2: When does marriage begin? - Covenant

[FollowingHim]

This thread is not to debate the topic named, but exists to collate scripture in support of one position only as part of a structured discussion. Posts that debate the topic will be deleted. Read this thread first before participating.

Position 2: Covenant forms a marriage

If a man makes a covenant / agreement / contract with a woman, they are married. They may now have sex.

• The covenant may be made by parents instead of the couple being married (e.g. a covenant between a man and the father of a virgin).
• This covenant is termed a "betrothal" in scripture. From the point of betrothal, a couple were considered married, whether or not they had had sex, and ending the covenant required a divorce. This equates to a modern marriage ceremony, when the formal agreements are made.
• If an unmarried couple have sex, they are still unmarried until such a time as they form a covenant, at which point they will be married.

"One flesh" refers to sexual intercourse (physical act + potential formation of offspring / family) - something that happens within marriage, and is a vital aspect of marriage, but is not the marriage itself.
Adam and Eve were married from the moment God gave them to each other, as Adam's father forming a marriage covenant with Eve's father (both Himself). They then became "one flesh" (ie had sexual intercourse) within this marriage.

Please post further refinements or explanations of this perspective, with scriptural backing, below.

 

[FollowingHim]

And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.

Once Jacob had made a marriage covenant with Laban for Rachel, and finished paying the price for her (seven years labour) thus completing his obligations under the covenant, he already called Rachel his "wife" (woman), despite not yet having had sex with her. He didn't say "give me the woman you promised to give me one day", but rather "give me my woman". She was already his wife. And since she was now his wife, he wanted to have sex with her.

 

[FollowingHim]

From the Apocrypha:

The same day it happened to Sarah the daughter of Raguel in Ecbatana of Media, that she also was reproached by her father’s maidservants; because that she had been given to seven husbands, and Asmodaeus the evil spirit killed them, before they had lain with her. And they said to her, “Do you not know that you strangle your husbands? You have had already seven husbands, and you haven’t borne the name of any one of them. ...
Then she said, .... Seven husbands of mine are dead already. Why should I live? If it doesn’t please you to kill me, command some regard to be had of me, and pity taken of me, and that I hear no more reproach.”

Sarah has been given to seven men as a wife, and each time they have died without sleeping with her. She is a virgin. Yet her and her maidservants both call them her husbands. They are considered her husbands even though they each only had a covenant to marry her, without ever consummating that covenant through sex.

Bear in mind that the original Greek does not have a word for "husband", only a word for "man". So this here says literally "she had been given to seven men" and "seven men of mine are dead already". But the fact that she calls them "husbands/men of mine", not just "men", does still appear to indicate that she was truly married to each of them.

 

[Mojo]

Just one point of clarification regarding polyandry. I think it may have seemed like I was proposing that a harlot is a polyandrist. I don't think she is. There is no such thing in God's eyes. Since I propose that marriage is covenental, it would go against my position to claim this.

I was merely trying to show that the only logical conclusion to "any sex act results in marriage" is polyandry for a woman. Either she gets married each time she turns a trick, or she doesn't. If she doesn't, then sex doesn't equal marriage, covenant does. It would make adultery obsolete...it just makes it another marriage.

I believe this reasoning is in line with Jesus:

16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

 

[Mojo]

I will focus most of my attention in this post on refuting "Sex is marriage". I hold that marriage's truest form is covenental, but can see "possession", "covenant+sex", or mixtures of those as being potentially acceptable, just not the essence of marriage. Why?

I will use this example to start. (It's been years since I sat in a logic lecture in college, so I don't want to go into logical equations that I will likely mess up. I will try to be as layman as possible.) To me, saying that any sex is marriage is like saying any taking of a life is murder. Taking of a life falls under many categories, some of which are completely innocent. Negligence, manslaughter, pre-meditation, murder etc. are all used to describe taking of a life. Are all murders taking of a life? Yes. But not all instances of taking of a life are murder. Is sex a part of marriage? Yes. Is all sex, marriage? No.

Sex is part of marriage, but if sex ceases, does a marriage? I think not. If the absence of sex can't end a marriage, the presence of sex doesn't start one either. The inception of a covenant begins a marriage, and the breaking of that covenant ends it.

What of Yahweh and Israel/Judah? What sex did He have to start that marriage? It was a covenant with Abraham that began that relationship.

Christ and his Church? I fail to see a sexual relationship in that marriage.

Mary and Joseph? Joseph could have walked away since he never had sex with Mary, but he was going to "put her away". Why? He was already betrothed to her, and bonded. Marriage?

One Flesh? I think this is complicated, but I fail to see its mystical implications, unless you count the NT and its use in describing harlotry. At its basest level, it is a euphemism for sex. On its highest level, it is another way to describe "family" or "unity". It could mean different things based on circumstance. Remember, God had already prepared Eve for Adam. God had already made up his mind before the one flesh union. You can be one flesh with a harlot, and a wife. Why aren't both praised? I cannot say for certain, but when Paul uses the one flesh to rail against fornication/ harlotry, it was to stress the absurd. Harlots in those days were used in idolatrous/pagan ways. It was the ultimate form of idolatry and abomination for a member of the family of God to "unite" or "invite into the family" a pagan god by means of sex. Light has no communion with darkness, and so for a saved man to commune with pagan ritual sex, was to be uniting with darkness, not marriage. Prostitution in OT (which is never outlawed) was just about the sex. Prostitution in Rome? Whole other ball of wax.

Know? This euphemism is used in many translations? Why? I believe it was the more accurate, sure fire way to describe sex. Why use it, if one flesh is the same thing? This is why I lean toward one flesh meaning family, unity as a more completed understanding.

See nakedness? Again, more accurate way to describe physical union.

It's late, and I've tried to post way too much that's been on my mind. I hope I made sense.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Was studying yesterday for a SS lesson on the Day of Atonement and found myself in Genesis examining Adam as the first Adown. I happened to read through Genesis 2 where God makes a woman for Adam
. . . for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

A few observations about this event.

1. God brought two people he created together and was a witness for them
2. Adam makes a verbal commitment to the woman before God
3. Adam names his bride after him. (Ish, vrs Ishshaw: out of man)
4. They cleave together and become one flesh.

1 John 5:7&8 state that there are 3 that bear record in heaven. It has been stated that intercourse between a man and woman makes them one flesh. If it is true that God sees everything (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then He is a witness to every union. I wonder if He would testify in our defense or agree with our rationale, after all, isn't He the one we are trying to emulate and serve. It reminds me of the quote from Abraham Lincoln, "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side, my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
I realize that there is scriptural precedence for intercourse = marriage without covenant, but the only examples I can think of involve captives, slaves or servants. That narrows down the field considerably.

 

[Mojo]

"I wonder if He would testify in our defense or agree with our rationale"....

Please explain.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Often I think that we humans have the perception that God thinks as we do. That if we can justify ourselves based on what we believe that God will agree with us.
I firmly fall into the camp that covenant is required for God to justify our intercourse and sanctify our act as marriage. Inside of covenant God has given each Adown the authority to steward His daughters as is fitting. The marriage bed is honorable in ALL and undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Outside of covenant, God still is witness. Only he can determine guilt or innocence. Just because He doesn't strike us down doesn't mean that He approves.
In the picture of the Adown, the covenant is the covering that hides or justifies. Without the covering of our ADONAI, we are just guilty sinners attempting to justify ourselves. With His covering, witnessed by the Father(God), the Word (covenant/ketubah) and the Holy Spirit (the breath of life), we have life and have it more abundantly.