0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[Keith Martin]

Effectively, for all practical purposes - yes.

Let's say you inherited an axe. It came from your father, who got it from his father, who got it from his father, and so forth. It's always been considered a family heirloom. However, you find out one day in intensive research of old documents, that your great-great-great-great-grandfather actually stole it - let's say he bought it from the local store on credit but never paid. It would be completely impossible to track down the descendants of the store owner even if there are any - and if there are, there are probably thousands of them by now, so if you were to fairly give it back you'd have to cut it into tiny pieces.

Is it your axe?

My answer would be simply "yes". It is your axe, now. It shouldn't have become your axe. But it did, and is now your axe. Your axe just happens to have a fascinating history.

So we'll disagree about this, because I would say that the axe continues to belong to the person from whom it was stolen. That is would be difficult to trace records to discover the actual owner would not change its ownership, or are you asserting that it started belonging to a descendant of the thief the moment it became difficult to track down the descendants of the victim? It's not just a fascinating history; it has a grifter history.

I know this makes me a stickler of sorts, but I would assert that the horse the Frenchman ate (horse is mighty tasty, by the way) continued to belong to the person from whom it was stolen even after it was consumed. Possession and ownership are simply two different concepts.

And here is one of my intellectual justifications for maintaining this position: if one ever knows what to do to successfully raise a young man to become a life-long adult thief, follow this prescription: starting as a little boy, when he steals something, only require him to pay for a replacement. The lesson that is absorbed is that the worst that one has to do is pay for something one fully utilized, but every time one isn't caught one got something for free. The Grifter's Creed. The only way to break a stealing habit is to create multi-layered multiple punishments. Look at what YHWH asserts in Exodus 22:16-17: not only does the daughter-thief have to pay the bride price, he has to throw himself at the mercy of the father if he wants to continue the relationship in legitimacy, and if he is refused he goes away empty-handed unless he conspires with the daughter to run away with him. In essence, though, in most cases of refusal, the thief stole a man's daughter's virginity, which can't be replaced, but he had to pay the price that would have been paid not only for her virginity but for a lifetime of helpmeeting from her.

In our American justice system, in almost every case in which all that is required of a thief is to pay just compensation, the system is terribly ineffective at preventing future theft by the thief or discouraging others to become thieves.

In the example I gave, does the woman in question belong to the man in question?
Would she say of him "this is my man"?
Would he say of her "this is my woman"?

If you're talking about the example of the man and woman who have completed a contract but haven't yet (or perhaps ever) consummated their relationship, then, yes, the woman belongs (is possessed by) the man in question, and they may call each other their man and woman, but that's just vocal gas. They can call themselves King and Queen or Frog and Toad for all I care. The average person would at the very least say, that's not a real marriage, if they perpetuated this framework for years and years.

Let's say they are together for 10 years and have half a dozen children. Then look at the scripture and decide they were wrong to elope without her father's blessing. And, for arguments sake, let's say he still disapproves and has not changed his mind.

What would you have them do now?

I would have them stay together. As I'm indicating by my own intentions, I would consider the optimum thing to do to be belatedly asking for the father's blessing if he's still in the picture. If the father refused to do so, though, what I would have them do then is continue to be married, taking care of all aspects of family business to the best of their ability and in as close to conformance to Scripture as possible.

I would no more have them split up than I would do what missionaries do with polygamists in Africa.

 

[FollowingHim]

Thank you for all of that clarification. If I can summarize in a statement and a question: I get that you are defining possession as being determined by who actually has the item or experience in question; are you also saying that, if something cannot be reversed, then ownership has been transferred?

I'll try clarifying that further - by definition, if someone has stolen something, and makes it their own, the crime IS that ownership HAS been transferred. Illegitimately and without payment, but still in reality.

The storekeeper could have lent the axe to your grandfather - in that case possession would switch to your grandfather (temporarily), but ownership be retained by the storekeeper. If so, no crime has been committed, as the storekeeper still owns the axe.

Also, if your grandfather borrowed the axe without asking thinking (rightly or wrongly) that the storekeeper wouldn't mind, possession has still changed but ownership has not. The storekeeper might be upset about it and ask for a smaller degree of compensation by way of a hire fee or repair for damages, but no theft has taken place as ownership has still not transferred.

So if ownership has not been transferred, only possession, no theft has taken place (although a lesser offence may have).

Theft takes place when ownership of an item is assumed by someone who had no right to that ownership. The crime can be rectified by the axe being returned (ie ownership being transferred back to the storekeeper), or the axe being paid for.

To separate possession and ownership with a woman: A man who hypothetically finds your daughter injured and mentally unstable in the hills and takes her home, assuming control over her for now because she's gone nuts and needs someone to take her in hand and he's got no idea who her family is, then guards and cares for her until she is well again, has assumed possession of her but not ownership. But if he then takes her as his wife, he has also assumed ownership.

If you're talking about the example of the man and woman who have completed a contract but haven't yet (or perhaps ever) consummated their relationship, then, yes, the woman belongs (is possessed by) the man in question, and they may call each other their man and woman, but that's just vocal gas. They can call themselves King and Queen or Frog and Toad for all I care. The average person would at the very least say, that's not a real marriage, if they perpetuated this framework for years and years.

Ah, but all we read in scripture is "this is my woman" and "that is my man". That's all "wife" and "husband" boil down to in either Hebrew or Greek.

Are you not adding to scripture and saying "but that's not a real marriage because it doesn't conform to the expectations I would have upon a marriage"?

I would no more have them split up than I would do what missionaries do with polygamists in Africa.

I agree. That question was in response to @Pacman, I'm very interested in his response.

 

[Keith Martin]

Also, by way of example - was Abishag King David's woman?
Note the wording I used, again my question is very specific.

Much more speculation exists about Abishag than could ever come close to what we're actually told in Scripture, but, yes, Abishag was David's woman. Some believe she was also Solomon's woman and the protagonista of The Song of Songs, but we do not know, and even if so the relationship with Solomon would have most likely ensued after David's death. Bottom line, though, nakedness was definitely uncovered, and if penetration didn't occur it had nothing to do with anything but impotence or collapse of David's physical system.

This is a case, though, where possession, ownership and consummation are all unclear, probably by His Design, right? In the sense of possession, one could label Abishag David's woman. By ownership, given the inheritance considerations, whether she was his woman in that sense is possible but unclear. The same goes for the consummation. We didn't get a blow by blow (pun intended).

 

[Keith Martin]

I'll try clarifying that further - by definition, if someone has stolen something, and makes it their own, the crime IS that ownership HAS been transferred. Illegitimately and without payment, but still in reality.

This is what I mean by a distraction. Either New Zealand operates under an entirely different set of law and order than the downstream of the Magna Carta or you are making up your own definitions and concepts. I've never heard anyone assert that a crime is a matter of transfer of ownership, and I've spent a lot of time in court.

Are you not adding to scripture and saying "but that's not a real marriage because it doesn't conform to the expectations I would have upon a marriage"?

No, I'm not. I would very strongly assert that you and anyone else who justifies two people who have no intention to consummate their relationship qualifying as being whatever-you-call it in an attempt to lump it in with what people throughout the ages would have recognized as marriage or master-servant or man-woman or whatever. As I wrote before, it just doesn't matter whether they call each other her man and his woman; everyone else is laughing up their sleeves. They're playing house, and we'd probably make a more legitimate case to label elementary-age kids playing house as being officially man and woman, because at least most of the kids who engage in that play have some idea that what they're hinting at is a sexual relationship.

I'll ask a similarly-ludicrous question: what if a spinster woman and her bachelor brother agree to buy a house together and sign all the necessary contracts and then live together. Wouldn't they qualify just as certainly as man and woman (you know, forcing ourselves to strut our Greek-and-Hebrew strictness into those two terms)?

Would you consider them man and woman? Would you consider them husband and wife? And, if so, in either case, when did the relationship begin? At the point of the contract? Or at the moment they perhaps inevitably cave into their carnal desires and uncover each other's nakedness, pretending to be a couple characters from Torah? Of course both of those are absurd; in that case, their relationship began the second the latter of them was consumed.

You're making me laugh, but it's not taking the discussion anywhere.

 

[FollowingHim]

And round we go again, and once again this is all really simple but it's only our attempt to answer the original question that is clouding things.

We know that a man and woman with a covenant arrangement but no consummation are together, in that she is his woman and he is her man. It's only the addition of the "but is that a real marriage" question, a question that is entirely hypothetical as it actually doesn't change anything for them, which clouds the issue. And what a "real" marriage is is at the heart of the first question we've asked, so we can't actually answer that until defining when marriage begins. So it's entirely circular and we can each assert one opinion or the other without any clarity being cast on the situation at all.

I still think it's the wrong question to ask.

 

[Pacman]

Let's say they are together for 10 years and have half a dozen children. Then look at the scripture and decide they were wrong to elope without her father's blessing. And, for arguments sake, let's say he still disapproves and has not changed his mind.

What would you have them do now?

What would you recommend for any scripturally forbidden union? The collateral damage is not relevant.

 

[Pacman]

isn't it reasonable to conclude, without scriptures contrary to that, that the harlotry nature of it tapers off somewhere in there?

I don't see that being supported.

If a man takes his sister do we assume that the incest nature tapers off somewhere in there?

 

[Pacman]

Does this mean you can point me to a Bible passage that tells us how we can recognize when it happens and what it means when God joins a man and a woman together?

I think I can recognize what it's not... Any sinful relationship is not what God joined together... Just a thought. Maybe? Possibly?

 

[FollowingHim]

What would you recommend for any scripturally forbidden union? The collateral damage is not relevant.

You're not answering my question. I've already made it very clear what my answer would be to the hypothetical situation I proposed. I also would not see collateral damage as irrelevant.

I am interested in knowing what your answer is, and why.

 

[Pacman]

I am interested in knowing what your answer is, and why.

Ezra 10

In your hypothetical scenario Both this man and the woman are behaving like pagans. They are now raising a generation of pagans taught by example to rebel against the authority of the father. And if they can just hold out long enough to have a baby then Yah will bless their union? No they need to repent and deal with the children the best way possible but that doesn't include continuing to live in rebellion.

I would no more have them split up than I would do what missionaries do with polygamists in Africa.

The attempt to equate this to breaking up polygyny families is BS there is no sin in Polygyny there is sin in this hypothetical situation.

I also would not see collateral damage as irrelevant.

It's irrelevant to the answer about what should be done. Your addition of children to the hypothetical equation is an attempt to tug on emotions. They should not be part of the equation...

 

[Keith Martin]

I don't see that being supported.

If a man takes his sister do we assume that the incest nature tapers off somewhere in there?

That is a good question, but there is a significant difference: a brother and sister will always be brother and sister, but an uncovenanted virgin stops being that when two things occur: she loses her virginity, and she stays with her supposed enticer. The sin was in the beginning. If a pregnancy occurred from that first encounter, it would then be a sin to murder the resulting child; it would also be a sin to separate the one-flesh, so somewhere in there continuing the relationship de facto ends the harlotry. No matter how long a brother and sister continue uncovering each other's nakedness, they will remain near kin and thus can't escape Leviticus 18.

 

[Keith Martin]

I think I can recognize what it's not... Any sinful relationship is not what God joined together... Just a thought. Maybe? Possibly?

Unanswerable -- especially until we discover the mythical passages that describe what it means by God joining them together and when it occurs.

 

[Pacman]

but an uncovenanted virgin stops being that when two things occur: she loses her virginity, and she stays with her supposed enticer.

Not if her father refuses.

 

[Keith Martin]

That is a good question, but there is a significant difference: a brother and sister will always be brother and sister, but an uncovenanted virgin stops being that when two things occur: she loses her virginity, and she stays with her supposed enticer.

Not if her father refuses.

If one assumes that the only possible legitimate covenant is between a man or his representative and the father of the woman or his representative, then you are correct. Are you asserting that the only legitimate covenant is one in which the woman's father gives his permission and the man pays the father a bride price?

 

[Keith Martin]

Let's say they are together for 10 years and have half a dozen children. Then look at the scripture and decide they were wrong to elope without her father's blessing. And, for arguments sake, let's say he still disapproves and has not changed his mind.

What would you have them do now?

@Pacman, are you answering Samuel's question by implying that you would have the couple split up?

Ezra 10

I find Ezra 10 to have, at best, a tangential association with Samuel's question or the hypothetical situations we've been discussing that inspired his question. We're not talking about foreign women here, and we're also not all Israelites beholden to all the injunctions placed upon them by Elohim. In the examples we've been giving, whether talking about people who are located in the present, identifying as Christians, imperfect as such, but trying to navigate the cultural waters that provide an entirely different set of guidance -- or Israelites located in the time of Exodus 22 -- either may, in fact, act somewhat like pagans, but they aren't entirely pagans, much less foreign women, and, I might add, in order for present-day Christians to entirely follow such edicts, they would have to relocate to Israel, formally convert to Messianic Judaism (at least) and jettison all of one's wives who weren't part of the Israelite Judaic culture, along with any children borne of those non-Israelite wives -- just in order to comply with what the men were complying with in Ezra 10. My suspicion is that Biblical Families would be down to a handful of members if we headed down that road.

So I don't see Ezra 10 as applicable to the conundrum we're discussing at present, which is, what can a couple who began without the approval of the wife's father do to repent and align themselves from that point forward with the Will of Yah?

[Note in preface of the next quote: I'm making the argument myself elsewhere on Biblical Families that 1st wives who interfere with the introduction of a 2nd wife are, at least to some extent, behaving as pagans as well as feminists, so I'm not antagonistic to considering the implications of practicing paganism, but we do have to maintain the distinction between harlotry and paganistic cult prostitution.]

In your hypothetical scenario Both this man and the woman are behaving like pagans. They are now raising a generation of pagans taught by example to rebel against the authority of the father. And if they can just hold out long enough to have a baby then Yah will bless their union? No they need to repent and deal with the children the best way possible but that doesn't include continuing to live in rebellion.

So, is it hopeless? Once a behaving-like-pagan, always a behaving-like pagan? Part of my reaction to this is that it may fully honor Torah but then again may elevate Torah to a position of consistently trumping the teachings of Yeshua and Sha'ul, because it smacks of ignoring repentance, forgiveness, justification and redemption. My real-life situation is rather similar to the hypothetical as you describe it: I was an agnostic when I married Kristin, and she was a lapsed Roman Catholic. We eloped. Her parents were furious and spent a few years making various attempts to break up our marriage, including unsuccessfully appealing to their church for an annulment on their daughter's behalf but against her will. Upon the birth of our first child, they settled down tremendously. Kristin took the boys to church, and we had them baptized (the latter of which I thought at the time and still do was meaningless), but I cooperated in her raising them as Christians, because I interpreted my own loss of faith as nothing but a net loss. During Kristin's pregnancy with Naomi years later, I regained my faith (thus her middle name). Since then I have been making large efforts to raise them in faith as well. However . . . certain patterns were pre-established that interfered with that to a great extent, most notably the fact that I allowed my wife to sabotage the discipline of our children, and they are all to one significant degree or another rebellious, behaving like pagans as you say. I have regained or more accurately finally established my authority in the family, and I work hard to correct what I can correct. But that is a dance and not just a matter of saying, "Oh, hey, I got my head on straight now, kids, so from this moment forward you will follow me in lockstep." Three are adults, and the other one is essentially an emancipated minor at age 17, planning to move out in June. Whatever the hypothetical example is, here's a real-life example. Is the only path to get right with Elohim for me to send Kristin and our children out of my life? Is that your interpretation of His Will? I'm sure you can guess that I'm not about to do that, but I promise you I am sincerely interested in your opinion in the matter. It's even something I've wondered about myself, because the bent of religious folks seems to go either one way or the other:

• The only path to righteousness is to reverse every wrong thing one has ever done; or
• Hey, don't worry about it; what's done is done, just repent and change your behavior from here on out.

The attempt to equate this to breaking up polygyny families is BS there is no sin in Polygyny there is sin in this hypothetical situation.

Actually, the folks who broke up those polygynous families were operating under certainty that doing so was righteous. You and I don't see it that way, but they did. I'm sincerely asking, given that you see your position as righteous, are you prescribing that same type of outcome: requiring, as in Ezra 10, the jettisoning of wives for whom no fatherly approval was given? What about if a bride price wasn't paid? What if anything about how the betrothal process wasn't followed properly? Should the wives and all resulting children be sent away? Should we, in any similar circumstance, determine that staying together is a worse fate than consigning children to be raised by single mothers?

You've probably already answered this in your comment about how the collateral damage is irrelevant, but I just want to make sure I don't misrepresent where you're coming from. I'm probably never going to make the leap to Torah Keeping, but I've been finding in recent months that y'all are possessed of a perspective from which I can benefit, so I consider it valuable to know where you fit on the Hebrew Roots/Messianic continuum. Does that make sense?

 

[FollowingHim]

I find Ezra 10 a strange passage that has no parallel elsewhere - hence why you're using it as your example. The point I can't get past is that God never told them to put away their wives. Nor did Ezra suggest it. This was something the people themselves decided to do as an act of piety, and Ezra went along with and coordinated. Maybe it was God's will - but we are never told that. And I find that an important omission to note.

Furthermore it was not the only Godly path they could have taken. Throughout scripture there are examples of foreigners joining Israelite families by marriage, converting to the faith, and being accepted as true Israelites as a result. Even men joining Israel and becoming highly prominent and respected - Uriah the Hittite for instance. The Hittites were one of the Canaanite tribes that were supposed to be eliminated, yet one of them became one of David's 30 mighty men.

So the problem was paganism. They could eliminate that by eliminating the paganism from the pagans, or eliminating the pagans. They chose to eliminate the pagans. However, we are never told that that was the only option before them at this point in history (many centuries after the conquest of Canaan and after many migrations that had changed the demographics of that region), nor that that was the option God preferred them to take. Just that it was the option they chose to take.

And as @Keith Martin said - that is irrelevant to us. We are not talking about pagan women and Israelite men. We are talking about Western men and women who mostly don't know what their ancestry is at all, but who are trying to follow God. The example is irrelevant.

A more relevant example is David and Bathsheba. Their marriage began in sin. Did God tell him to divorce her to remedy the sin? Certainly not.

 

[steve]

May I bring Michal into this conversation?

Cliff note version;
Given by her father, King Saul, to David.
Given by Saul to another man when David fell out of favor with Saul.
David required her return.
Broke up the happy home, no details about whether children were involved.
There is no indication that Yah was displeased with David over how he handled it. In fact, he was commended in everything except that which he did in the situation with Bathsheba.

There is more, but these are the salient details for this conversation.

 

[Pacman]

If one assumes that the only possible legitimate covenant is between a man or his representative and the father of the woman or his representative, then you are correct. Are you asserting that the only legitimate covenant is one in which the woman's father gives his permission and the man pays the father a bride price?

All I'm saying is if the father refuses then it's not a legitimate union. I'm not saying they technically need his permission. They just need his silence on it...

 

[Pacman]

are you prescribing that same type of outcome: requiring, as in Ezra 10, the jettisoning of wives for whom no fatherly approval was given? What about if a bride price wasn't paid? What if anything about how the betrothal process wasn't followed properly? Should the wives and all resulting children be sent away? Should we, in any similar circumstance, determine that staying together is a worse fate than consigning children to be raised by single mothers?

Not even close to what I'm saying.

 

[FollowingHim]

@steve, Michal is a good counterexample.
So with David, we have him starting an adulterous marriage with Bathsheba - not told to divorce her.
We then have that other man starting an adulterous marriage with Michal - is told to divorce her.
What is the difference? I suppose only that Uriah was dead and David was not. Maybe you could conclude that if you kill the husband you get to keep the wife? Not very helpful...

I'm not sure that these are directly helpful when thinking about the will of a father.