• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

Cap said:
Apparently, Onan having sex with Tamar (married her?) wasn't the right kind of sex. There is a much higher purpose according to God.
Click to expand...

This is not just addressing you Cap. I’m just using this to jump off from.

This passage is showing one of the obligations of the kinsman redeemer from the earliest of times. Onan didn’t have to have a ceremony because he was filling the responsibilities of his brother who had married her already. By sleeping with her, he was fulfilling his brothers covenant to provide an heir. This is the only reason why God killed him for spilling his seed. Not because that is a sin, but because he was blaspheming the role he was modeling. Christ as the kinsman redeemer would never be deceitful.
 
ZecAustin said:
So I think you're saying that sex with a harlot is fornication so therefore it can not form a one flesh relationship. I actually get that argument but the problem is that the verse says that it forms a one flesh relationship so we have to figure out why.
Click to expand...

To put a finer point on it, it says that joining makes a one flesh relationship.

Charity and I found some time last night to do some one on one studying on poly. We ran across some verses that I think shed light on the topic.

Just after the passage that some of us think proves that sex joins you in marriage, you have 1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless,† to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

If sex = marriage then this verse is redundant as you would be married every time you had sex with a new woman because marriage is honorable in all.

Also Hebrews 13:4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

If sex= marriage, then there’s no one but adulterers for God to judge re sexual sins.
 
ZecAustin said:
You agree that the 1 Corinthians passage is indeed admonishing believers to not have sex with harlots (Yes) and that joining is a reference to sex (No) and one flesh is a reference to making a family? (Yes) Are you saying that the verse is forbidding us from both sex with a harlot and from marrying her both? (Yes)
Click to expand...
 
Cap said:
I agree with this but also add that if you knowingly have sex with a harlot (fornication) that you know will not amount to anything, how is that a marriage?



Genesis 38:8Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

Apparently, Onan having sex with Tamar (married her?) wasn't the right kind of sex. There is a much higher purpose according to God.

Also,

Genesis 38 1At that time, Judah left his brothers and went down to stay with a man of Adullam named Hirah. 2There Judah met the daughter of a Canaanite man named Shua. He married her and made love to her; 3she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, who was named Er. 4She conceived again and gave birth to a son and named him Onan. 5She gave birth to still another son and named him Shelah. It was at Kezib that she gave birth to him.

Why the separation if 'made love to her' is all that is needed?
Click to expand...
So looking at Biblehub's lexicon it seems that what your version is translating as "married" is really took and that's it. It doesn't say "took her to wife" as far as I can tell. It says he took her. I would say that mean that the had sex with her to make her his wife and then in subsequent sessions he made her pregnant. I would be interested what one of our language specialists had to say about this.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
To put a finer point on it, it says that joining makes a one flesh relationship.

Charity and I found some time last night to do some one on one studying on poly. We ran across some verses that I think shed light on the topic.

Just after the passage that some of us think proves that sex joins you in marriage, you have 1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless,† to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

If sex = marriage then this verse is redundant as you would be married every time you had sex with a new woman because marriage is honorable in all.

Also Hebrews 13:4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge

If sex= marriage, then there’s no one but adulterers for God to judge re sexual sins.
Click to expand...
Alright, fornications is getting it's own thread. This is a major stumbling block. And since we're going in circles according to @FollowingHim (I don't disagree) and you have to take time of for life, I am going to declare myself the victor of this round. Let's face it, I'm very persuasive. Every time we have this debate I convince myself anew. And @frederick , I will look at the verse in question but even if I'm completely wrong on that verse it wouldn't change any of the other verse I'm completely right on. I will start new threads on Fornication and Genesis 2:24 in the near future and we can start majoring on the majors.
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
This is not just addressing you Cap. I’m just using this to jump off from.

This passage is showing one of the obligations of the kinsman redeemer from the earliest of times. Onan didn’t have to have a ceremony because he was filling the responsibilities of his brother who had married her already. By sleeping with her, he was fulfilling his brothers covenant to provide an heir. This is the only reason why God killed him for spilling his seed. Not because that is a sin, but because he was blaspheming the role he was modeling. Christ as the kinsman redeemer would never be deceitful.
Click to expand...
Lol, and where is this exception of the forming of the marriage listed? And where is the way to form a marriage that this verse exempts you from listed? Is this the exception that proves the rule or is this the rule?
 
Cap said:
That's telling disciples what to do, not the people they encounter. Being baptized is not a requirement for salvation. It's an outwardly expression of faith.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say it was a requirement for salvation. And I agree with you. My point is that it is a command one that a believer has a choice about sure but if Jesus commands the disciples to baptize converts I have an inclination that he desires converts to be baptized... But you won’t find any command for a marriage ceremony in scripture. I’m not against a marriage ceremony in fact I think it’s a good idea. I’m against the idea that it is a requirement...
 
Pacman said:
I didn’t say it was a requirement for salvation. And I agree with you. My point is that it is a command one that a believer has a choice about sure but if Jesus commands the disciples to baptize converts I have an inclination that he desires converts to be baptized... But you won’t find any command for a marriage ceremony in scripture. I’m not against a marriage ceremony in fact I think it’s a good idea. I’m against the idea that it is a requirement...
Click to expand...

We are saying the same thing. :):)
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
John 4:16-18

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
The woman answered and said, I have (echo Strongs 2192) no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said,†I have (echo) no husband:
For thou hast had (echo) five husbands; and he whom thou now hast (echo) is not thy husband: in that sadist thou truly.

Echo. Strongs 2192.
  1. to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
    1. to be closely joined to a person or a thing
So in plain 21st century English, she says that she is not presently joined to a husband. Jesus confirms that this is her present reality though she has been joined to five men who were her husband (presumably sequentially) and they are currently no longer joined to her. The sixth man that she is currently “echo” ed to is not her husband as she said. The remarkable thing here is that Christ said that she spoke truly about her current status. Echo’ed but without a husband.
Click to expand...

https://web.archive.org/web/2013112...the_samaritan_woman_and_the_one_flesh_thesis/
 
Julia Mykaele said:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013112...the_samaritan_woman_and_the_one_flesh_thesis/
Click to expand...
I took a moment to look thru his thesis. As I have pointed out before, his thesis also ignores that Christ affirms her statement that she has no husband, thus by his own admission and definition of adultery, she is innocent of his charge. She has had 5 husbands (past tense) and the one she’s with now (present tense) is not her husband. His entire approach is based upon his assumption that the 5th husband is still living and/or that she does not have a lawful divorce, neither of which can be proven from scripture.

Obviously, Christ has a more perfect understanding of the woman’s marital status than anyone today attempting to bolster a flawed or imperfect thesis.

Can a marriage exist solely thru consummation? Yes. Does every example of sexual intercourse = marriage? No
 
Julia Mykaele said:
Genesis 24:67 And Isaac led her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebecca, and she became his wife, and he loved her. And Isaac was comforted after [the death of] his mother.
Click to expand...
I believe that this verse encompasses a much longer timeline than people allow it to have.
A simple thing that was not included was that Abraham had commissioned the servant to find the wife, it would have been extremely disrespectful to his father for Isaac to take her and bed her without having even been presented to Abraham first.
Jewish lore is that she was younger than marriageable age and brought into Isaac’s mother’s tent to be raised in the ways of a Yah-worshipping family before the marriage occurred.
 
steve said:
I believe that this verse encompasses a much longer timeline than people allow it to have.
A simple thing that was not included was that Abraham had commissioned the servant to find the wife, it would have been extremely disrespectful to his father for Isaac to take her and bed her without having even been presented to Abraham first.
Jewish lore is that she was younger than marriageable age and brought into Isaac’s mother’s tent to be raised in the ways of a Yah-worshipping family before the marriage occurred.
Click to expand...

Your argument is good. But genesis is clear that the one flesh is marriage. Christ said that separation is wrong because God made the two one flesh.
So I believe they had sex. To believe that marriage is a contract, not something physical, is to make it a social construction. And that means that it would be possible for two men or two women to get married.

Until a few months ago I believed that a woman became a man's wife when she became his property. But that means most people today are not married, no man legally owns his wife...
 
Julia Mykaele said:
Your argument is good. But genesis is clear that the one flesh is marriage. Christ said that separation is wrong because God made the two one flesh.
So I believe they had sex. To believe that marriage is a contract, not something physical, is to make it a social construction. And that means that it would be possible for two men or two women to get married.

Until a few months ago I believed that a woman became a man's wife when she became his property. But that means most people today are not married, no man legally owns his wife...
Click to expand...
Just a few things to think about.

First, The phrase used by Adam in Genesis 2:23 (bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh) is condensed in other places in scripture to “one flesh” or own flesh or flesh and bone. Our Christian culture today focuses on the One Flesh primarily because of the emphasis placed on a Monogamy only cultural view. However to say that One Flesh is exclusively limited to a sexual act ignores the other passages in scripture where this phrase, or its source (Gen 2:23) is used to indicate familial connection that could not be sexual. Such as Laban and Jacob (Gen 29:14) or Joseph and his brothers.(Gen 37:27)

It also feeds the mantra that One Flesh must = Monogamy only because a man is only physically able to have sex with one woman due to the number of reproductive organs he has available. Biblically, One Flesh = One Family. This may be seen evidenced by one man and one woman, but this is the base model and not meant to exclude children or additional wives or even extended family. They are all one flesh though sexual intercourse only exists between a husband and his wives.

Secondly, while a marriage can be started with consummation, it is a mistake to think that this is the only way that marriages begin this way. It is One way, but not the only way.

Social constructs, like everything else, can be perverted. Everything good has a counterfeit. Sometimes that counterfeit is close enough to the real deal to seem very similar, yet totally perverted. This perversion is not proof that the original is wrong, but rather an indicator that further examination is needed so it can be conclusively identified as something similar but not the same due to its perversion.
 
Julia Mykaele said:
Your argument is good. But genesis is clear that the one flesh is marriage. Christ said that separation is wrong because God made the two one flesh.
So I believe they had sex. To believe that marriage is a contract, not something physical, is to make it a social construction. And that means that it would be possible for two men or two women to get married.

Until a few months ago I believed that a woman became a man's wife when she became his property. But that means most people today are not married, no man legally owns his wife...
Click to expand...
I think this can all be simplified by considering "betrothal" and "marriage" as two separate acts. Betrothal is a promise / agreement to be husband and wife. It could be seen as a social construct - but scripturally, sleeping with a man's betrothed wife was as much adultery as sleeping with his married wife. So it's serious. Full marriage is when they come together sexually. If you consider BOTH acts to have meaning and worth, and both to form a union in one form or another (whether you want to apply the label "marriage" to that union or not), a lot of this becomes simpler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top