General What do we know about TTWCM?

[The Revolting Man]

So I very immaturely started back up the one flesh debate in another thread. But that made me think, what do we actually know about This Thing We Call Marriage (TTWCM. As, in what is clearly and undeniably laid out in the Bible?

This is a vital body of knowledge to compile. TTWCM was the second spiritual reality God instituted and it infuses His Word from start to finish. We need to know what He says on it.

So the goal of this thread is to list the things we know that aren’t up for debate; the things that are clear, unequivocal and laid out in either Law or example.

As a sign of my good faith I have not labeled this thread MEAT. We will need to behave with decorum here. In fact I’m labeling it SUPPORT because we’re helping each other find the clear, simple, non-controversial passages.

In a further sign of my good faith I’m using the phrase TTWCM, which I despise with a holy hatred. If we’re going to use unbiblical titles we might as well stick with marriage as opposed to tedious phrases. But for the sake of commodious harmony I’ll use it. Although I fervently hope that the first thing to come out of this thread is the phrase God uses to describe the Blessed State of Matrimony (BSM just in case anyone agrees with about the other acronym).

Now everyone knows that I’m going to break my own rules here and go scorched earth on someone at some point. I fully deputize our moderators; @FollowingHim and @PeteR to police me to the fullest extent necessary. This is a friendly and cooperative sharing of scriptures and clear biblical facts about TTWCM.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’ll start. We know that the practice was instituted as the second religious rite after the Sabbath.

The first explanation for TTWCM was given in Genesis 2:24.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The first explanation given us is that a man is to cleave to his wife and be one flesh with her.

What’s next?

 

[NickF]

You forgot to precede the “therefore” part. We know that the segment you quoted references something else because it says “therefore”.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You forgot to precede the “therefore” part. We know that the segment you quoted references something else because it says “therefore”.

The significance of that part is open for debate. Verse 24 is very simple and clear. I’m open to pulling the clear parts out of verse 18-23.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You forgot to precede the “therefore” part. We know that the segment you quoted references something else because it says “therefore”.

Genesis 2:18 tells us that the woman God is about to create will be a help meet to Adam and it seems inescapable that she is filling a need that it is not good for Adam to be without.

 

[FollowingHim]

We know that marriage is between a man and a woman. The man is to cleave to his woman, and they will become one flesh. So marriage involves a man and a woman.

 

[FollowingHim]

We know that marriage does NOT require a religious or government authority to make it real. No marriage anywhere in the canonical or even apocryphal scriptures involved either.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We know that marriage does NOT require a religious or government authority to make it real. No marriage anywhere in the canonical or even apocryphal scriptures involved either.

That’s a big one.

 

[FollowingHim]

We know that sex is at the very least closely associated with marriage.

To put it very simply, sex in marriage good, sex outside marriage bad. Now, there may be a lot of debate around the borderline cases (e.g. is premarital sex outside marriage but permitted provided it results in marriage, or is it the start of the marriage so inside marriage). But those are minor details. The general principle that marriage is the place to have sex, and sex shouldn't be happening outside of marriage, is sound. Any possible exceptions to that principle (if they exist at all) don't change the basic principle.

 

[FollowingHim]

We know that marriage is a serious matter that involves long-term commitment. Divorce is at least heavily discouraged.

 

[FollowingHim]

We know that the husband is to be the leader, the head. He therefore has some form of authority over his wife, which must at the very minimum mean that he holds the casting vote in the case of disagreement. We may debate the extent of that authority and the ideal form it should take, but we cannot deny that it exists in some form.

 

[FollowingHim]

Although I fervently hope that the first thing to come out of this thread is the phrase God uses to describe the Blessed State of Matrimony (BSM just in case anyone agrees with about the other acronym).

I'm just using the word "marriage", because if it is "this thing we call marriage", then by definition we call it marriage, right?

 

[PeteR]

I'm just using the word "marriage", because if it is "this thing we call marriage", then by definition we call it marriage, right?

Right, with the caveat that 'marriage,' as used by common culture, is defined quite differently. ..

 

[ABlessedMan]

So, it is really good that TRM started out with care about the starting terms. In Hebrew the construction describing marriage (in a wooden translation) may be translated variously as so and so was "given to/for a wife," or "taken to/for a wife" or "be/was to wife." The to/for preposition is nearly always there and sometimes complicates the translation into English a bit. The Greek verbal stem "marry" in the NT ("gameo") does not seem to appear in the LXX.

The nominal stem happens three times in the LXX (Gen. 29:22; Est. 1:5; 2:18; 9:22). Interestingly enough EVERY case in the LXX translates the Hebrew word מִשְׁתֶּֽה , which means "drinking party / feast / celebration. So "gamos" as a translation for Tanakh would lean heavily toward "wedding celebration" not "marriage." In fact the last case (9:22) there is not even any "wedding" in view it seems to just be a big party. So lexically, not a lot of help from the OT for a "definition." There are a dozen or so cases in the apocrypha I can check if somebody needs them.

In the NT, PeteR has done the necessary work there. So I won't bring it up again.

I do have a question for our definition. In the modern west "marriage" is a radically individual domestic arrangement between individuals based mainly on something resembling "erotic love" pursued mainly for reasons of personal pleasure,fulfillment, or in scattered cases progeny. (How is that for a recipe for disaster?)
In the Tanakh families and clans are frequently in the first place. It is not that the feelings of the individuals are unimportant (although sometimes it seems that they are), but frequently TTWCM is about preserving clan unity (Abraham and the Patriarchs going back to Haran), not marrying "foreigners," . . . or about joining or establishing peace between clans (David and Michal, Solomon's alliances). . . So short story long, Genesis 2&3 talks about the individual component of marriage, but the rest of Tanakh seems to make a pretty big deal about the social/corporate component. So . . . is TTWCM betweeen individuals, groups, or both?

 

[raulus]

Would you agree that biblical marriage is considered ownership? I've looked into the word husband, and it means master. But especially in Hebrew, often used baal, meaning lord, owner, or master. For instance, how you're not to covet another man's wife among the rest of his possesions like his servants or ox.

Which would make sense when you look at the relationship of God and His nations Jesus and His church. Don't they technically own them? Christ paid for the church with his blood per se like a dowry, and they day will come when His name will be in all of their foreheads. Is that His husband(master) role, and why the wife party cannot seek another?

“No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16‬:‭13‬

 

[The Revolting Man]

We know that sex is at the very least closely associated with marriage.

To put it very simply, sex in marriage good, sex outside marriage bad. Now, there may be a lot of debate around the borderline cases (e.g. is premarital sex outside marriage but permitted provided it results in marriage, or is it the start of the marriage so inside marriage). But those are minor details. The general principle that marriage is the place to have sex, and sex shouldn't be happening outside of marriage, is sound. Any possible exceptions to that principle (if they exist at all) don't change the basic principle.

I have to interject here and say that this is getting in to the debate we’re avoiding here. The spirit of this thread would have to stop your statement at “Sex in marriage is good”.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm just using the word "marriage", because if it is "this thing we call marriage", then by definition we call it marriage, right?

In my opinion this might be the foundational issue we should mail down. How can we define something that we can’t name? That would probably need to be a meat thread though.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So, it is really good that TRM started out with care about the starting terms. In Hebrew the construction describing marriage (in a wooden translation) may be translated variously as so and so was "given to/for a wife," or "taken to/for a wife" or "be/was to wife." The to/for preposition is nearly always there and sometimes complicates the translation into English a bit. The Greek verbal stem "marry" in the NT ("gameo") does not seem to appear in the LXX.

The nominal stem happens three times in the LXX (Gen. 29:22; Est. 1:5; 2:18; 9:22). Interestingly enough EVERY case in the LXX translates the Hebrew word מִשְׁתֶּֽה , which means "drinking party / feast / celebration. So "gamos" as a translation for Tanakh would lean heavily toward "wedding celebration" not "marriage." In fact the last case (9:22) there is not even any "wedding" in view it seems to just be a big party. So lexically, not a lot of help from the OT for a "definition." There are a dozen or so cases in the apocrypha I can check if somebody needs them.

In the NT, PeteR has done the necessary work there. So I won't bring it up again.

I do have a question for our definition. In the modern west "marriage" is a radically individual domestic arrangement between individuals based mainly on something resembling "erotic love" pursued mainly for reasons of personal pleasure,fulfillment, or in scattered cases progeny. (How is that for a recipe for disaster?)
In the Tanakh families and clans are frequently in the first place. It is not that the feelings of the individuals are unimportant (although sometimes it seems that they are), but frequently TTWCM is about preserving clan unity (Abraham and the Patriarchs going back to Haran), not marrying "foreigners," . . . or about joining or establishing peace between clans (David and Michal, Solomon's alliances). . . So short story long, Genesis 2&3 talks about the individual component of marriage, but the rest of Tanakh seems to make a pretty big deal about the social/corporate component. So . . . is TTWCM betweeen individuals, groups, or both?

Now we’re getting in to some depth! That’s like five different threads in that one comment. I’m not even sure where to start.

From a language standpoint can you shed light on what the text calls the relationship between a man and wife?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Would you agree that biblical marriage is considered ownership? I've looked into the word husband, and it means master. But especially in Hebrew, often used baal, meaning lord, owner, or master. For instance, how you're not to covet another man's wife among the rest of his possesions like his servants or ox.

Which would make sense when you look at the relationship of God and His nations Jesus and His church. Don't they technically own them? Christ paid for the church with his blood per se like a dowry, and they day will come when His name will be in all of their foreheads. Is that His husband(master) role, and why the wife party cannot seek another?

“No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16‬:‭13‬

For the purposes of this thread we would limit to the statement that in the Old Testament a husband is usually described with word baal and that word usually has such and such meaning.

We just want to compile all of the direct statements and clear facts around TTWCM.

 

[FollowingHim]

In my opinion this might be the foundational issue we should mail down. How can we define something that we can’t name? That would probably need to be a meat thread though.

I don't think it's that difficult. Sure, scripture doesn't clearly name this relationship, rather talking about men, women and weddings. But we know there is something to talk about.

I suggest that marriage simply means "the state of having a wife / husband". In other words, the state that both Adam and Eve were in after God gave Eve to Adam.

What that state actually involves is something there can be a lot of discussion on. But I think we can define the word very simply in order to move on in that discussion with a clear term to use.

Incidentally, I love this thread @The Revolting Man, it's an excellent idea to build the foundation and common ground.