0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[FollowingHim]

the title of this structured discussion you started is, "When does marriage begin?," but it occurs to me that your third choice is actually a non sequitur -- unless one's position is that a marriage only begins when the couple or someone else outside the couple notices that no one has objected to their coupleness. It can't possibly be the case that marriage begins when someone says, "Hey, duh, we've been hanging out together and have a couple kids and no one has objected -- I guess we're married, ain't we!"

Number 3 is "Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)". I think you've misunderstood what I meant by that, and that's because I added too much explanatory wording which actually confused the issue. To simplify, what I meant is that if we call sex A and covenant B, then the four options I proposed simply come down to marriage beginning after every one of the four logical combinations.
1) A (the moment you have sex you're married)
2) B (the moment you make a covenant you're married)
3) A or B (the moment you either have sex or make a covenant you're married)
4) A and B (the moment you complete both having sex and making a covenant you're married)

It was not intended to be dependent upon the opinion of others. However, the example I gave did give that appearance and confused things. Forget the words in the brackets.

Edit: My point with those words in the brackets was to simply illustrate one possible implication of number 3. Basically, if either creates marriage, then it comes down to possession - it doesn't really matter on which grounds you possess a woman, if you've got her she's yours. So it's the simplest option of the four.

 

[Pacman]

can you point me to an example of a biblical situation in which a betrothed woman became a widow before the relationship with her betrothed man was consummated?

I'm not aware of any examples of this in the scriptures.

That is, would a betrothed woman become a widow in such a situation, and would she thus be subject to inheritance, etc., guidelines based on being a member of her betrothed man's family? Would her betrothed man's brother be expected to marry her and assist her in producing a child who would be considered the heir of her deceased betrothed man according to the levirate law?

This is a great question. My initial response is yes but I'm not sure why. We do know that if she is with another man even during betrothal but before being taken then it's adultery so I tend to think other laws related to this thing we call marriage would also apply... But I cannot point to any proof of that.

Given that that was the case, and given that that is no longer the case, as well as that, outside of moving to a country that enforces sharia law, we have no framework within which we could legally require adherence to such a framework, how would you suggest we can, in the 21st century, come closest to establishing marriages in the eyes of Elohim according to His Word?

I am doing it by raising my daughters in the same belief. I'm surrounding my family with other like minded families. I moved to a different state and disconnected from the grid with this being one of the major reasons for doing so. You are correct we do not have legal backing. Therefore we need to be careful to teach our women and children correctly and we as men need to actively support the fathers rights when we desire to take a woman...

Actually teaching our women is more important than teaching our children. I am yet to see a father produce righteous children when their mother is rebellious.

Along with that, given the realities of current-day life, is there now a different answer to, "When does marriage begin?," than there was in biblical times?

Short answer is No.

Marriage is the wrong term here. It's actually not a biblical term. The Bible term is more like "possess" or "take" or "master" it's transfer of ownership.

Most fathers in western culture have abdicated their authority to their daughters so according to Numbers 30 their vows stand. When she is intimate with a man often its nothing more than whoredom or harlotry. Eventually she agrees to some sort of commitment with a man and they begin putting their lives together and having offspring. I'm not convinced that is something that Elohim has joined together but it's what we tend to recognize as marriage. Most of the time the woman never even repents of her harlotry. She views it as "no big deal" and just moves on with her life. Under biblical law she would have been put to death long ago.

 

[Matthew Hudson]

Welcome @Matthew Hudson!

A person who has been living with a partner for a few years, then becomes a Christian and looks at their life differently. Are they married? If their partner refuses to "marry" them but is happy to keep living with them, what should they do?

As far as I can tell, the difference between marriage and fornication, is the covenant, or marriage agreement,

• A man who has slept with a number of different women over the years, then wants to understand what God thinks of his life and obey God. Does he have obligations to these women? Are they his wives already? Is he required to make them his wives?
• A woman who has slept with a number of different men. Does God consider one to be her husband? If so, which one?

And so forth. This is where the standard advice of the church breaks down. Christians are taught, rightly, to save sex for marriage and then have a wedding and stay together for life. If you do that, great. But if you haven't done that, you may need to understand this in a bit more detail.

Fundamentally, this debate exists to help answer the question of "what does repentance (turning from sin and following righteousness) actually look like for a specific individual in their unique circumstances?"

 

[Matthew Hudson]

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

First, cleave means to overtake and cling closely to. It's not a sexual term. It's a companionship term. Strongs says, "to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch" Not once is it used to signify sex in the 54 instances of the word in the Bible.

Second, wife is the word, "issa," and means opposite of a man, or woman. It's not specifically a word like wife, but the general form of the word woman.

Third, "Shall be," could also be translated, "They became or To Come into Being," (haya)

Lastly, One Flesh could be, a LOT of things. The problem is that the translators seem to have given the definition of "Flesh," but also mankind, leanfleshed, fatfleshed, naked, skin, body, relatives, and myself." So I cannot trust the definition, but if I go to the root of that word, it's (basar) it basically means to announce or preach, deliver news, good tidings. So, the first instance of marriage could be translated this way....

So a male child will leave his father and mother, set out on his own, and then meet and make friends with a woman, make that friendship more and more close until they are extremely close, then they shall bring into being a new thing, a good thing, and announce it to everyone.

Like many of the verses I've looked at closely, we have a verse that has no sex references in it, attributed meanings and definitions that are not consistent with the actual reading of that verse and then made canon and then even when it is re-translated, it's given the same wrong meanings because the translators are trying to fit the verse into their preconception of that verse - going as far as to redefine words that don't fit. And remember this, the first thing Satan did to deceive people was change a definition. 'That's not what he REALLY meant... This apple's pretty good, have a bit, it'll make you smart.'

Frankly, I like this, it's more in tune to what we are, and how we are as a species. We meet someone, like them, like them more, get to know them, like them even more than that, then one day we announce to everyone, "Hey, she's mine, I'm hers, and let's keep your grubby hands off. Husband is often translated in a way that implies responsibility toward someone, as a Lord would be responsible for a servant or a companion who has placed himself under the rule of that lord. Free to walk away, but while there, under the leadership of the person who is responsible for him or her.

And again, please, while this is a fun little aside while I'm editing photographs, a bit of a break in the monotony, does it really matter? In a way I can see it does, because I see a husband as someone... not in charge or a master, but as a general or commander who has a wife who has granted him permission to be the head of the family. And his job would be to administer the needs to family, and give her what she needs to be the head of the household. Remember, the angel told the concubine to submit to her mistress...

Anyway, got to get back to work. Remember, marriages based on love are marriages based on a fleeting fantasy driven by hormones.

 

[The Revolting Man]

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

First, cleave means to overtake and cling closely to. It's not a sexual term. It's a companionship term. Strongs says, "to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch" Not once is it used to signify sex in the 54 instances of the word in the Bible.

Second, wife is the word, "issa," and means opposite of a man, or woman. It's not specifically a word like wife, but the general form of the word woman.

Third, "Shall be," could also be translated, "They became or To Come into Being," (haya)

Lastly, One Flesh could be, a LOT of things. The problem is that the translators seem to have given the definition of "Flesh," but also mankind, leanfleshed, fatfleshed, naked, skin, body, relatives, and myself." So I cannot trust the definition, but if I go to the root of that word, it's (basar) it basically means to announce or preach, deliver news, good tidings. So, the first instance of marriage could be translated this way....

So a male child will leave his father and mother, set out on his own, and then meet and make friends with a woman, make that friendship more and more close until they are extremely close, then they shall bring into being a new thing, a good thing, and announce it to everyone.

Like many of the verses I've looked at closely, we have a verse that has no sex references in it, attributed meanings and definitions that are not consistent with the actual reading of that verse and then made canon and then even when it is re-translated, it's given the same wrong meanings because the translators are trying to fit the verse into their preconception of that verse - going as far as to redefine words that don't fit. And remember this, the first thing Satan did to deceive people was change a definition. 'That's not what he REALLY meant... This apple's pretty good, have a bit, it'll make you smart.'

Frankly, I like this, it's more in tune to what we are, and how we are as a species. We meet someone, like them, like them more, get to know them, like them even more than that, then one day we announce to everyone, "Hey, she's mine, I'm hers, and let's keep your grubby hands off. Husband is often translated in a way that implies responsibility toward someone, as a Lord would be responsible for a servant or a companion who has placed himself under the rule of that lord. Free to walk away, but while there, under the leadership of the person who is responsible for him or her.

And again, please, while this is a fun little aside while I'm editing photographs, a bit of a break in the monotony, does it really matter? In a way I can see it does, because I see a husband as someone... not in charge or a master, but as a general or commander who has a wife who has granted him permission to be the head of the family. And his job would be to administer the needs to family, and give her what she needs to be the head of the household. Remember, the angel told the concubine to submit to her mistress...

Anyway, got to get back to work. Remember, marriages based on love are marriages based on a fleeting fantasy driven by hormones.

This is the complementarian view. It’s not as wrong as some others but it’s definitely in retreat among the members of this forum.

And you have completely ignored Paul’s direction to not be one flesh with a harlot. This is a clear connection of the term to sex and it is never in scripture connected to anything else.

 

[Matthew Hudson]

This is the complementarian view. It’s not as wrong as some others but it’s definitely in retreat among the members of this forum.

And you have completely ignored Paul’s direction to not be one flesh with a harlot. This is a clear connection of the term to sex and it is never in scripture connected to anything else.

I ignored something? Sorry, nope. The question was, when does marriage begin. It was not when do you bond with a woman. Creating a sex bond is not marriage, or the word fornication would not exist. And not to be rude, please don't assume I've ignored something, perhaps, asking me a q

 

[Matthew Hudson]

I ignored something? Sorry, nope. The question was, when does marriage begin. It was not when do you bond with a woman. Creating a sex bond is not marriage, or the word fornication would not exist. And not to be rude, please don't assume I've ignored something, perhaps, asking me a q

A question first would be a bit nicer. I'm not interested in getting into confrontations, or being accused. My time is limited for conversation, and I've been having discussions of this nation on and off for about 37 years. So, you seem like nice folks, but if you don't mind, just ask me a question and don't assume I've been lax or lazy in my research. HAve a great day!

 

[Keith Martin]

1) A (the moment you have sex you're married)
2) B (the moment you make a covenant you're married)
3) A or B (the moment you either have sex or make a covenant you're married)
4) A and B (the moment you complete both having sex and making a covenant you're married)

Thanks for the clarification. I like that even better as a framework.

 

[Keith Martin]

I am honored by your responses, @Pacman. Thank you.

I'm not aware of any examples of this [description of a woman widowed from betrothal] in the scriptures.

I did some more looking into this and still came up empty-handed, but if you (or anyone else) find this any time in the future, I'd love to know about it.

My initial response is yes but I'm not sure why. We do know that if she is with another man even during betrothal but before being taken then it's adultery so I tend to think other laws related to this thing we call marriage would also apply... But I cannot point to any proof of that.

Without proof we have to watch out for the snare of adding to Scripture. You refer later to the issue of possession. What do you think of this?: it's adultery if she has sex with a different man even though she's just betrothed because she is already promised to someone, because adultery is breach of promise in that case; however, if she doesn't commit adultery prior to consummation and her betrothed passes away before consummation, the breach of promise disappears. She lived up to her end of the bargain, as did he. Producing an heir for a deceased brother who had been working on producing an heir is one thing, but producing an heir for a deceased brother who hadn't even been intimate with the woman would almost be macabre. In such a case, the surviving brother offering to be betrothed to the widowed-betrothed of his deceased brother would be a magnanimous gesture, perhaps, but I think we're stretching the shrink-wrap too far in two directions to make this one fit.

it does seem clear to me that, in ancient society and specifically in ancient Israelite society, marriages were arranged by contract between, on the one hand, (a) either the man in question or his father, and, on the other hand, (b) the father of the proposed bride or the father's representative. Given that that was the case, and given that that is no longer the case, as well as that, outside of moving to a country that enforces sharia law, we have no framework within which we could legally require adherence to such a framework, how would you suggest we can, in the 21st century, come closest to establishing marriages in the eyes of Elohim according to His Word?

I am doing it by raising my daughters in the same belief. I'm surrounding my family with other like minded families. I moved to a different state and disconnected from the grid with this being one of the major reasons for doing so. You are correct we do not have legal backing. Therefore we need to be careful to teach our women and children correctly and we as men need to actively support the fathers rights when we desire to take a woman...

Amen to that. I myself was guilty of failing to do that with Kristin, my present wife. She convinced me that eloping was the only way we could accomplish getting married, and not only did it create tremendous long-term conflict between me and her parents, but it set a tone even within our marriage that was a witch's brew for trouble.

I highly respect you for the degree to which you were willing to make these things such high priorities for yourself and your family.

Actually teaching our women is more important than teaching our children. I am yet to see a father produce righteous children when their mother is rebellious.

Amen, Jeremy, amen. Excellent point. My family is living bad-example proof of that. We're not a total disaster, but monumental problems flow from a man condoning his woman being rebellious. To the extent that we've turned that around, the pay-off has been remarkable, for everyone.

Short answer is No.

Marriage is the wrong term here. It's actually not a biblical term. The Bible term is more like "possess" or "take" or "master" it's transfer of ownership.

Most fathers in western culture have abdicated their authority to their daughters so according to Numbers 30 their vows stand. When she is intimate with a man often its nothing more than whoredom or harlotry. Eventually she agrees to some sort of commitment with a man and they begin putting their lives together and having offspring. I'm not convinced that is something that Elohim has joined together but it's what we tend to recognize as marriage. Most of the time the woman never even repents of her harlotry. She views it as "no big deal" and just moves on with her life. Under biblical law she would have been put to death long ago.

So our understandings are relatively congruent, @Pacman, but my question remains to some extent. We teach our wives; we teach our daughters -- and, then, like it or not, our daughters ultimately are legally released into a culture that not only fails to support what we've taught them but rewards them for turning their backs on what they've been taught. I'm not even coming close to suggesting that we compromise what we teach them, but is there, from your perspective, some type of middle ground we can occupy in regard to preparing them for the potential that they will avail themselves of the freedom to behave as harlots? I'll be transparent here in regard to this particular issue: it's very real for me with 17- and 19-year-old daughters who were almost entirely raised within the context of having a weak father and a rebellious mother who encouraged their rebellion and is only beginning to regret that encouragement. I don't even want to have the option to stone them to death -- and we can see how long that lasted even within Scripture -- but I wouldn't mind some suggestions about how to make lemon out of lemonade. At this point I'm relying on ensuring that I communicate to them what God's Will is in the matter, as well as being transparent with them about how I failed them as a father, dancing as best I can so that I don't entirely invalidate the worthiness of what I have to convey to them now. I don't hesitate to tell them that my former position of feeling like I didn't even have a leg to stand on to assert with authority how they should make such crucial life decisions was an abdication of my responsibilities as a father, nor do I hesitate to share with them my more-informed current perspectives, but any proactive and supportive suggestion you (or others) have along these lines would be welcome.

This next sentence is not directed toward you, Jeremy, but, given certain experiences we've all witnessed here on this site, I believe it needs to be said: what I'm not requesting is for anyone to think this is some great time to condemn me. It would be pointless. I've done enough of it myself (just go back and read the last paragraph if you doubt that; I'm harder on myself than I am on anyone else).

and this one isn't for @Pacman but for those who asserted their existence and from whom I'm unaware of any response . . .

I'm still patiently waiting for the scriptures that (a) detail what YHWH does that joins man and woman together in marriage and (b) demonstrate that one-flesh either has nothing to do with sex or isn't the essential behavior that initiates marriage.

@Pacman, as I wrote the last time, the reminders about those two claims being backed up were not directed to you, but given your responses above I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about them: (a) do you have an opinion about where YHWH explains what He does that joins man and woman together in marriage?; nd (b) are you aware of any Scripture that asserts that one-flesh has nothing to do with sex?

 

[Keith Martin]

A comment not necessarily directed to any particular response in this thread . . . but relevant:

Sometimes I wish we had separate English-language Bible translations, one produced for high-sensation-seekers, and one produced for low-sensation-seekers.

 

[Keith Martin]

So a male child will leave his father and mother, set out on his own, and then meet and make friends with a woman, make that friendship more and more close until they are extremely close, then they shall bring into being a new thing, a good thing, and announce it to everyone.

Where did you go to find that translation? It sounds remarkably similar to what I can remember from The Ecumenical New Age Sunday School Version.

Does your translation shed any light on how one would identify how more and more close the friendship would need to become to qualify as extremely close -- or on what it is exactly they do to bring that good new thing into being?

 

[FollowingHim]

Frankly, I like this, it's more in tune to what we are, and how we are as a species. We meet someone, like them, like them more, get to know them, like them even more than that, then one day we announce to everyone, "Hey, she's mine, I'm hers, and let's keep your grubby hands off.

In many ways, I agree with you, because I like to keep things simple. And this thing we call marriage really can be as simple as the cliche of a caveman saying "that woman's mine, touch her and I hit you with this club". He sees her as his, she sees herself as his, everyone around sees her as his (whether they agree or not, they recognise that is the reality of the situation). So she's his.
And at the other end of the scale, after a full formal Western Christian wedding, the same applies - he and her see her as his, and the society around also sees them that way.

But still these are simple, "ideal" situations. And as I said before, this question is irrelevant in the simple cases. Where it gets complex is when multiple cavemen with clubs all claim the woman belongs to them. Or in a modern situation when someone has slept with multiple people and needs to understand the result.

I feel like you are only considering ideal, simple situations, and assuming everyone's lives are equally simple and clear to understand.

The question was, when does marriage begin. It was not when do you bond with a woman. Creating a sex bond is not marriage, or the word fornication would not exist.

I agree. This discussion often twists back to this point, when one person assumes "one flesh" = "sex" = "marriage" and then dismisses a differing opinion because it does not conform to this preconception. Creating a sex bond might be marriage - that is option 1 of the four proposed at the start of this discussion. But it is only one of several options.

 

[Pacman]

Without proof we have to watch out for the snare of adding to Scripture.

Amen!

What do you think of this?: it's adultery if she has sex with a different man even though she's just betrothed because she is already promised to someone, because adultery is breach of promise in that case; however, if she doesn't commit adultery prior to consummation and her betrothed passes away before consummation, the breach of promise disappears. She lived up to her end of the bargain, as did he. Producing an heir for a deceased brother who had been working on producing an heir is one thing, but producing an heir for a deceased brother who hadn't even been intimate with the woman would almost be macabre. In such a case, the surviving brother offering to be betrothed to the widowed-betrothed of his deceased brother would be a magnanimous gesture, perhaps, but I think we're stretching the shrink-wrap too far in two directions to make this one fit.

So for the remainder of this response please know that. "TTWCM" equals "this thing we call marriage"

I think this gets to the point of the whole thread. Does TTWCM begin with sex? I'm actually starting to think that we can't put it in a box. Perhaps in the case of a betrothal TTWCM begins before sex? This seems to be supported by the law we discussed previously regarding adultery being possible during the betrothal time. Also the story of Joseph and Mary...

Perhaps in other situations it begins at the time of sex?

At other times sex clearly does not start TTWCM but obligates the man to pay for her. No matter how much ranting I hear from @The Revolting Man the plain reading of the text says he is obligated but it didn't happen yet.

Point is that in order to answer your question we have to answer the question of when does TTWCM begin.

The scriptures do not seem to put it in a nice neat little box and we probably shouldn't try.

So our understandings are relatively congruent, @Pacman, but my question remains to some extent. We teach our wives; we teach our daughters -- and, then, like it or not, our daughters ultimately are legally released into a culture that not only fails to support what we've taught them but rewards them for turning their backs on what they've been taught. I'm not even coming close to suggesting that we compromise what we teach them, but is there, from your perspective, some type of middle ground we can occupy in regard to preparing them for the potential that they will avail themselves of the freedom to behave as harlots?

Keep them out of the culture. "come out of her my people" they don't need smart phones at all. And if that ship has already sailed what about parental controls? They don't need "friends" other than ones you approve of. Point is keep them out of Babylon.

I'll be transparent here in regard to this particular issue: it's very real for me with 17- and 19-year-old daughters who were almost entirely raised within the context of having a weak father and a rebellious mother who encouraged their rebellion and is only beginning to regret that encouragement. I don't even want to have the option to stone them to death -- and we can see how long that lasted even within Scripture -- but I wouldn't mind some suggestions about how to make lemon out of lemonade. At this point I'm relying on ensuring that I communicate to them what God's Will is in the matter, as well as being transparent with them about how I failed them as a father, dancing as best I can so that I don't entirely invalidate the worthiness of what I have to convey to them now. I don't hesitate to tell them that my former position of feeling like I didn't even have a leg to stand on to assert with authority how they should make such crucial life decisions was an abdication of my responsibilities as a father, nor do I hesitate to share with them my more-informed current perspectives, but any proactive and supportive suggestion you (or others) have along these lines would be welcome.

Get them taken by a righteous man. They are ready. And if they are already on a trajectory toward unrighteousness it will take something drastic to divert that. Her purity and reverence to her future husband is of primary concern. It's actually more important than her feelings toward you.

(a) do you have an opinion about where YHWH explains what He does that joins man and woman together in marriage?; nd (

Honestly no I don't. Although I am not necessarily convinced that every union we label as marriage is actually put together by God.

(b) are you aware of any Scripture that asserts that one-flesh has nothing to do with sex?

No

 

[SonoLumen]

This conversation is epic. If we are going round and round, then how bout we keep the thing spinning? I'm gonna throw in a few quick thoughts that I've been having as I've kept up here.

1) Finding when marriage begins, ends, and possibly begins again is absolutely about providing hope and a good trajectory for folks that have lived broken lives in the world, whether at their own fault or others. So to everyone that keeps pointing it out I thank and concur with them.

2) I agree that it got this way by generally by men lying to themselves, their wives, their children, and society in chasing after polyamorous lifestyles without the things of God in mind. That's a fancy way of saying they abrogated their Headship for the pursuit of fun. Turns out being a real man is the most fun a man can have so they missed out.

3) I agree that we, as men, can take it back by properly leading and teaching our families in the truth. That `Wash in the water of the Word` stuff is brilliant and imho should apply to the whole household.

4) No matter how many qualifications you put on marriage, you will get a set number of logical possible outcomes. If A = Sex, B = Certificate, C = Witnesses, etc....It could be (A + B) or (A + B + C) or (A + C) or any combination of any number of considered variables. This is just the logical outcome of defining additional objects and identifiers of legitimate marriage. One issue with this adding requirements is it creates hurdles and barriers to `recognized` marriages.

4b) I think the reason the `one flesh` is tied the thing we call marriage in scripture so closely, is simply because (A + Z) where Z is anything really, is good enough to get a marriage started. This way doesn’t limit the barriers to entry, and thus is the socially preferred method whether right or wrong, by virgins and non-virgins alike. Thus if we reviewed the data we would see that this is how a TON of the families that are standing today got started. It also is important, in this case, to draw the line far away from error even if it’s possible in some cases that sex is not equal to marriage. Sex must always be included in the definition to some degree, because the second it isn't we create a new class of sex that is in opposition to marriage because in fact - if it's not marriage or an attempt at it - we can get away with it right? The idea of using a person for sex in a temporal way, if even consensual, doesn't sit right with my spirit as being in the nature of Love - so for me that is a clear boundary. Intent is a huge component to legitimate marriage, imo.

 

[Keith Martin]

Point is that in order to answer your question we have to answer the question of when does TTWCM begin.

The scriptures do not seem to put it in a nice neat little box and we probably shouldn't try.

Given the potential ramifications mentioned by Samuel in his OP and subsequently, however, the fact that the box isn't a nice neat little one doesn't leave me concluding that I can just let myself off the hook, either, though. I'm going to continue my informal research, as I suspect that, somewhere in Scripture (given that I doubt our Creator would have left something that important entirely out of His Word) He provides guidance regarding the situation of a non-consummated widowed betrothed woman. My further suspicion is that informal research is unlikely to uncover anything, so that means I'm looking at Episode 10 of reading Scripture cover-to-cover, keeping in mind the entire time, verse-by-verse that I'm specifically looking for that very particular situation. Because an answer to that dilemma has the potential to take us over the mountain and into the valley in regard to when TTWCM begins, what He means by what we call one-flesh in English, and perhaps even what it is that entails Him joining couples together.

Keep them out of the culture. "come out of her my people" they don't need smart phones at all. And if that ship has already sailed what about parental controls? They don't need "friends" other than ones you approve of. Point is keep them out of Babylon.

Get them taken by a righteous man. They are ready. And if they are already on a trajectory toward unrighteousness it will take something drastic to divert that. Her purity and reverence to her future husband is of primary concern. It's actually more important than her feelings toward you.

It's remarkable how what I've just read (above) from you dovetails with a conclusion I woke up into after having a late-night interchange with my youngest daughter. My conclusion this morning was that I have to set aside both any concern about her opinion of me (the easy part) and the fact that I've already participated in being part of what amounts to "that ship having already sailed" in regard to her trajectory -- which means I have to reinitiate and then continue declaring to her the truth as I see it from both Scripture and common sense, even if she shuts me out, because it's irrational to shut myself down out of concern that she might shut me down. She will at least know where I stand and what I fear for her. That she avoids me won't equal her being able to unhear what I've said. What I know for a fact is that what she hears from me means a great deal to her. Our family is significantly fractured, but that neither means that it's entirely fractured nor that it can't be significantly healed. And her future matters more than any difficulty such conversations entail.

↑
and this one isn't for @Pacman but for those who asserted their existence and from whom I'm unaware of any response . . .
↑
I'm still patiently waiting for the scriptures that (a) detail what YHWH does that joins man and woman together in marriage and (b) demonstrate that one-flesh either has nothing to do with sex or isn't the essential behavior that initiates marriage.

Honestly no I don't. Although I am not necessarily convinced that every union we label as marriage is actually put together by God.



No

Thanks for your answers on those. I'm unsurprised. I will be much more surprised if anyone discovers legitimate scriptural back-up for such assertions -- beyond, say, the kind of proof-texting that provides a vague impression likely created by a poor translation to which one can say, "See, see, we all know what that means. Yah didn't have to come right out and say it. He knew we would know what He was hinting at."

 

[steve]

In what way does the defining point actually matter?

 

[Matthew Hudson]

Where did you go to find that translation? It sounds remarkably similar to what I can remember from The Ecumenical New Age Sunday School Version.

Does your translation shed any light on how one would identify how more and more close the friendship would need to become to qualify as extremely close -- or on what it is exactly they do to bring that good new thing into being?

I use Blueletterbible.com for my translations on the fly - it lets you pick a word, then follow it to the root word. Hebrew is built in layers, there's the foundation word, then you add clarifications on top of it, to be over simplified about it. Tree, treered, treegreen, treelive, treedead. When you follow the word back to it's root and then build the word back, you get more of an idea what was meant. I also look for other examples in the bible. Not what the translators WANT me to see, but how it's used from sentence to sentence. When one word is translated as ten unrelated words, then I am suspecting that some culture has worked it's way in.

Now, here's what I've found over the years.
Level of authority is a big issue in the form a marriage takes. Structured Marriage really is a huge deal for me, and it's been a saving light time and again when I had an issue I could not figure out.

Marriage means to combine. But here's where it gets odd. For instance, look at every OT reference to marriage, and you'll find a lot of words.... so far, some mean cohabitation, some mean sex with the intent to procreate, but OUR concept of marriage seems to be missing. Our concept is, promises, justice of the peace, ido-ido, sex, move in, make babies. It seems that the OT's concept is far simpler. And this is what I see as the root translation of "Marry," and that's simple, combining girl bits and boy bits in pleasure and fun. It literally means to combine for procreation. If you want to look, the Blueletterbible will find every verse in the OT with marriage in it, and then you can click on the verse to see the breakdown.

Sorry, working on our fruit trees today, getting them ready for winter. Not much time left.

Any lady like wimmins wanna come help weed?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Amen!



So for the remainder of this response please know that. "TTWCM" equals "this thing we call marriage"

I think this gets to the point of the whole thread. Does TTWCM begin with sex? I'm actually starting to think that we can't put it in a box. Perhaps in the case of a betrothal TTWCM begins before sex? This seems to be supported by the law we discussed previously regarding adultery being possible during the betrothal time. Also the story of Joseph and Mary...

Perhaps in other situations it begins at the time of sex?

At other times sex clearly does not start TTWCM but obligates the man to pay for her. No matter how much ranting I hear from @The Revolting Man the plain reading of the text says he is obligated but it didn't happen yet.

Point is that in order to answer your question we have to answer the question of when does TTWCM begin.

The scriptures do not seem to put it in a nice neat little box and we probably shouldn't try.




Keep them out of the culture. "come out of her my people" they don't need smart phones at all. And if that ship has already sailed what about parental controls? They don't need "friends" other than ones you approve of. Point is keep them out of Babylon.



Get them taken by a righteous man. They are ready. And if they are already on a trajectory toward unrighteousness it will take something drastic to divert that. Her purity and reverence to her future husband is of primary concern. It's actually more important than her feelings toward you.



Honestly no I don't. Although I am not necessarily convinced that every union we label as marriage is actually put together by God.



No

Exactly which text are you reading so plainly? Because none of them say anything other than make one flesh. Another way to say that would be “join two fleshes”. Maybe I have a teenage boy’s sense of humor but the plain reading of that is a Marvin Gaye song. Or a “ that’s what she said” joke.

Anything other than that has to be assumed or read in. One flesh can be formed without a father’s consent, without witnesses, without agreement, without the woman’s consent (scary thought there) and without any intention to follow through with a long term relationship.

So maybe I’m ranting but I’m definitely reading the text plainly, as plainly as can be. If you lay with a harlot you’re one flesh with her. That’s as plain as it gets. The meaningless sex formed one flesh. And that’s the phrase we should be using; one flesh. This Thing We Call Marriage (TTWCM) is no more Biblical a phrase than marriage is. One flesh however is Biblical.

Sob instead of asking when marriage starts we should be asking when one flesh starts. And that shouldn’t require so much beating around the bush. That’s what she said.

 

[Pacman]

Exactly which text are you reading so plainly? Because none of them say anything other than make one flesh. Another way to say that would be “join two fleshes”. Maybe I have a teenage boy’s sense of humor but the plain reading of that is a Marvin Gaye song. Or a “ that’s what she said” joke.

Anything other than that has to be assumed or read in. One flesh can be formed without a father’s consent, without witnesses, without agreement, without the woman’s consent (scary thought there) and without any intention to follow through with a long term relationship.

So maybe I’m ranting but I’m definitely reading the text plainly, as plainly as can be. If you lay with a harlot you’re one flesh with her. That’s as plain as it gets. The meaningless sex formed one flesh. And that’s the phrase we should be using; one flesh. This Thing We Call Marriage (TTWCM) is no more Biblical a phrase than marriage is. One flesh however is Biblical.

Sob instead of asking when marriage starts we should be asking when one flesh starts. And that shouldn’t require so much beating around the bush. That’s what she said.

You already know which passage but for others info : Exodus 22:16-17

And not every union we call marriage begins with one flesh... You are correct that some do...

Also you and I have talked a lot and I know that you understand the definition of Adultery so please explain. Why a woman who is betrothed but not taken is guilty of Adultery if she isn't one flesh with her husband yet? Also please explain Mary and Joseph.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You already know which passage but for others info : Exodus 22:16-17

And not every union we call marriage begins with one flesh... You are correct that some do...

Also you and I have talked a lot and I know that you understand the definition of Adultery so please explain. Why a woman who is betrothed but not taken is guilty of Adultery if she isn't one flesh with her husband yet? Also please explain Mary and Joseph.

This is the one exception, this is it. A betrothed woman counts as adultery for legal purposes. This isn’t a passage about forming one flesh. It’s a passage about adultery. Just like passages about putting away don’t define making one flesh neither do passages about adultery. This passage by the way specifically identifies the woman as something other than one flesh. They’re not one flesh. They’re betrothed. This is a very specific legality but by no means changes the overall definitions.

We all assume if the betrothal were broken publicly that the woman would not be divorced. She would still be a virgin and eligible for a one flesh relationship. This passage simply doesn’t address forming one flesh and that’s also plain reading.