I hope it's not terrible to bring up this thread again. I can see there were some high emotions, but I also don't want to post something in the new thread that is more appropriate here.
I have just a few points.
First, it seems that there are three conditions to a marriage: eligibility, covenant, and consummation. The basis for this is already covered well in the former posts.
Next, the two verses most in question agree with this thought. In the case of vows, if sex= marriage, then the couple presented in the law (Exodus 22) would be married after having sex. If they are married, then the woman's father no longer has the authority to nullify her decisions. That authority would now belong to her new husband. But the scripture says her father does still have that authority. Clearly she is still considered his daughter, not the other man's wife. Sex does not equal marriage by itself.
The other verse is concerning sleeping with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6). Since Paul uses the phrase "one flesh", it is argued that sex = marriage. But again, this does not follow logically. If this "one flesh" referred to by Paul equaled marriage, then the prostitute would simultaneously be married to every man she sleeps with. She is not of course, and God leaves no room in the definition of marriage for polyandry. "One flesh", used on its own, cannot therefore mean marriage.
Both of these verses, looked at logically, tell us that sex on its own does not make a marriage.
It was said that Paul's explanation of sex with a prostitute matches other explanations of marriage. But this isn't quite right. 1 Corinthians 6 only says "one flesh". Genesis and Jesus have more to say than that. Specifically: leaving their parents home, cleaving to one another, and then becoming one flesh. 3 steps. I do not think it is coincidence that a marriage has three conditions, and is described in three corresponding steps. A man leaves his parent's household (where there are no eligible partners) cleaves to his wife (by making a covenant) and they become one flesh (sexual intercourse).
If using the term "one flesh" by itself meant marriage, then why wouldn't using the verb "cleave to" also mean marriage for the same reason? But that thinking would leave many verses in very questionable standing (quite the illicit relationship between Ruth and Naomi). All three steps must be present to make a marriage, not just one.
It has also been pointed out here that sex is a representation of God's relationship to us. Spiritually speaking then, if sex = marriage, then God would have no right to any of us that first gave ourselves to anything else. No idolater could legitimately be called His. We would be forever joined to whatever had us first. We know this is not the case.
I already brought up the example of incestuous relationships in the other thread. Another case where sex does not equal marriage.
Honestly, I had more. But this was a lot of reading. And I'm not sure anyone wants to come back to it at this time anyway . . . . .
I have just a few points.
First, it seems that there are three conditions to a marriage: eligibility, covenant, and consummation. The basis for this is already covered well in the former posts.
Next, the two verses most in question agree with this thought. In the case of vows, if sex= marriage, then the couple presented in the law (Exodus 22) would be married after having sex. If they are married, then the woman's father no longer has the authority to nullify her decisions. That authority would now belong to her new husband. But the scripture says her father does still have that authority. Clearly she is still considered his daughter, not the other man's wife. Sex does not equal marriage by itself.
The other verse is concerning sleeping with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6). Since Paul uses the phrase "one flesh", it is argued that sex = marriage. But again, this does not follow logically. If this "one flesh" referred to by Paul equaled marriage, then the prostitute would simultaneously be married to every man she sleeps with. She is not of course, and God leaves no room in the definition of marriage for polyandry. "One flesh", used on its own, cannot therefore mean marriage.
Both of these verses, looked at logically, tell us that sex on its own does not make a marriage.
It was said that Paul's explanation of sex with a prostitute matches other explanations of marriage. But this isn't quite right. 1 Corinthians 6 only says "one flesh". Genesis and Jesus have more to say than that. Specifically: leaving their parents home, cleaving to one another, and then becoming one flesh. 3 steps. I do not think it is coincidence that a marriage has three conditions, and is described in three corresponding steps. A man leaves his parent's household (where there are no eligible partners) cleaves to his wife (by making a covenant) and they become one flesh (sexual intercourse).
If using the term "one flesh" by itself meant marriage, then why wouldn't using the verb "cleave to" also mean marriage for the same reason? But that thinking would leave many verses in very questionable standing (quite the illicit relationship between Ruth and Naomi). All three steps must be present to make a marriage, not just one.
It has also been pointed out here that sex is a representation of God's relationship to us. Spiritually speaking then, if sex = marriage, then God would have no right to any of us that first gave ourselves to anything else. No idolater could legitimately be called His. We would be forever joined to whatever had us first. We know this is not the case.
I already brought up the example of incestuous relationships in the other thread. Another case where sex does not equal marriage.
Honestly, I had more. But this was a lot of reading. And I'm not sure anyone wants to come back to it at this time anyway . . . . .
