must be willful, with intent, and knowledge of doing so, then God did not prevent Amimelech from commiting a sin as the text says He did.


Why was Abraham afraid he might be killed?
Was it not because he feared someone might want Sarah for their wife and being married to Abraham stood in the way of that desire? Does this sound like a people who do not know taking another man's wife is wrong? Just because the law was not given until Moses does not mean sin was not in the world and that people had no idea of right and wrong.
Was not the world destroyed by flood because of sinfulness of mankind long before the law was given to Moses?

Keith

[drdos]

Abiding,

What sin is the text talking about when it says God prevented Abimelech from committing sin against Him?
I believe it is sexual relations with another man's wife.

Whatever that sin was, Had God not intervened, Abimelech would have sinned against God. The text says so. Furthermore, that sin would have been committed without intent, knowledge, or willfully disobedience. If sin must be willful, with intent, and knowledge of doing so, then God did not prevent Amimelech from commiting a sin as the text says He did.


Why was Abraham afraid he might be killed?
Was it not because he feared someone might want Sarah for their wife and being married to Abraham stood in the way of that desire? Does this sound like a people who do not know taking another man's wife is wrong? Just because the law was not given until Moses does not mean sin was not in the world and that people had no idea of right and wrong.
Was not the world destroyed by flood because of sinfulness of mankind long before the law was given to Moses?

Keith

Great post Keith

[Ready1]

Based on your understanding, if a wife commits adultery and the husband divorces her, he may not remarry? And if he does, he is committing adultery with his new wife?

Yes, Abiding, if you apply Jesus words to this scenario, that is what he says.

I think I read the word more literally than many...

Then you are using wine when you have a stomach problem, right?

Yes I often use a glass of wine with a "heavy" meal. When I asked a doctor why wine with a meal makes it more digestible, he said that it was because alcohol stimulated the gall bladder to produce bile.

And hopefully you are greeting your brothers with a holy kiss...

Yes, Abiding, we do that too.

... and your wife doesn't wear pearls or gold jewelry... no gold wedding bands.

My wife doesn't wear jewelry of any kind or a gold wedding band.

When we just take Jesus words to mean what they say we get a pretty clear picture of how he feels on this topic. ( I realize that my understanding is stuck in the 19th century, but as long as 19th century understanding is the same as 1st century practice, then I am ok with that.)

(Even Chicago's Mayor Richard M Daley (one of the first mayor's in the nation to lead a gay parade) when criticized by Christians for supporting gays, made the observation that the Christian Church "lost the battle of moral supremacy" when they allowed divorce and remarriage into the church over the last 100 years.)

[Abiding in His Word]

What sin is the text talking about when it says God prevented Abimelech from committing sin against Him?
I believe it is sexual relations with another man's wife.

Whatever that sin was, Had God not intervened, Abimelech would have sinned against God. The text says so. Furthermore, that sin would have been committed without intent, knowledge, or willfully disobedience. If sin must be willful, with intent, and knowledge of doing so, then God did not prevent Amimelech from commiting a sin as the text says He did.

I didn't say "sin" had to be willful, with intent and knowledge of doing so. I said "adultery" had to be. One can't have sexual relations without knowing they are. (of course the exception might be today with the use of the "date rape" drug)

Why was Abraham afraid he might be killed?
Was it not because he feared someone might want Sarah for their wife and being married to Abraham stood in the way of that desire?

Gen 20:11 Abraham said, "Because I thought, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.

The situation here is imo much the same as David's desire for a woman who was married to another and had the Uriah murdered because Bathsheba was pregnant. God had prophesied that Sarah would give birth to Isaac. She and Abraham had already messed that up once and the result of his union with Hagar was Ismael. You might take notice that polygamy is recorded throughout scripture beginning in Gen. 4 with Lemech when women were brought as spoils of war. His mother was waiting for his return from battle with "a damsel or two." (if I remember correctly.)

Does this sound like a people who do not know taking another man's wife is wrong? Just because the law was not given until Moses does not mean sin was not in the world and that people had no idea of right and wrong.
Was not the world destroyed by flood because of sinfulness of mankind long before the law was given to Moses?

I didn't say that they didn't know that sin or adultery was wrong. I said the law regulated sin and taught the consequences or penalties for various kinds of sin.

Again, this narrative is not for the purpose of defining adultery. Very few instances of adultery are noted in OT scripture because men simply "took" women to be their wives to avoid committing adultery. We've gone full circle imho to the need for a Writ of Divorcement because of the prevalence of men putting away their wives and taking another to avoid committing adultery. That left the wife vulnerable to a reputation as an adulterer should she marry without legal proof of the dissolution of the previous marriage. (Ruth, Esther)

The narrative about Abimelech, Abraham, and Sarah focuses on God's protection and intervention when necessary to accomplish His plan. His divine intervention was testimony to His power, mercy, and grace among those who did not know Him as well as those who did.

You seem determined to prove yourself guilty of adultery without having committed adultery and I'm curious why one would take on a specific sin that way and try to prove their right to claim ownership by using scripture. That's kinda like me claiming I'm a victim of rape because Tamar was, isn't it?

[keithareilly]

Exodus 3:6,15
6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

15 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord,[b] the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.


Matthew 22:29-33
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching


The context of Exodus 3:6 and 3:15 is: "Who is God" .
The context is not "Is there resurrection of the dead".
Yet, Jesus quotes the scripture out of context to confirm there is resurrection of the dead.

Context is important. However, context is not everything. Other truths lie in statements even when taken out of context. To dismiss a truth because the scripture is used out of context is to limit the availability of truth and knowledge as confirmed by Jesus when He says: "You know neither the scriptures or the power of God".

Keith

[keithareilly]

Abiding

You seem determined to prove yourself guilty of adultery without having committed adultery and I'm curious why one would take on a specific sin that way and try to prove their right to claim ownership by using scripture.

Actually, I am demonstrating that scripture can be used to define adultery as I have defined it: A person divorced is forced to commit adultery even if they have no sexual relations after being divorced. I did this using the same scriptures the preacher used to teach: people married to a divorced person are committing adultery and should divorce and stay celibate to keep from sinning. The very same scripture he uses to teach they are committing adultery also say there is no option but to commit adultery if you are divorced. So I am arguing that divorcing that previously married person and staying celibate does not in fact place you in a better standing with God.

It is an extreme argument I admit. But the person teaching if you are married to a divorced person you should divorce that person is placing undo burdens on the brethren using scripture. I am attempting to nullify the argument by using those very same scriptures.

We are saved by Grace not by keeping the Law. It is entirely logical to define adultery as I have using the scriptures I have used. Just as it is entirely logical to argue a person married to a divorced person is committing adultery and should divorce to repent. It does no one any good to divorce, even a person married to a divorced person.

Many people believe that a person married to a divorced person is committing adultery. Because Christ said this, I shall not argue against the teaching. Instead I argue we are saved by grace not keeping the law.

It would be wrong for me to put forward what I have said without letting viewers know this applies to me and that I am not placing undo burdens on my brothers and sisters. So I have said this applies to me and that by this definition I am committing adultery. Just as Christ used scripture to prove the resurrection of the dead, I am using scripture as Christ used scripture, out of context, to prove I am committing adultery and there is nothing I can do about it. If I stand before God at the end of time and He tells my I have interpreted scripture correctly regarding divorce and that I am guilty of adultery, I still must relay on Christ's sacrifice, not on my standing under the Law. That is the lesson I want our brothers and sisters who are married to divorced spouses to take away from this conversation.

Keith

[Sonbeam]

Why was Abraham afraid he might be killed?
Was it not because he feared someone might want Sarah for their wife and being married to Abraham stood in the way of that desire? Does this sound like a people who do not know taking another man's wife is wrong? Just because the law was not given until Moses does not mean sin was not in the world and that people had no idea of right and wrong.
Was not the world destroyed by flood because of sinfulness of mankind long before the law was given to Moses?

Keith

Paul says here that indeed sin was in the world prior to when the law was given to Israel:

Rom 5:13

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

And this is the position that the children of God are in right now under God's grace in the New Testament -- we are not under law. And this is the Good News.

ALL!

sonbeam

[Ready1]

For consideration...

http://www.cadz.net/remarriage.html

[Abiding in His Word]

When we just take Jesus words to mean what they say we get a pretty clear picture of how he feels on this topic. ( I realize that my understanding is stuck in the 19th century, but as long as 19th century understanding is the same as 1st century practice, then I am ok with that.)

I'm amazed at your adherence to the literal admonishments meant for a particular person for a particular reason at a particular time. Are these practiced within your church as well as in your relationship? Really, no wedding bands for either of you?

I probably needn't ask if you wash one another's feet, right?

How then do you avoid cutting off hands or plucking out eyes?

(Even Chicago's Mayor Richard M Daley (one of the first mayor's in the nation to lead a gay parade) when criticized by Christians for supporting gays, made the observation that the Christian Church "lost the battle of moral supremacy" when they allowed divorce and remarriage into the church over the last 100 years.)

He evidently forgot to mention those nasty feminists and suffragists who rallied for equal rights for women and blacks .... /sarcasm

Seriously, how then do you account for our regularly ignoring this part of God's original plan for marriage:

...."for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" Matt. 19:5

It is the man who was commanded to leave his parents and be joined to his wife (and her tribe?) We have loosely interpreted that to mean they both leave their parents, don't we? But that isn't what it literally says, is it? And that command is repeated 3-4 times in scripture but still we change it to mean what we want with no qualms and defend it as "it must mean both."

Had that command been obeyed and followed throughout scripture, a lot of suffering and pain; polygamous marriages; and adultery and divorce might have been avoided as the woman's family and tribe would be her natural protectors against abuse as well as being "put away" by their husbands for any cause and left with no resources and/or support.

What say you, Ready1, about the literal understanding of God's design for marriage in that case? Just curious....

[Ready1]

I'm amazed at your adherence to the literal admonishments meant for a particular person for a particular reason at a particular time.

Surely you would be able to back that massive statement of opinion up by scripture.

Seriously, how then do you account for our regularly ignoring this part of God's original plan for marriage:

...."for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" Matt. 19:5

It is the man who was commanded to leave his parents and be joined to his wife (and her tribe?) We have loosely interpreted that to mean they both leave their parents, don't we? But that isn't what it literally says, is it? And that command is repeated 3-4 times in scripture but still we change it to mean what we want with no qualms and defend it as "it must mean both."

Had that command been obeyed and followed throughout scripture, a lot of suffering and pain; polygamous marriages; and adultery and divorce might have been avoided as the woman's family and tribe would be her natural protectors against abuse as well as being "put away" by their husbands for any cause and left with no resources and/or support.

What say you, Ready1, about the literal understanding of God's design for marriage in that case? Just curious....

I would say, Abiding, that you do err. You are attempting to do the same thing that the Pharisees in this passage were attempting to do: Namely to put Jesus on the defensive and gain their point. Their point was "Is it okay to divorce and (by implication) remarry for any reason. In our world today the question would be "Is no-fault divorce ok?" (remarriage is not considered an issue in our world) You went on to quote just a portion of what Jesus said and took it to a completely different (and completely erroneous) conclusion ...ie that men and women should marry and remain with the wife's family so that they can protect her.

But if you quote a passage, then quote it all so that it can be put it into context. Here it is...

Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?"
Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
Mat 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus' short answer was "No it is not ok". This was so foreign to that time (and to our time as well) that the astonishment and amazement of the disciples comes out in their statement that "If that's the case, it's better to not get married". Their statement and reaction gives a very clear picture of their understanding of what He had just said.

Let's remember as well, Abiding, that Jesus was quoting scripture in Matt 19. What he said does not mean what you made it mean. I will agree that you have "...changed it to mean what you want with no qualms" and I have no doubt that you will try to defend it. What Jesus actually quoted (and all those 3-4 other places you mentioned) was a passage in Genesis 2.

Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Notice that God told this to Adam before he ever had children. Therefore it did not have meaning for Adam (he had no earthly father or mother) but it did apply to his children from that time forward. For each of Adam's sons to leave father (Adam) and mother (Eve) and to hold fast to his wife meant that they established their own home outside the boundary of their parents home. And yes, it applies to both men and women since it carried on down in the same way from the time of Adam. And yes, that is what Jesus was teaching in Matt 19 as well as the fact what has been joined by God must not be separated by man.

[Abiding in His Word]

Surely you would be able to back that massive statement of opinion up by scripture.

Of course, Ready1. I thought I was just stating the obvious, but apparently not. When we endeavor to interpret the meaning of a passage in scriptural, as I stated above, it's important to take grammatical, historical, cultural and contextual aspects into consideration. That way, we can hopefully ascertain the intended meaning and how it would be received by the listeners at that particular period of time. One more example might be Paul's requesting Timothy to bring his cloak and his books to prison in 2 Tim. 4:13. Paul's suggestion to Timothy about drinking wine for his stomach ailments might be helpful to some, but surely it was meant for a particular person at a particular time for a particular reason.

And lastly, Paul's remarks about jewelry must be examined with the same rules to determine it's intended meaning. We know jewelry in itself is not evil nor is wearing it frowned upon in scripture. God Himself speaks of adorning His bride, Israel with costly jewelry:

"I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck. "I also put a ring in your nostril, earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. "Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your dress was of fine linen, silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour, honey and oil; so you were exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. Eze 16:11-13

I would say, Abiding, that you do err. You are attempting to do the same thing that the Pharisees in this passage were attempting to do: Namely to put Jesus on the defensive and gain their point. Their point was "Is it okay to divorce and (by implication) remarry for any reason. In our world today the question would be "Is no-fault divorce ok?" (remarriage is not considered an issue in our world) You went on to quote just a portion of what Jesus said and took it to a completely different (and completely erroneous) conclusion ...ie that men and women should marry and remain with the wife's family so that they can protect her.

But if you quote a passage, then quote it all so that it can be put it into context. Here it is...

Exactly. Context is important as is culture, history, grammar, intended meaning, as well as how the listeners would understand the passage. The passages recording Jesus words to the Pharisees refers back to the original in Genesis which reflects God's design for marriage. Paul quotes the passage from Genesis in Ephesians 5 as well. And all references include the phrase that the "man" should leave his father and mother to cleave to his wife. We have conveniently ignored that portion. I see it as every bit as valid an admonition as the "one flesh" portion.

Jesus' short answer was "No it is not ok". This was so foreign to that time (and to our time as well) that the astonishment and amazement of the disciples comes out in their statement that "If that's the case, it's better to not get married". Their statement and reaction gives a very clear picture of their understanding of what He had just said.

Exactly again. So prevalent was the practice of the Jews putting away their wives for any reason, that Jesus strongly reminds them that it was not supposed to be that way but because it was, Moses put boundaries on the practice in an effort to regulate it. The regulation (the Certificate of Divorce) protected the woman who was put away from committing adultery since it provided legal proof of the dissolution of the previous marriage.

Let's remember as well, Abiding, that Jesus was quoting scripture in Matt 19. What he said does not mean what you made it mean. I will agree that you have "...changed it to mean what you want with no qualms" and I have no doubt that you will try to defend it. What Jesus actually quoted (and all those 3-4 other places you mentioned) was a passage in Genesis 2.

Agreed. And of course I will defend it. It's right there in black and white...."a man shall leave...."

And yes, it applies to both men and women since it carried on down in the same way from the time of Adam.

So has adultery, polygamy, divorce, idolatry, etc. That doesn't mean it was designed that way. The Bible tells the good, bad, and the ugly of humanity. Just because it's been "carried down the same way", doesn't mean it should have been. As Jesus reminded the Pharisees...

"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. Mar 7:8.

I personally think Christians today have done the same thing to marriage that the Pharisees did to the sabbath. Jesus reminded them that the sabbath was made for man; not man for the sabbath. Likewise, marriage was made for man; not man for marriage. Both were designed for the benefit of mankind not as a vehicle for bondage. The Pharisees taught that even though some might suffer hardship, the rules of the sabbath took precedence over their needs. While Jesus didn't discredit the sabbath, he focused more on compassion and meeting the needs that some might experience over the strict interpretation enforced by the Pharisees.

Both the sabbath and marriage were meant as blessings. Both can be used erroneously as the Pharisees did and their purpose and benefits become injurious.

You have every right to disagree, but I'll hold fast to my understanding and observations.

[Exit40]

Question, what is the meaning of ' one flesh '. And how do we know ' what God has joined together '.

God Bless

David

[Abiding in His Word]

Question, what is the meaning of ' one flesh '. And how do we know ' what God has joined together '.

Hi David,

That question or a similar one was asked back in 2006 and it might provide some helpful info for you. Personally, I think "one flesh" refers to a team or unit comprised on one woman and one man. I've never been sure of the answer to your second question. I believe that God respects our choices and decisions in our day-to-day lives and others are cautioned against interfering with them. For example, if two people have joined themselves together (yoked), God respects that union and it's inappropriate for others to interfere. That could be what it means. It's a reasonable understanding particularly since Jesus is refuting the way the Pharisees were treating marital unions.

[Ready1]

Question, what is the meaning of ' one flesh '. And how do we know ' what God has joined together '.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mat 19:5 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?
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
1Co 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.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

The love relationship between a man and a woman is referred to as a 'one flesh' union. Men love their wives, nourish them, cherish them, and sacrifice themselves for them, and yes, "cleave" to them. Women love their husbands, submit to their husbands, and respect their husbands. The marital sexual union is an example of this selfless love where two people, through their love, make one new person. This is why Paul says in 1 Cor 6 that it is so inappropriate to be joined in union to a harlot or a prostitute. Ephesians 5 tells us that the human love relationship is to mimic the love relationship between Jesus and his called out church. Every human child should be a representative of a "one flesh" union between a man and a woman (at least in a perfect world) and every believer is a spiritual representative of the "one flesh" union between Christ and the church.

[Abiding in His Word]

The marital sexual union is an example of this selfless love where two people, through their love, make one new person.

How so, Ready1? How does sex between two people make one new person? How is this possible practically speaking?

It can't be true literally, right? So if it's figurative, then when two join together in marriage, they become a unit or a team don't they?

[keithareilly]

For consideration...

http://www.cadz.net/remarriage.html

I feel Sorry for her. Someone should have taught her the meaning of "I desire mercy not sacrifice".

Keith

[Ready1]

How so, Ready1? How does sex between two people make one new person? How is this possible practically speaking?

It can't be true literally, right? So if it's figurative, then when two join together in marriage, they become a unit or a team don't they?

I must be way more literal than you, Abiding. I always understood that that is how babies came into the world...but maybe it really is the stork!

[Abiding in His Word]

How so, Ready1? How does sex between two people make one new person? How is this possible practically speaking?

It can't be true literally, right? So if it's figurative, then when two join together in marriage, they become a unit or a team don't they?

I must be way more literal than you, Abiding. I always understood that that is how babies came into the world...but maybe it really is the stork!

If that's your understanding of two becoming one, then it's only true on special occasions. All other times, they are still two individuals working together as one team.

[Abiding in His Word]

Seriously, Ready1...if sex is the act that makes two people "one flesh" or married scripturally, then pedophiles would be joined to their victims, rapists to their victims, incest victims to their offenders, etc. And far as I know, the only person in the Bible to have only one spouse was Noah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all others would be technically married to many; i.e. David to 8 wives and many concubines and Solomon to something like 700 or so.

[Ready1]

The marital sexual union is an example of this selfless love where two people, through their love, make one new person. Every human child should be a representative of a "one flesh" union between a man and a woman (at least in a perfect world)

[Abiding in His Word]

OK...ok...I think I finally see where we are not communicating. Scripture says this:

Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

The male (eesh) shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife (ish-shaw); and they (man and his wife) shall become one flesh.

Me: One flesh implies metaphorically a team of two individuals living together in unity with similar values, goals, etc.

You: One flesh implies the one child that's the result of the sexual union of the two.

Just as Paul states that the "body" of Christ consists of "many" members....

1Co 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.

Rather than "team" of two individuals = one flesh, perhaps it could be metaphorically a "body" of two individuals = one flesh/body.

I personally don't think that reference to becoming "one flesh" in Genesis is referring to the birth of a child.

[Ready1]

The male (eesh) shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife (ish-shaw); and they (man and his wife) shall become one flesh.

Me: One flesh implies metaphorically a team of two individuals living together in unity with similar values, goals, etc.

You: One flesh implies the one child that's the result of the sexual union of the two.

Just as Paul states that the "body" of Christ consists of "many" members....

I am afraid that it is you that still don't get it. What you said that I said is erroneous! What I said was:

The love relationship (please notice that I did NOT say the sexual union) between a man and a woman is referred to as a 'one flesh' union. Men love their wives, nourish them, cherish them, and sacrifice themselves for them, and yes, "cleave" to them. Women love their husbands, submit to their husbands, and respect their husbands.

Furthermore there is an emotional oneness, openness, familial oneness, and a spiritual oneness which is all inclusive of the "love relationship" as implied in scripture.

And this is exactly what scripture states as well.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

[Abiding in His Word]

I am afraid that it is you that still don't get it. What you said that I said is erroneous!

I'm trying, Ready1, I'm really trying. I posted that I thought I had "finally" understood what you meant by one flesh.

You said this:

The marital sexual union is an example of this selfless love where two people, through their love, make one new person.

I replied with this:

How so, Ready1? How does sex between two people make one new person? How is this possible practically speaking?

You answered with this:

I must be way more literal than you, Abiding. I always understood that that is how babies came into the world...but maybe it really is the stork!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's how I arrived at what I thought was the difference in how we were interpreting "one flesh." I understood it to be a team or unit or body of two individuals.

You mentioned the sexual union producing one new person ( in your literal interpretation) and then brought up the stork.

Can't you see how I arrived at why I "still don't get it?" and interpreting your understanding as "erroneous?"

[keithareilly]

Ready1 and Abiding,

When my wife divorced me, a part of me died and I continued to die a little bit every day for four years until God gave me new heart. I can not explain the joining any better than anyone else can explain it. But I don't think it happens all at once. I think people grow intertwined and eventually become one much like two trees that grow close side by side. My wife was inside my heart; my own personal garden where I keep all of my treasures. She took up ground. She was rooted within me. When she divorced me, I lost my heart for living. Does sex play a part? Yes. There are times I felt that being joined in sexual union was the safest time for talking, sharing things really, really intimate, things I would not share with another. Sometimes, there is not a point you can mark and say there, joining happened at that point in time. Sometimes, it is just a little bit every day. When I was divorced, I was not longer complete, not able to function properly. I still struggle with this every day. With my new heart, I am making progress. But my old heart died and could not longer support life. In many ways I think the best analogy is that a tree died and another is springing from the stump. What this new tree will be I do not know.

Keith

[Abiding in His Word]

Furthermore there is an emotional oneness, openness, familial oneness, and a spiritual oneness which is all inclusive of the "love relationship" as implied in scripture.

And this is exactly what scripture states as well.

Eph 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Not quite exactly....
It's my understanding that the word "submit" in verse 22 is not there in the original manuscripts. The NASB has it in italics to show that.

Here's what Ephesians 5 says in context:

I'll share my understanding of submission in Eph. 5.

Paul shares a "string of participles" (if you will) that pertain to the behavior of those who are followers of Christ. (v.1)

We should be:
* redeeming (the time) v.16
* being filled (with the spirit) v.18
* speaking (in psalms, hymns) v.19
* singing & making melody v.19
* giving thanks (to God) v.20
* submitting (to one another) v.21

Verse 22 does not contain the word submit, but it was added (supposedly for clarification).

So the "string of participles" Paul used applies to all. Including wives v.22. Husbands love their wives way Christ loved the church...and that is by "giving himself up for her." There is no mention in the passage of Christ's authority, but only His self sacrifice is given as the example for husbands to emulate.

He lays down his very life for his wife as Christ laid down His life for the church.

To summarize the passage:

Followers of Christ, redeem the time; be filled with the Spirit; speak to one another in hymns and psalms; sing and make melody to one another; give thanks together; submit to one another. Other scriptures include deferring to one another, being tenderhearted towards one another, forgiving one another, building one another up, regarding the other as more important, etc.

The context of the entire NT is loving God and one another.

The mystery Paul speaks of is interesting as well. Going back to our "leaving father and mother to cleave to his wife" discussion...Jesus abided by that design by leaving His father to cleave to His bride, the church.