One Flesh

I am curious about how to respond to the following in regard to polyamory and other ENM practices, potentially polygyny in my case.

So, Genesis 2:24 states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Matthew 19:4-5: He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 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’?

I could potentially see it being a description of the act or the creation of children rather than being prescriptive that marriage requires one man and one woman.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I've become one flesh with a lot of people over the years... The kids call it a body count lol
 
Oh, I've become one flesh with a lot of people over the years... The kids call it a body count lol
Haha…

It’s such a vague concept, right? It could mean anything if the term is pushed far enough.

This set of verses seems to be part of the arguments against polyamory as being Biblical.

A number of people seem to conflate it with LGBT+, which it isn’t, though individuals involved may be.

It seems to get conflated with adultery, which I always have associated with deceit not a consensual relationship.
 
Last edited:
Haha…

It’s such a vague concept, right? It could mean anything if the term is pushed far enough.
Yep.
This set of verses seems to be part of the arguments against polyamory as being Biblical.
If two can become one, why can't three or more? Is the "hold fast" bit the issue?

Honestly, any and all English translations are extremely subjective and products of their day. Go check out https://youtube.com/@maklelan?si=onV8-tDsNwAzZoGn
Dan's great.
A number of people seem to conflate it with LGBT+, which it isn’t, though individuals involved may be.
Man and wife, blah blah blah, yeah, sure. But when you consider that polygyny was common in the old testament the whole concept of one man and one woman falls apart.
It seems to get conflated with adultery, which I always have associated with deceit not a consensual relationship.
Perhaps, because paternity mattered then and still holds a lot of sway now. I honestly don't have the drive for offspring myself so I can't actually comment too much on the overwhelming desire that many people have to see their genes passe down.
 
This was a common trope of the ancient world. In Plato's Symposium from about 385 BCE, Aristophanes tells of the original human beings. There were three genders, with 2 faces, 4 arms and 4 legs each, male/male, female/female, and male/female. A god split them in two, and ever since, the homosexual males have been looking for their other half, the lesbians have been looking for their other half, and the heterosexuals have been looking for their other half. This is presented humorously, but it seems the writer of Genesis took it seriously.
 
This was a common trope of the ancient world. In Plato's Symposium from about 385 BCE, Aristophanes tells of the original human beings. There were three genders, with 2 faces, 4 arms and 4 legs each, male/male, female/female, and male/female. A god split them in two, and ever since, the homosexual males have been looking for their other half, the lesbians have been looking for their other half, and the heterosexuals have been looking for their other half. This is presented humorously, but it seems the writer of Genesis took it seriously.
This explains why bisexual people do not exist.
 
This explains why bisexual people do not exist.
I guess we've made progress since 385 BCE. But at least they also had Hermaphroditos.
 
Hello azurebonds,

I don't take much stock in what the Bible has to say, but I guess that's kind of beside the point. The passages you mentioned seem to be speaking from a perspective of monogamy, without actually prescribing monogamy. Considering the likes of Solomon (700 wives, 300 concubines), monogamy can't have been prescribed by God, perhaps polyandry was proscribed but honestly the Bible is largely silent on the status of nonmonogamy in general. It just treats cases of (patriarchal) polygyny as being normal and barely worth noting per se.

Just some thoughts,
Kevin T.
 
Ovid, Metamorphoses 1st CE
Hear how the magic pool of Salmacis found its ill fame, and why its strengthless waters soften and enervate the limbs they touch... To Hermes and Aphrodite, a boy, Hermaphroditos, was born... When thrice five years had passed, the youth forsook Mount Ida, eager to roam strange lands afar, to have hardships softened by delight.

The town of Lycia he reached at last... and there he saw a pool... the water was crystal clear, its margin ringed with living tuft... always green. A Nympha dwelt there, who in her pool would bathe her lovely limbs, and with a comb dress her hair, or gather flowers. She chanced to see the boy. He was her heart's desire.

‘Fair boy, how worthily you seem to be a god, and, if a god, Cupid/Eros himself, or if a mortal, happy pair are they who gave you birth... Blest is she, your betrothed, found worthy of your love! If there is one, let stolen joy be mine; if none, let me be her, make me your bride!’

A rosy blush dyed the boy's cheeks; he knew not what love was, but blushes well became him... The Nympha pleaded, begged, besought at least a sister's kiss, and made to throw her arms around his ivory neck. ‘Enough!’ he cried ‘Stop! Or I shall quit this place--and you.’

Fear struck her heart; ‘I yield the place,’ she said, ‘Stranger, to you,’ and turned away as if to leave him. Then, with many a backward glance, she vanished in the leafy undergrowth and crouched in hiding there.

The boy, alone (he thought) on the empty sward unobserved, strolled to and fro... Charmed by the soothing coolness of the pool, he stripped his light garments from his slender limbs. Salmacis gazed spellbound. Desire flamed for his naked beauty and her eyes blazed bright as when the sun's unclouded orb shines dazzling in a mirror. She could scarcely bear to wait, hardly postpone her joy. She longed to embrace him. She could barely contain her frenzied beating heart. He clapped his hollow palms against his sides and dived into the pool and, as he swam arm over arm, gleamed in the limpid water like, in a guarding dome of crystal glass, white lilies or a figure of ivory.

‘I've won, he's mine!’ she cried, and flinging aside her clothes, plunged far out into the pool and grappled him and, as he struggled, forced her kisses, fondled and caressed him willy nilly... as he fought to escape her hold; and so at last entwined him, like a snake seized by the king of birds and borne aloft, which, as it hangs, coils round his head and claws and with its tail entwines his spreading wings, or, in the sea, a squid whose whipping arms seize and from every side surround their prey.

Hermaphroditos fought back, denied the Nympha her joy; she strained the more; her clinging body seemed fixed fast to his. The waters of her pool gave her other-wordly power. ‘Fool, fight me as you will,’ she cried, ‘You'll not escape! The gods ordain no day shall ever dawn to part us!’ Her prayer found gods to hear; both bodies merged in one, blended in one form and face. As when a gardener sets a graft and sees growth seal the joining, and both mature together, thus, when in the fast embrace their limbs were knit, the two were two no more, neither man or woman--becoming one body that seemed neither and both.

When he saw the waters of the pool, where he had dived a man, had rendered him half woman, and his limbs now weak and soft, raising his hands, Hermaphroditos cried, his voice unmanned, ‘Dear Father Hermes and Mother Aphrodite, both of whose names I bear, grant me, your child, that whoso in these waters bathes a man emerge half woman, weakened instantly.’

Both parents heard, both, moved to gratify their bi-sexed son, his purpose to ensure, drugged the bright water with that power impure.
 
I'd say this story, retold in verse and art hundreds of times over the years, in ancient times, during the Renaissance, and in modern times, elucidates the issue with "becoming one flesh" much more thoroughly than one line, repeated twice, in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Obviously the mystical union between lovers that seems more than physical has been an issue with humankind for a long long time. It has nothing to do with the one man/one woman concept of marriage.

The idea that a watery female being can inhabit a man upon sexual union presents many problems. We can lose sight of our differences and all ideas of opposites at the moment of orgasm. I have this happen with my lover Aries. Our skin colors, our "male" and "femaleness," our ages, our past experiences, dissolve and become fluid during those moments of oneness.

Having accepted my non-binary nature, this comes as no surprise to me. Aries, who formerly identified as male and straight, realizes that in making love with me, our genders and sexual identities fall away.

Of course, some people are uncomfortable with this loss of differences and boundaries, so we've needed to discuss it, and make it into art, to be able to handle these confusing feelings. The Greeks and Romans, more comfortable with different genders and sexual desires than the Hebrews, created gods and myths to explore this concept and its ramifications.

The actual myth of Hermaphroditos elucidates the above, and presents solutions to other problems, as well. Of course, transgender and intersexed humans have always existed. These people often had shamanic (what we would call psychotherapeutic) roles in past cultures, because of their ability to see beyond the rigid desire for dualism in human culture. Sometimes they were seen as monsters; sometimes they were seen as prophets and shamans, religious leaders, priests/priestesses of various gods. (See the goddess Cybele and her followers, the Galli.)

One more issue that is addressed is the "unmanned" feeling guys get after orgasm, going all weak, drained, and sleepy. Sometimes soldiers were ordered to abstain from sex before a battle in order to retain their strength. Perhaps this feeling of release and relaxation was felt as something feminine and detrimental, better avoided.
 
Last edited:
By the way, you left out very important parts of Matthew 19, which is common. Many/most Christians can't grapple with it so just try and ignore it, while quoting the part they like. (This is called cherrypicking. Are your fellow Bible studiers into cherrypicking?)

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Often the first part of this passage is titled Jesus' ruling on divorce. But what about all that stuff about eunuchs? Let's just ignore it and it will go away. It's okay. Jesus predicted you wouldn't be able to make sense of it or handle it.
 
By the way, you left out very important parts of Matthew 19, which is common. Many/most Christians can't grapple with it so just try and ignore it, while quoting the part they like. (This is called cherrypicking. Are your fellow Bible studiers into cherrypicking?)



Often the first part of this passage is titled Jesus' ruling on divorce. But what about all that stuff about eunuchs? Let's just ignore it and it will go away. It's okay. Jesus predicted you wouldn't be able to make sense of it or handle it.
I’ve been reading it in context, but fair, there was some text regarding divorce that was missing in my post.

This is less about what I like, or generally quote, and more what has been frequently cited by others as a prohibition of polyamory in my search. I am, given other threads, clearly in a poly relationship; however, as discussed, context matters.

This oddly enough did not come from my Bible study group. They tend to read and discuss entire stories, etc. It actually came when I attempted to engage some members of the denomination in a group chat regarding polyamory, and my discussion with a pastor regarding my unique situation.

Either way, I like to know where I sit with things, at least for my own understanding, which concerning Christianity is limited.

The atheist in me of the last 20 years is saying that these should mostly be treated as a culture’s mythological origin, one which displays heavily patriarchal themes; however, I don’t want to come in without understanding and attempting to mitigate my own biases here. In other words, I want to keep an open mind and see what the text actually is saying to the best of my ability.
 
Hello azurebonds,

I don't take much stock in what the Bible has to say, but I guess that's kind of beside the point. The passages you mentioned seem to be speaking from a perspective of monogamy, without actually prescribing monogamy. Considering the likes of Solomon (700 wives, 300 concubines), monogamy can't have been prescribed by God, perhaps polyandry was proscribed but honestly the Bible is largely silent on the status of nonmonogamy in general. It just treats cases of (patriarchal) polygyny as being normal and barely worth noting per se.

Just some thoughts,
Kevin T.
I agree with you here regarding the widespread polygamy both in the Old Testament and specific laws regarding it there. It seems to be at least tolerated.

The one flesh argument was one that I could not wrap my head around.
 
This was a common trope of the ancient world. In Plato's Symposium from about 385 BCE, Aristophanes tells of the original human beings. There were three genders, with 2 faces, 4 arms and 4 legs each, male/male, female/female, and male/female. A god split them in two, and ever since, the homosexual males have been looking for their other half, the lesbians have been looking for their other half, and the heterosexuals have been looking for their other half. This is presented humorously, but it seems the writer of Genesis took it seriously.
Side topic. Wasn’t there a musical about this?

Edit: Hedwig and the Angry Itch: The Origin of Love
 
Last edited:
Side topic. Wasn’t there a musical about this?

Edit: Hedwig and the Angry Itch: The Origin of Love
Yes. The movie isn't about this story of Aristophanes, but it's referred to in the beginning of the movie in an animated sequence. The movie is about a contemporary transwoman, and her love life, adventures, etc.

I don't know if this animated sequence is shown in the live Broadway play, famously starring Neil Patrick Harris. I've just seen the movie a couple of times.

It's cool you're an atheist studying Bible history. I'm not a Christian, but I've been studying the Bible from a historical critical POV since 2000.
 
Personally, while I do believe in God as First Cause (First Thought, Source of Love) and suspect that Jesus was an ascended master who was probably fully aware, the historical facts are that Genesis is myth from earlier sources. And the Gospel accounts are largely the early church projecting back on to Jesus the theology that the church created around the person of Jesus, while incorporating the contemporary moral creed of the church (largely the Judaism of the time). I really wouldn't worry too much about what you read in the Bible. If such things interest you, check out the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - many independent scholars believe that it is most likely much closer to what Jesus really said than anything you will find in the Bible (because the Canon was selected at the Council of Rome in 380AD to support the church doctrine established earlier that century at the Nicene councils - then edited as needed).
 
Personally, while I do believe in God as First Cause (First Thought, Source of Love) and suspect that Jesus was an ascended master who was probably fully aware, the historical facts are that Genesis is myth from earlier sources. And the Gospel accounts are largely the early church projecting back on to Jesus the theology that the church created around the person of Jesus, while incorporating the contemporary moral creed of the church (largely the Judaism of the time). I really wouldn't worry too much about what you read in the Bible. If such things interest you, check out the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - many independent scholars believe that it is most likely much closer to what Jesus really said than anything you will find in the Bible (because the Canon was selected at the Council of Rome in 380AD to support the church doctrine established earlier that century at the Nicene councils - then edited as needed).
I’m trying to look at the Bible from a few different perspectives:
* Christianity as a Jewish reform movement
* Judaism as a tribal religion
* The Bible as the literal word of God
* The Bible as allegory, both secular and religious
* The Bible as both law and gospel

I want to treat Jesus’ words, and subsequent law as axioms for a moral system.

Excluding this for a moment, I really just want to know how closeted I should be around religious people, and to know if I am in the right or not.
 
I’m trying to look at the Bible from a few different perspectives:
* Christianity as a Jewish reform movement
* Judaism as a tribal religion
* The Bible as the literal word of God
* The Bible as allegory, both secular and religious
* The Bible as both law and gospel

I want to treat Jesus’ words, and subsequent law as axioms for a moral system.

Excluding this for a moment, I really just want to know how closeted I should be around religious people, and to know if I am in the right or not.

I would suggest from my past experiences being closeted around religious persons that you work with. I’ve always lived my life openly and been proud of my “family”. This caused major issues at my last workplace that eventually led to me taking early retirement due to stress exacerbating physical and mental health issues. Most people aren’t as open minded as they might lead you to believe and are threatened by things that are different than what they are used to. Don’t be afraid to live your best life though.
 
Excluding this for a moment, I really just want to know how closeted I should be around religious people, and to know if I am in the right or not.

I did a bit of research on this a few years back for a post about "Poly-friendly Churches" which I posted on this forum section a few years back. Suffice it to say, your lifestyle will not be accepted in the Fundamentalist Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches, and while you might be allowed to attend (in the hope that you will give up your sinful ways), you will not be asked to become involved and will most likely be shunned by most. At best, you may encounter a "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude, but more likely you will simply be condemned - whether you are actually in the church or just opening up outside the church to these type of Christians. You may actually be treated a bit better in the Church itself - when said Christians are on their best behavior. The Roman Catholic Church would condemn your lifestyle and not allow you to take communion, but would allow you to attend. How you are treated by fellow members would likely vary according to location and culture.

In more moderate mainstream churches - Episcopalians especially - you are more likely to be welcomed without condemnation, but most likely would not be asked to participate in any leadership positions. (Note that in the Bible Belt even more moderate churches may be more conservative). Even here, where you may be more comfortable in a poly lifestyle, you are probably better served just not to mention it - even if you are not trying to be closeted.

There are churches were being poly would be a non-issue - the Metro Community Churches (a liturgical style church founded to support LBGQT community expressly endorses polyamory), the UU Churches, and New Thought Churches such as Unity. (See my article for more details).
 
Back
Top