0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[Keith Martin]

Context of this is spiritual adultery. That's specifically worshipping foreign gods it's not just any sin but a very specific sin...

I think you're reading into what he wrote.

 

[Pacman]

I think you're reading into what he wrote.

Then he should be more clear

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not claiming anyone is without sin... Just saying that the idea we ALL worship a false god before worshipping YHWH is not true.

But we all have earthly fathers. You’re trying to ignore the question. Can another authority nullify God taking a person as a bride?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Then he should be more clear

I was quite clear. Can an earthly father nullify a conversion?

 

[steve]

I was quite clear. Can an earthly father nullify a conversion?

I don’t believe that a man can nullify the conversion of either his wife or daughter.
Somehow I failed to understand the depth of your earlier question.

But yet he can deny the choice of either of them to join another man. The penalty for his wife choosing to join (lay with) another man was stoning. I couldn’t find it, but I’m pretty sure that the ultimate penalty for a rebellious son was stoning. Would not that also apply to a rebellious daughter?
If the penalty of the law were more acknowledged, wouldn’t that make the daughter more likely to not rebel? More safe from being talked into following her feelings?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I don’t believe that a man can nullify the conversion of either his wife or daughter.
Somehow I failed to understand the depth of your earlier question.

But yet he can deny the choice of either of them to join another man. The penalty for his wife choosing to join (lay with) another man was stoning. I couldn’t find it, but I’m pretty sure that the ultimate penalty for a rebellious son was stoning. Would not that also apply to a rebellious daughter?
If the penalty of the law were more acknowledged, wouldn’t that make the daughter more likely to not rebel? More safe from being talked into following her feelings?

I don’t disagree with any thing you’re saying but you’re skipping ahead.

In the context of the metaphor that is the main purpose for why sex and the one flesh relationship are constituted as they/or are; can a father negate a conversion? The answer is clearly no he can not.

So since sex and the one flesh relationship are first and foremost a metaphor for the relation between God and His bride; what does it mean for the situation we’ve been debating in Exodus 22:16-17? Is the father in that passage nullifying a one flesh relationship or is he preventing the transfer of possession despite the forming of the one flesh relationship? The question is primarily for @Pacman since on this particular question no one else is as adamant as he is.

 

[Keith Martin]

OK, @The Revolting Man, please forgive me for adding this, because maybe it's what you've already intended to ask, but your question . . .

Is the father in that passage [Exodus 22:16-17] nullifying a one flesh relationship or is he preventing the transfer of possession despite the forming of the one flesh relationship?

. . . also begs this question: is one possible outcome of such a situation that the couple would remain together but that ownership of the woman would remain in the possession of her father until her father's death? Does Scripture address such a dilemma? Is this a situation in which the one-flesh man-and-woman couple (and perhaps their descendants) would be forever condemned?

 

[Keith Martin]

In re-reading Exodus 22:16-17 just now, I noticed a difference between :16 and :17 I hadn't focused on before: in :17, the enticer is required to pay the bride price in silver. Is that significant?

 

[Mark C]

In re-reading Exodus 22:16-17 just now, I noticed a difference between :16 and :17 I hadn't focused on before: in :17, the enticer is required to pay the bride price in silver. Is that significant?

Sure it is. The Hebrew word for silver is 'qesef'. Not coincidentally, the VERY same word that translates literally as 'money'.

Silver IS money.

And when Scripture talks (over and OVER!) about "honest weights" it certainly means things like grain, but primarily the medium of exchange, silver.

And, interestingly, albeit not even remotely coincidentally, back when we had a constitution, it was equally clear about what is money, and what is not. "Nothing but gold or silver coin shall be made a tender in payment of debt," and note that there is NO provision whatsoever (Art. I Sec 7, 8) to 'print money', only regulate the amount of gold or silver in coinage (which was once done lawfully, defining the 'dollar' in terms of grains of fine silver; now, it's a meaningless dimensionless fallacy).

But for a real 'mind-bender,' note that choice of 'money' (or actually, 'currency') defines 'choice of law'. His or "man's". You can't serve two masters, nor can we expect Yahuah to bless a 'choice of law' that He repeatedly calls "abomination" ('toebah' ) -- not only in places like Deuteronomy 25:13-17, but at least six times in Proverbs alone.

Debasement ultimately affects everything.

 

[Keith Martin]

Sure it is. The Hebrew word for silver is 'qesef'. Not coincidentally, the VERY same word that translates literally as 'money'.

Silver IS money.

And when Scripture talks (over and OVER!) about "honest weights" it certainly means things like grain, but primarily the medium of exchange, silver.

And, interestingly, albeit not even remotely coincidentally, back when we had a constitution, it was equally clear about what is money, and what is not. "Nothing but gold or silver coin shall be made a tender in payment of debt," and note that there is NO provision whatsoever (Art. I Sec 7, 8) to 'print money', only regulate the amount of gold or silver in coinage (which was once done lawfully, defining the 'dollar' in terms of grains of fine silver; now, it's a meaningless dimensionless fallacy).

But for a real 'mind-bender,' note that choice of 'money' (or actually, 'currency') defines 'choice of law'. His or "man's". You can't serve two masters, nor can we expect Yahuah to bless a 'choice of law' that He repeatedly calls "abomination" ('toebah' ) -- not only in places like Deuteronomy 25:13-17, but at least six times in Proverbs alone.

Debasement ultimately affects everything.

OK, Mark, but is :17 asserting that only silver money must be used if the father refuses but that some other type of payment could be used for the bride price if, as in :16, the father doesn't refuse?

 

[Pacman]

I don’t disagree with any thing you’re saying but you’re skipping ahead.

In the context of the metaphor that is the main purpose for why sex and the one flesh relationship are constituted as they/or are; can a father negate a conversion? The answer is clearly no he can not.

So since sex and the one flesh relationship are first and foremost a metaphor for the relation between God and His bride; what does it mean for the situation we’ve been debating in Exodus 22:16-17? Is the father in that passage nullifying a one flesh relationship or is he preventing the transfer of possession despite the forming of the one flesh relationship? The question is primarily for @Pacman since on this particular question no one else is as adamant as he is.

This is the problem with taking a scriptural command about how Yah's people are to behave and trying to apply it to pagans. Your point is irrelevant to the question unless the father is already an Israelite. Exodus 22:16-17 apply to Israelites. If a person is not an Israelite the first step should be to submit to and fear YHWH at that point this law begins to apply to their life. Stop expecting a pagan to behave like an Israelite. And stop trying to shoehorn this to not mean what the plain reading says. You can't put this in a nice neat little box. Yah doesn't do that and we shouldn't either.

 

[Keith Martin]

This is the problem with taking a scriptural command about how Yah's people are to behave and trying to apply it to pagans. Your point is irrelevant to the question unless the father is already an Israelite. Exodus 22:16-17 apply to Israelites. If a person is not an Israelite the first step should be to submit to and fear YHWH at that point this law begins to apply to their life. Stop expecting a pagan to behave like an Israelite. And stop trying to shoehorn this to not mean what the plain reading says. You can't put this in a nice neat little box. Yah doesn't do that and we shouldn't either.

Risking the shoehorn analogy but sincerely desiring to apply Scripture in a world that no longer is simplified enough to be able to tell if someone is worthy of doing business with because the equivalent of shaking hands no longer to grasp a man between his thigh and his scrotum, I have some simple questions, @Pacman:

• I agree that, at the time it was written, Exodus 22:16-17 applied only to Israelites. Similarly, Yeshua almost exclusively preached only to Jews, so, at the time he spoke during the Gospel messages, what he spoke applied only to Jews. To be an Israelite was to be a Jew. One assumes a conversion process is available, although I know some would argue that, to be a true Israelite, one would be required to be a direct descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the absence of that bloodline requirement, though, what must one do to make Exodus 22:16-17 applicable to oneself?
• You mention submitting to and fearing YHWH; is that sufficient for applicability?
• If not, what else is required?
• Is surrender to Yeshua as one's Messiah now required for Exodus 22:16-17 applicability?
• On the other end of your assertions, I have this question: are only Israelite unions joined together by YHWH?

I'm sincerely seeking all underlying truths here, but I have to disagree with you that Exodus 22:16-17, especially in its numerous translation versions, qualifies as providing a plain-reading slam-dunk interpretation of when marriage begins. I consider your perspective to be one of high value in this discussion, but you're not providing it when you throw out demands that your assertions be accepted without question rather than simply answering the questions.

 

[Mark C]

OK, Mark, but is :17 asserting that only silver money must be used if the father refuses but that some other type of payment could be used for the bride price if, as in :16, the father doesn't refuse?

"silver money" is redundant; silver == money. The father would certainly expect 'silver', or real money. He would thus be within his rights to demand such. But presumably he could negotiate.

 

[Keith Martin]

"silver money" is redundant; silver == money. The father would certainly expect 'silver', or real money. He would thus be within his rights to demand such. But presumably he could negotiate.

Would he have the same exact right in :16?

 

[Mark C]

Would he have the same exact right in :16?

I'm not sure what that means. But the context is a man who has seduced (or perhaps worse) a maiden. It's the father who the section says he must deal with.

 

[Mark C]

And as to "apply only to Israelites..." (or 'jews' or whatever...)

I guess I have a problem with the nomenclature. And the 'twisting' over centuries:

Many 'rabbis' tend to use the term 'Jewish' differently than those who use it as a pejorative. (And none of them universally correct.)

But, in every case where Scripture uses it (except in some really bad translations, where it also seems pejorative) it refers to something specific, often as a function of time ("Israel" before Solomon was not the same kingdom as after; in prophetic references it may sometimes be used with "Yakov" to indicate the same POSSIBLE sets of people, but with different spiritual/obedience/etc levels, and so on) or a function of whether or not people choose to be "grafted in". As most here should be aware, Israel and Judah (Aholah and Aholibah) are different references as well, but with a similar adulterous/idolatrous inclination.

The "Written Torah" (Books of Moshe, in particular, especially Devarim/Deuteronomy) were 'given' explicitly to the "mixed multitude" who CHOSE to live Mitzraim (Egypt) with Moshe, and become 'grafted in' to what later became the united kingdom of Israel under David, then split ("Israel", "Judah," with LOTS of other names, northern kingdom, southern, Samaria, etc, etc, thereafter) after his son Shlomo/Solomon.

But clearly Noach/Noe/Noah knew what were clean and unclean animals. Judah knew about the rules for 'levirate marriage'. Even some acknowledged pagans knew about prohibitions on adultery, if not necessarily MURDER, to steal someone's wife. (I just taught the story from Genesis 20 last Sabbath, it's a perfect fit here.)

Abimelech knew (or got the message!) that adultery was prohibited. But Abraham's rationale for why he did what he did (the "she's my sister" thing again) is that, "The FEAR of YHVH is NOT IN this place!"

And that, I will suggest, is the real key as to what from His instruction ['torah'] applies to a given people or person, and what is ignored.*

We CHOOSE to be 'grafted in', or not. We CHOOSE 'life or blessing, or death and cursing.'


---------------------------------
* Yes, there are instructions that are in fact specific to "when you enter the land," but those are well beyond people who won't accept His Word for even what is food, or not. Or much less what is marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is the problem with taking a scriptural command about how Yah's people are to behave and trying to apply it to pagans. Your point is irrelevant to the question unless the father is already an Israelite. Exodus 22:16-17 apply to Israelites. If a person is not an Israelite the first step should be to submit to and fear YHWH at that point this law begins to apply to their life. Stop expecting a pagan to behave like an Israelite. And stop trying to shoehorn this to not mean what the plain reading says. You can't put this in a nice neat little box. Yah doesn't do that and we shouldn't either.

Weak obfuscation. By that reasoning we couldn’t make heads or tails out of anything in scripture. You’re not even being accurate because clearly I would never try to apply scripture to a pagan. Obviously I’m trying to figure out how a believer would behave and for the last time you’re not talking about the clear meaning.

THIS VERSE DOES NOT STAND ALONE. That’s getting lost in all of this back and forth about this one verse. It has to integrate with other things in scripture and your interpretation does not, hence the sudden evasion and refusal to deal with a question. If the meaning is so obvious and plain then you should be able to explain how if God is a husband and we are His bride, why doesn’t He have to get permission to take us? Who okays our marriage with God?

 

[Mark C]

If the meaning is so obvious and plain then you should be able to explain how if God is a husband and we are His bride, why doesn’t He have to get permission to take us? Who okays our marriage with God?

He gives Himself permission. (He swears by Himself, too.) There IS no other.

 

[The Revolting Man]

He gives Himself permission. (He swears by Himself, too.) There IS no other.

Yeah but He’s also consistent. I get that escape hatches are convenient and I don’t claim that the question I’m asking will be the definitive nail in this coffin BUT I do think it can offer some insights in to the issue.

 

[Madeline]

I think it is very important to keep in mind throughout this discussion that Hebrew and Greek do not have a word for "wife". Only "woman". Eve was Adam's woman. Sarah was Abraham's woman. Hagar was also Abraham's woman. The English word "wife" also originally meant simply "woman".

Much of what we think about marriage has come from the mystification of marriage and ceremonies introduced by the Roman Catholic church, and largely continued by the Protestant church. We tend to see "marriage" as a spiritually mystical "holy matrimony" - but that term is an invention of the Catholic church. This means that we can get very heated and upset when someone challenges our view of when "marriage" begins, because we see marriage as an absolutely critical religious institution. But it never used to be a religious institution, it isn't one in scripture, it was a purely secular affair (no religious ceremonies involved). It has serious spiritual implications when it comes to defining what behaviour is sinful and what is righteous, I am not denying that, but it wasn't in itself a religious institution. It may be that we get so heated about this issue because we simply have the wrong emphasis.

One application of this is to the definition of concubine. If we see "marriage" as a religious institution, we can get very upset over whether a concubine is a "wife" or just a woman that a man happens to sleep with. But in Hebrew, both "wife" and "woman" are the same word. So both a "wife" and a "concubine" are women who belong, in one way or another, to a man, and whom he is legitimately able to sleep with without sinning. Neither is more or less "holy" than the other. The precise difference is still worth discussing, but not worth getting upset about, because rather than putting the artificial Catholic doctrine of "holy matrimony" into the mix and trying to decide whether concubines are "in" or "out", we can simply look at the practical implications and calmly consider the obligations of men to their wives vs their concubines.

So let's discuss when "marriage" begins - but bear in mind throughout this discussion that what we believe "marriage" is must be firmly based on scripture.

I could define "marriage" as being simply "a state where a man is in authority over a woman (as defined in scripture), where both have responsibilities to each other as defined in scripture (love, lifelong commitment etc), and both may have sexual intercourse with each other without sinning".

So when considering the issue of "does X form a marriage?", rather than thinking "does X form a mystical spiritual union?", it may be clearer to think "does X form a union containing authority, responsibility, and sex without sin? (termed 'marriage' for convenience)"

If someone else says a particular act doesn't form a "marriage", and you believe it does form a "marriage", rather than arguing this question as a whole, go back to the fundamentals. Ask:
- Does this act result in the man being in authority over the woman?
- Does this act result in the man and woman having responsibilities towards each other as defined in scripture?
- Following this act, may the man and woman have sex without sinning?
When re-worded in that way, you may find that you actually hold very similar positions, but were just using different terminology (one applying the word "marriage" and the other not applying it, but both seeing similar practical implications).

For instance, in Biblical times, if a man purchased a slave woman and then decided to sleep with her, she was generally termed a "concubine". Often people assume she didn't have a true marriage. However, the man was in authority over her, they had mutual responsibilities (clearly defined in scripture), and could have sex without sinning (no law against it, and no other man had a claim on her). So they were "married", and could be together without sinning. They might not have had the sort of relationship we would personally want a married couple to have, but that is not the question.

Note that I've discussed this question using the example of concubines in order to choose a "neutral" question that is not one of the three positions stated above. My points here relate to how we consider all three positions. I don't intend to debate concubines here as such, except where they inform one of these positions.

I am fascinated. I had no idea this was something people thought about or debated! So eye opening...