0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[FollowingHim]

I always interpreted it as referring to a man with his stepdaughter..

It covers her also - and that is important. It is why the law is written this way - the wording has been carefully chosen. If it only said that you couldn't have sex with your own daughter, we'd then be asking "why does the Bible not prohibit sex with stepdaughters? They're not blood relatives, so surely you can marry them? But might not that be abuse?" That would be a giant mess. So instead of only prohibiting a man from having sex with his own daughters, the Bible prohibits a man from having sex with any daughters of his wives - whether or not they are his.

This actually makes the Bible's prohibition broader so it offers more protection and covers all daughters in the household.

And there are men saying that there is no incest between father and daughter because she is his property.

Those men are simply wrong. But more than that, they are evil - twisting scripture to support their sin. That's what Satan has always done - he selectively quotes scripture to justify sin. Check out how the devil tempted Jesus.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I got to say folks, re-reading this just convinced me all over. Sex is one flesh and one flesh is marriage. Through out these 27 pages not one person offered the barest of scriptural process to form a marriage.

A lot of people threw a lot of mud but no one even had a potential explanation. I’m still waiting for this answer after all of these years. If I’m wrong then how does one form a marriage according to scripture?

Come on all you scholars, dust off your lexicons. Grab your commentaries and fire up your Bible app. Someone has to be able to answer this question.

A flea-bitten, chigger infested, uneducated, day laborer hillbilly from the unfashionable side of the Appalachian Mountains can’t be the only one with the intellectual horse power to postulate an answer.

 

[The Revolting Man]

 

[The Revolting Man]

 

[NickF]

I'll throw it out there but I'm too swamped to get into a huge debate. Been slowly pecking away at a paper on just this topic.

TTWCM is a covenant. Sexual fulfillment is permissible within this framework but sex alone does not constitute God joining two people together.
One flesh is sexual intercourse. But one flesh does not constitute the critical component of biblical marriage, simply a permissible action within marriage.

Sex is permitted within a covenant relationship, outside of that covenant it's not permitted. Sex is not a required act to fulfill marriage. If a man engages in sex with a woman, he is required to make her a wife. If sex made the marriage, he would have already married her and would not be required to make her a wife. Yah did not physically procreate with Israel and Judah, he still married them. Yeshua isn't going to sodomize me, but the relationship is still one of marriage. Sex is not required for the covenant.

The consequence for taking another man's wife was exactly the same as taking another man's betrothed. Covenant was made, price was paid, she belonged to a new man.

As far as I have been able to find, this above answer is consistent throughout all scripture. The sex making the marriage does not logically bear out considering numerous passages that seemingly contradict the sex=marriage position.

I'll let you guys duke it out and when I'm finished with my paper I'll be happy to share. I'd love to see a cohesive argument laid out, all your best arguments that sex equals TTWCM. I'll compare and contrast to what I've found and include anything you want to throw at the argument. It's an important one I think. And if I'm wrong, I need to get my position correct and in alignment with scripture.

I will say this, I think TTWCM in 2023 is not scripturally supported. The relationship described over and over throughout scripture is so far removed from normal "marriages" these days, that it's laughable.

I COULD BE WRONG, but everything I've searched out so far leads me to believe I am correct on this matter.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'll throw it out there but I'm too swamped to get into a huge debate. Been slowly pecking away at a paper on just this topic.

TTWCM is a covenant. Sexual fulfillment is permissible within this framework but sex alone does not constitute God joining two people together.
One flesh is sexual intercourse. But one flesh does not constitute the critical component of biblical marriage, simply a permissible action within marriage.

Sex is permitted within a covenant relationship, outside of that covenant it's not permitted. Sex is not a required act to fulfill marriage. If a man engages in sex with a woman, he is required to make her a wife. If sex made the marriage, he would have already married her and would not be required to make her a wife. Yah did not physically procreate with Israel and Judah, he still married them. Yeshua isn't going to sodomize me, but the relationship is still one of marriage. Sex is not required for the covenant.

The consequence for taking another man's wife was exactly the same as taking another man's betrothed. Covenant was made, price was paid, she belonged to a new man.

As far as I have been able to find, this above answer is consistent throughout all scripture. The sex making the marriage does not logically bear out considering numerous passages that seemingly contradict the sex=marriage position.

I'll let you guys duke it out and when I'm finished with my paper I'll be happy to share. I'd love to see a cohesive argument laid out, all your best arguments that sex equals TTWCM. I'll compare and contrast to what I've found and include anything you want to throw at the argument. It's an important one I think. And if I'm wrong, I need to get my position correct and in alignment with scripture.

I will say this, I think TTWCM in 2023 is not scripturally supported. The relationship described over and over throughout scripture is so far removed from normal "marriages" these days, that it's laughable.

I COULD BE WRONG, but everything I've searched out so far leads me to believe I am correct on this matter.

View attachment 4429

Fantastic. That’s at least an attempt. Naturally I’m going to ask where this is in scripture. Show me the covenant. I’d also like to know what constitutes the covenant.

In reality saying “marriage is a covenant” doesn’t even begin to address the question of how a marriage is formed . You’ve basically said “marriage is a marriage”.
How do you institute a covenant that then binds a man and woman together permanently?

 

[NickF]

I'll leave you with this question.

1 Timothy 5:5&16

Widows indeed... A woman with a child is not necessarily married. If she was a prostitute and conceived a child, she would not be a widow indeed because she was never married in the first place. If sex equals marriage, every prostitute would be married to the latest john in succession, an adulterer would be married at intercourse, a man who took a maiden wouldn't be required to make her his woman because she would already be a wife through sex. But this line of reasoning does not fit with scripture. Sex simply by logic, cannot equal marriage. A covenant must be marriage, or parts of God's word is made null.

God could not be "married" to both Israel and Judah if sex equals marriage.
He could if marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman. It works great if that covenant is sealed with blood which is why tokens of virginity were so important.
Simplifying to sex equals marriage is nice in theory, cleans up a lot of ambiguous passages. But it simply doesn't work logically as far as I can see.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Timothy 5:5&16

Widows indeed... A woman with a child is not necessarily married. If she was a prostitute and conceived a child, she would not be a widow indeed because she was never married in the first place.

I’m sorry but this isn’t clear to me. Can you explain it?

If sex equals marriage, every prostitute would be married to the latest john in succession,

Yes. This is precisely what 1 Corinthians 6 says.

an adulterer would be married at intercourse,

Grey area. I don’t know exactly what the status of the adulterous couple is if they’re not stoned. I know the original husband has the right to retain the woman if he so chooses.

a man who took a maiden wouldn't be required to make her his woman because she would already be a wife through sex.

You misunderstood this verse. When he seduced the virgin he made her his wife. It’s a done deed.

God could not be "married" to both Israel and Judah if sex equals marriage.

You haven’t read the first few chapters of Ezekiel or the Song of Solomon then. God talks quite openly about what He did metaphorically with His bride.

He could if marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman. It works great if that covenant is sealed with blood which is why tokens of virginity were so important.

And this would be great if we were told even once any of this was so.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

I'll leave you with this question.

1 Timothy 5:5&16

Widows indeed... A woman with a child is not necessarily married. If she was a prostitute and conceived a child, she would not be a widow indeed because she was never married in the first place. If sex equals marriage, every prostitute would be married to the latest john in succession, an adulterer would be married at intercourse, a man who took a maiden wouldn't be required to make her his woman because she would already be a wife through sex. But this line of reasoning does not fit with scripture. Sex simply by logic, cannot equal marriage. A covenant must be marriage, or parts of God's word is made null.

God could not be "married" to both Israel and Judah if sex equals marriage.
He could if marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman. It works great if that covenant is sealed with blood which is why tokens of virginity were so important.
Simplifying to sex equals marriage is nice in theory, cleans up a lot of ambiguous passages. But it simply doesn't work logically as far as I can see.

Nick,if marriage is a covenant then how can a man marrying a divorced woman constitute adultery? I think your failing to understand that although a man marries a woman doesn't mean it's always lawful for him to own her as his wife such as when Herod married his brother Philip's wife,then there are cases when a man marries a woman and it's immediately followed by a divorce such as 2 sam.13 with Amnon and Tamar and Also with prostitutes. I can give you all kinds of scriptural references where the context of marriage is a man going in unto a woman.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Nick,if marriage is a covenant then how can a man marrying a divorced woman constitute adultery? I think your failing to understand that although a man marries a woman doesn't mean it's always lawful for him to own her as his wife such as when Herod married his brother Philip's wife,then there are cases when a man marries a woman and it's immediately followed by a divorce such as 2 sam.13 with Amnon and Tamar and Also with prostitutes. I can give you all kinds of scriptural references where the context of marriage is a man going in unto a woman.

Interesting example with Herod. That needs further study. Thank you.

 

[NickF]

Nick,if marriage is a covenant then how can a man marrying a divorced woman constitute adultery? I think your failing to understand that although a man marries a woman doesn't mean it's always lawful for him to own her as his wife such as when Herod married his brother Philip's wife,then there are cases when a man marries a woman and it's immediately followed by a divorce such as 2 sam.13 with Amnon and Tamar and Also with prostitutes. I can give you all kinds of scriptural references where the context of marriage is a man going in unto a woman.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, j and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The putting away Jesus was referencing was for any cause. The vipers were trying to entrap Him. Jesus has an exception in there. Those men were putting away their wives for nothing, sending them out seemingly without a get, and those women were forced to marry, prostitution or die. The men doing that were causing their wives to commit adultery or die.

If a man sends his wife out for anything other than adultery, he causes her to commit adultery and is guilty of adultery if he marries one of those women.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, j and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The putting away Jesus was referencing was for any cause. The vipers were trying to entrap Him. Jesus has an exception in there. Those men were putting away their wives for nothing, sending them out seemingly without a get, and those women were forced to marry, prostitution or die. The men doing that were causing their wives to commit adultery or die.

If a man sends his wife out for anything other than adultery, he causes her to commit adultery and is guilty of adultery if he marries one of those women.

But your not understanding that the text teaches that the act of marrying unlawfully constitutes adultery and also think about His mention of eunuchs in this text.

 

[NickF]

But your not understanding that the text teaches that the act of marrying unlawfully constitutes adultery and also think about His mention of eunuchs in this text.

Ok, you’re right!

 

[rockfox]

Through out these 27 pages not one person offered the barest of scriptural process to form a marriage.

Here's a nice little bare bones outline... Exodus 22:16-17

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins."

Betrothal. Bride price. Virginity. Father's permission. Obviously there is more at work here than two random people humping.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Here's a nice little bare bones outline... Exodus 22:16-17

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins."

Betrothal. Bride price. Virginity. Father's permission. Obviously there is more at work here than two random people humping.

You are too smart to bring this old chestnut, especially as your first example.

First off this passage is expressly about two people humping. That’s what kicks off the entire scenario. They hump.

At that point he has endowed her to be his woman. Virginity is out the window. The bride price has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he even gets the girl. And there’s no talk of the father’s permission. It says IF the father utterly refuses to hand her over.

Even so, all of those other elements come in to play after he has endowed her to be his woman. This passage is about one specific set of circumstances. It’s not about forming one flesh generally.

 

[Off-gridinwv]

From reading many of these posts it seems many of you don't understand the difference between a betrothal and a marriage. Betrothal is the process a man has to go through to obtain a virgin from a fellow Israelite by paying a dowry to her father. This makes her his espoused wife by purchase. The man then returns at a set time and takes her and marries her by going in unto her which is sometimes preceded by a wedding feast. I want to call your attention to a couple scriptures: Deut. 22:22,23. Notice in v22 the punishment for adultery is for a woman married to a husband and in v23 it's with a virgin betrothed to a husband. Nowhere in scripture does it refer to a virgin married to a husband. The virgin is only said to be betrothed or espoused to a husband. The difference between a married wife and an espoused wife is one has had intercourse and the other hasn't. Now let's look at Luke 2:5. Notice that even after Joseph took Mary she was still called his espoused wife because he"knew" her not until after she had given birth (see Matt.1:25)

 

[steve]

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, j and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

The putting away Jesus was referencing was for any cause. The vipers were trying to entrap Him. Jesus has an exception in there. Those men were putting away their wives for nothing, sending them out seemingly without a get, and those women were forced to marry, prostitution or die. The men doing that were causing their wives to commit adultery or die.

If a man sends his wife out for anything other than adultery, he causes her to commit adultery and is guilty of adultery if he marries one of those women.

Ok, peripheral to the discussion, but something that I had never noticed before jumped out at me here.
With cause, (fornication) no Get was needed. “Be gone with your bad self!” was all that was necessary. Set her out on the curb.

But if you kicked her out for any other reason (rebelliousness for example), you needed to give her a Get if she was going to have to stay gone and would be expected to remarry someone else. (If you didn’t give her the Get, her resultant adultery was laid upon your shoulders.)

 

[Mark C]

Steve gets it. The so-called 'exception' clause is taught BACKWARDS by the 'whore church'. If she has ALREADY committed adultery, he can 'shalach' her, and any 'get' is his decision. (And, His - see "Israel," and Isaiah 50...YHVH gave Israel a 'get' - but He did NOT HAVE TO.)

Here's Nick's unfortunately too-xtian rendering, corrected as per the Torah, and what Yahushua was really saying, consistent with it. (Some English renderings do a better job, at least on parts of it.)

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, j and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away [shalach] his wife, except in the case where she has ALREADY committed adultery, and shall marry another, causeth HER to commit adultery [thus, he BEARS her guilt!] -- and whoso marrieth her which is [only] put away [but not thus actually DIVORCED, because she still has a 'living husband'] doth commit adultery."

This is vital to understand - because there is SO much 'twisting' of bad translations. And it's helpful to those who don't realize He NEVER changed so much as a "jot or tittle" of His own Word.

 

[Mark C]

TTWCM is a covenant. Sexual fulfillment is permissible within this framework but sex alone does not constitute God joining two people together.
One flesh is sexual intercourse. But one flesh does not constitute the critical component of biblical marriage, simply a permissible action within marriage.

Sex is permitted within a covenant relationship, outside of that covenant it's not permitted. Sex is not a required act to fulfill marriage. If a man engages in sex with a woman, he is required to make her a wife. If sex made the marriage, he would have already married her and would not be required to make her a wife. Yah did not physically procreate with Israel and Judah, he still married them. Yeshua isn't going to sodomize me, but the relationship is still one of marriage. Sex is not required for the covenant.

So far, so good - great.

"Covenant" is the necessary AND sufficient element (in the proper context - man and woman) to constitute a marriage.

But let's not forget what Scripture also makes clear:

The act of sexual union "consummates" a marriage. (See Genesis 24:67. Rivkah was ALREADY Yitzak's wife 'by coventant' since before they ever laid eyes on one another. To have violated her, on the caravan, would clearly have been forbidden, adultery. But note the order of events outlined in Scripture, this FIRST example in the Book of the specifics:
He 'laqach' her, ['took' her], guess what that means, and THEN "she became his isha/wife. AND - as I like to point out - THEN "he loved her.")

For those that can't deal with the Big Picture, without splitting hairs, I ask a question.

(Warning: Adult content!)

Is an orgasm required to 'consummate' the ''consummation"? (Yeah - and if so, whose? Both? Scripture is silent...)

It's not a flippant question. A male orgasm is arguably required for a sperm-egg union. (Exceptions seem to exist...) Any husband with multiple true 'one flesh' wives can no doubt relate to the VERY individual, intimate, and wonderful aspects of the feminine variant. But I can also personally testify that orgasm, while wonderful, fulfilling, and desirable, is not always either a necessary OR sufficient element aspect of 'consummation'.



PS>

If a man engages in sex with a woman, he is required to make her a wife. If sex made the marriage, he would have already married her and would not be required to make her a wife.

Look carefully at the original context and Hebrew. There's more to it. (The 'bride price' - and the fact that the father, if she is a virgin, has a VETO. And, note the cases where he is NEVER allowed to 'shalach' her (put her away). Wow.

 

[The Revolting Man]

"Covenant" is the necessary AND sufficient element (in the proper context - man and woman) to constitute a marriage.

A necessary element that’s never even mentioned in scripture? That’s never defined? That’s never demonstrated? Never described?

You worship a strange god.