0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[The Revolting Man]

Not at all. Joseph and Mary are an example of a couple who are married without having sex. The fact that they later (at least 9-10 months later) do have sex does not change the fact that they were married without sex. Ergo the statement that sex is a part of every marriage in scripture (as in what forms a marriage) is false.

Not in the least. You make the false assumption that they were married in God's eyes during this period and not simply in that promised stage where adultery can still be committed. The fact that they were living and traveling together doesn't mean God consider them married and since ONCE AGAIN there is no mention of a covenant anywhere in this scenario (and there is eventually sex) I'm still not sure how you plan to use it against me. We have a married couple who have sex but no covenant but you're waving them around like some kind of proof text for a covenant based marriage. You can see why I get frustrated sometimes right? We have a marriage. We have sex. We don't have a covenant. But somehow this proves that a covenant is essential but sex is inconsequential.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You really should read the passage before making claims that are so easy to refute

Matt 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be† one flesh?

He very definitely referenced the Adam and Eve marriage and quote. Just not the entire quote. Wrong again.

Again, what he's referencing here is God declaring them one flesh, not Adam making the weakest covenant ever with bone of my bone flesh of my flesh. One flesh is sex. This is what is being talked about in Genesis 2:24 and what Christ is quoting in Matthew 19:4. Christ is quoting His own pronouncements in the Garden, which define marriage and not Adam's pronouncement which are descriptive but not particularly earth shattering in context. Your claim that Jesus is referencing Adam's "covenant" is balderdash. He's talking about His own one flesh pronouncement in Genesis 2:24.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It’s not there. One flesh never means sex. It always means family. Adam is not mysteriously encoding a sexual reference within the statement that she is his. This idea is something that pastors have tried to ‘wink’ wink’ imply for years but it has no scriptural backing.

Adam is simply stating that she is the beginning of his family, not that they just finished having sex. Leave and cleave does not mean to have sex but to join or be bound or commit. The sex is obviously a part of a marriage, but cleaving does not mean what you think it means. That’s a fallacy perpetrated by less than knowledgeable ministers.

So when you become one flesh with a harlot you've actually adopted her? Did you even read that before you posted it?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Do a study on bone of my bone And one flesh.
The instances you’ll find make it so obviously humorous that anyone could think it means sex except for the one place in 1 Cor 6 passage about a harlot. However, the passage specifically states that if you are joined to a harlot that you are one flesh. It’s the same word used in Ephesians 5 instead of cleaving and its always used in this context to indicate being married or in covenant.

I’d be more apt to fall for it being sex if it were impossible to be married to a harlot.

And you don't see where your logic just hit a circular brick wall?!?!?! You can become one flesh with a harlot by joining yourself to her? How do you join yourself to her? Superglue? Stem cells? Maybe you just follow her around all the time? No. You become one flesh with a harlot by having sex with her. Your entire intellectual canoe is wrecked on this same reef every time and every time you click your heels together three times and wish yourself away but your canoe is still stuck on the reef. If you join yourself to a harlot you're one flesh with her. That's sex sir. Unless you just are convinced that the passage is only intended for opposite sex Siamese twins where the sister is a slut.

 

[The Revolting Man]

See my post #132. The allusion is found within the confines of the last several centuries and perpetrated by men in our “Christian” culture with a predisposition and proclivity to both see and allude to sex whenever possible.

The definitions and usage of the word cleave, especially in the era of the translation of the KJV was specifically to lay hold on or to bring alongside rather than to “split” as in a piece of firewood or spread as in a pair of legs. It’s usage, definitions and the words substituted for it (as Ephesians 5 does with the word joined) Scripturally do not support its association with sex either in allusion or implication. One of the more humorous examples is Acts 8:29

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
IF kallao (cleave, join) is a euphemism for sex, then
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near and have sex to this chariot.

This is just one of many examples, every one of them utilizes and defines kallao as being joined either by association, covenant, employment, or ideology.

And here again you completely hit a brick wall because if one flesh and cleave don't mean sex what do they mean? We're never given an even remotely clear instruction on how to form a marriage in your world where believing men are entering in to some kind of non sexual joining with harlots that makes them family members. How do we form a marriage? It's a central tenet of the faith. Violating a marriage is major sin. How has God told us to form a valid marriage? What is this covenant? What does it entail? Who had to witness it? Why did our Righteous Judge leave us in such darkness about this crucial element of living in obedience to Him?

 

[The Revolting Man]

And still no one has dealt with the fact the complete process to forming a one flesh relationship is in Genesis 2:24 and reinforced by Christ Himself by direct quote in Matthew 19:5. No one is even talking about how our pet theories fit in to those two verses. Every thing we believe about forming a valid marriage has to fit in to Genesis 2:24 "Therefor a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."
That's it. That's all we have to work with. Can you fit your idea of how to form a marriage in to that verse? If you can't than your idea is wrong.
I'm calling you out @Verifyveritas76 . How does your idea square with this scripture?

 

[The Revolting Man]

No.

Why not?

 

[steve]

I would say that a father does have input into who their sons marry. God decided Adam was to marry and chose his wife, so did Abraham. I guess the question is, does a son having sex with a woman override that possibility?

Just as I do with every other decision, I put YHWH’s wishes first in deciding who to marry. But it is my decision to bring Him in.
But just as when Joshua and the elders of Israel made a covenant with the Hivites from Gibeon, YHWH didn’t negate the agreement, so the agreements/actions of a man are not countermanded by YHWH. Also, a father or husband signs off on any agreements made by the females under his covering, but the male has no such protections.
Numbers 30:3-8 (KJV) 3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. 6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard [it,] and held his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Not in the least. You make the false assumption that they were married in God's eyes during this period and not simply in that promised stage where adultery can still be committed. The fact that they were living and traveling together doesn't mean God consider them married and since ONCE AGAIN there is no mention of a covenant anywhere in this scenario (and there is eventually sex) I'm still not sure how you plan to use it against me. We have a married couple who have sex but no covenant but you're waving them around like some kind of proof text for a covenant based marriage. You can see why I get frustrated sometimes right? We have a marriage. We have sex. We don't have a covenant. But somehow this proves that a covenant is essential but sex is inconsequential.

Once again, Scripture simply does not corroborate your assessment of the events.
Matthew 1:24, 25
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took (paralambánō) unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS.

paralambánō to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self

The angel of the Lord instructed Joseph to take her to be his wife. He did so and didnt have sex with her til after the birth.

How could they not be married in God’s eyes if God told Joseph to take her as his wife? And then scripture records that he did.

As far as the covenant goes, scripture records that they were espoused before the announcement of the angel to Mary. In that era, to be espoused meant that oaths were given, covenants were made, kiddushin was bestowed, followed by a baptism showing the world that you were not your own, that you had been bought with a price.

So there was indeed a covenant.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And you don't see where your logic just hit a circular brick wall?!?!?! You can become one flesh with a harlot by joining yourself to her? How do you join yourself to her? Superglue? Stem cells? Maybe you just follow her around all the time? No. You become one flesh with a harlot by having sex with her. Your entire intellectual canoe is wrecked on this same reef every time and every time you click your heels together three times and wish yourself away but your canoe is still stuck on the reef. If you join yourself to a harlot you're one flesh with her. That's sex sir. Unless you just are convinced that the passage is only intended for opposite sex Siamese twins where the sister is a slut.

Not so. Your view is based on the assumption that sex equals marriage. That if you have sex, you must be married. Thus, in your view, if you have sex with a harlot you are now joined.

My view is that you can have sex with a harlot and not be married. In addition, you can also choose to marry a harlot and have sex with her. In my view these are two separate and distinct possibilities.

We know that it is possible to have sex with a harlot or prostitute without it being marriage 1 Cor 10:8/Numbers 25:1
We also know that it is possible to marry both a prostitute and a harlot as Hosea did.
We also know that to marry a prostitute or harlot was considered a terrible thing to do in the Old Testament and was explained to be an insult to the family of Christ in 1 Cor 6.

Your entire case is based upon this one passage. This passage, if interpreted as you do, becomes the single exception to the way Scripture defines its use and context in every other use of the word, thus becoming an anomaly.

I am simply allowing scripture to define itself and noting how consistent it is throughout its pages and allowing it to define my view of marriage rather than the reverse.

I’ll also point out that the same word (joined) that’s used to describe the relationship with the harlot is also the word used in the next verse (1 Cor 6:17) to describe the relationship with the Lord. “But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”. How can “joined,” wink, wink, be sex in one verse and not the following when it is used as a comparison?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Why did our Righteous Judge leave us in such darkness about this crucial element of living in obedience to Him?

He didnt leave US in such darkness. Rather, like so many other ideas in Scripture, it is presented so that IF you have eyes to see, you will.

I can appreciate that this is where you are. I have no problem with you believing what you wanna believe. But, I cannot believe it with you just because you believe it so passionately. You gotta have proof that can be explained no other way. As I see it, Scripture doesnt confirm or support your interpretation of this idea.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And still no one has dealt with the fact the complete process to forming a one flesh relationship is in Genesis 2:24 and reinforced by Christ Himself by direct quote in Matthew 19:5. No one is even talking about how our pet theories fit in to those two verses. Every thing we believe about forming a valid marriage has to fit in to Genesis 2:24 "Therefor a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh."
That's it. That's all we have to work with. Can you fit your idea of how to form a marriage in to that verse? If you can't than your idea is wrong.
I'm calling you out @Verifyveritas76 . How does your idea square with this scripture?

My view of marriage includes the idea that a man can join himself to a woman without having sex yet, and its still a marriage.

Your view of marriage does not allow that so you must assume that there is a deeper hidden sexual meaning behind every word thats really only representing an oath or covenant.

I’m beginning to wonder if the sex = marriage is not a result of the Catholics granting an annulment if the “marriage” hasn’t been consummated.

 

[PeteR]

No mention of sex in the first marriage,
Genesis 2:18-25, only after the fall is there evidence.

Mark 10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate

God creates a marriage. If it can be separated, it's not of God.

This doesn't say man can't separate it, it means man shouldn't separate it. Marriage, as an institution, comes from God whether entered into by believers or unbelievers.

 

[steve]

I am just going to cryptically throw this out there, and you can make of it what you want, but I have firmly established in my mind and in my heart and in my experience that a marriage to a concubine starts with an agreement to be married as a concubine for a period of time until such time as both parties agree that the relationship can safely be taken to the stage of full and permanent marriage. Or disbanded if the situation looks to be unworkable by either party.
It is a marriage regardless of whether or not horizontal activities have or have not occurred.

 

[Cap]

This doesn't say man can't separate it, it means man shouldn't separate it. Marriage, as an institution, comes from God whether entered into by believers or unbelievers.

I do agree with your statement, except for the part about unbelievers. I don't think they fully understand the meaning of a marriage in God's eyes. Heck I don't think most Christians understand it either.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Once again, Scripture simply does not corroborate your assessment of the events.
Matthew 1:24, 25
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took (paralambánō) unto him his wife:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS.

paralambánō to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self

The angel of the Lord instructed Joseph to take her to be his wife. He did so and didnt have sex with her til after the birth.

How could they not be married in God’s eyes if God told Joseph to take her as his wife? And then scripture records that he did.

As far as the covenant goes, scripture records that they were espoused before the announcement of the angel to Mary. In that era, to be espoused meant that oaths were given, covenants were made, kiddushin was bestowed, followed by a baptism showing the world that you were not your own, that you had been bought with a price.

So there was indeed a covenant.

We spent quite a lot of comments discussing the status change of a woman who is promised but not yet bedded. This is the category Mary fell in to during this period. And it's ironic that you tell me that the text doesn't support my claims and then immediately go outside of the text and use some extra-biblical account of what was probably a nonbeliever's idea of what the cultural practices were in that time.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not so. Your view is based on the assumption that sex equals marriage. That if you have sex, you must be married. Thus, in your view, if you have sex with a harlot you are now joined.

My view is that you can have sex with a harlot and not be married. In addition, you can also choose to marry a harlot and have sex with her. In my view these are two separate and distinct possibilities.

We know that it is possible to have sex with a harlot or prostitute without it being marriage 1 Cor 10:8/Numbers 25:1
We also know that it is possible to marry both a prostitute and a harlot as Hosea did.
We also know that to marry a prostitute or harlot was considered a terrible thing to do in the Old Testament and was explained to be an insult to the family of Christ in 1 Cor 6.

Your entire case is based upon this one passage. This passage, if interpreted as you do, becomes the single exception to the way Scripture defines its use and context in every other use of the word, thus becoming an anomaly.

I am simply allowing scripture to define itself and noting how consistent it is throughout its pages and allowing it to define my view of marriage rather than the reverse.

I’ll also point out that the same word (joined) that’s used to describe the relationship with the harlot is also the word used in the next verse (1 Cor 6:17) to describe the relationship with the Lord. “But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”. How can “joined,” wink, wink, be sex in one verse and not the following when it is used as a comparison?

No, my entire case is based on the text that says if you join yourself to a harlot you will be one flesh with her, one flesh being the phrase used to describe marriage in bot Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:5 ish, (sorry its late and I can't reach my Bible from here.) That's it. We have a one flesh resulting from a joining that only makes sense if it's sex because other wise joining is completely undefined.
So in this verse there is one clesh. There's no covenant, but there's one flesh. This is the verse that convinced me sex was marriage (a gross over simplification obviously ). I do not read this verse this way because it agrees with what I already thought. This is the verse that made me think it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Not so. Your view is based on the assumption that sex equals marriage. That if you have sex, you must be married. Thus, in your view, if you have sex with a harlot you are now joined.

My view is that you can have sex with a harlot and not be married. In addition, you can also choose to marry a harlot and have sex with her. In my view these are two separate and distinct possibilities.

We know that it is possible to have sex with a harlot or prostitute without it being marriage 1 Cor 10:8/Numbers 25:1
We also know that it is possible to marry both a prostitute and a harlot as Hosea did.
We also know that to marry a prostitute or harlot was considered a terrible thing to do in the Old Testament and was explained to be an insult to the family of Christ in 1 Cor 6.

Your entire case is based upon this one passage. This passage, if interpreted as you do, becomes the single exception to the way Scripture defines its use and context in every other use of the word, thus becoming an anomaly.

I am simply allowing scripture to define itself and noting how consistent it is throughout its pages and allowing it to define my view of marriage rather than the reverse.

I’ll also point out that the same word (joined) that’s used to describe the relationship with the harlot is also the word used in the next verse (1 Cor 6:17) to describe the relationship with the Lord. “But he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”. How can “joined,” wink, wink, be sex in one verse and not the following when it is used as a comparison?

I actually went back and read some of what I skimmed over. You really are very lost to be spesking so confidentally.

Of course the word joined is used to describe sex with the harlot and joining with God. That's the whole point of.the passage. If you have sex with a harlot you're mocking the metaphor God set up to mirror His relstionship with us. No we're not going to have sex with God but sex/marriage is the closest approximation that we can comprhend to that relationship. That doesn't disprove me that again reinforces me.
And you're pretty negligent in your claim that I only rely on one verse as I have directly challenged you to deal with Genesis 2:24. I haven't caught up on the thread yet so you still might have but either way it's still definitely more than one verse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

My view of marriage includes the idea that a man can join himself to a woman without having sex yet, and its still a marriage.

Your view of marriage does not allow that so you must assume that there is a deeper hidden sexual meaning behind every word thats really only representing an oath or covenant.

I’m beginning to wonder if the sex = marriage is not a result of the Catholics granting an annulment if the “marriage” hasn’t been consummated.

You apparently don't remember very much of what was said the last time we went through all of this. There is clearly a status change that happens with a betrothal. That is undeniable. But nothing irrevocable has happened until sex. There's no one flesh until the flesh has been joined.

 

[Cap]

...and you can make of it what you want, but I have firmly established in my mind and in my heart and in my experience that ...

This is the rest that I believe we can have today.

Ecclesiastes 9:9-10 7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Hebrews 4:9-11 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.