• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

FollowingHim said:
@Off-gridinwv, I agree this thread should not be derailed into an argument over which version of the Bible is the best. But I am curious what you meant with your first statement, that this was not what God's Word says. The KJV says "covenant", the Hebrew says beriyth (which means covenant), and the LXX says diatheke, (which means covenant). So all three of the Bible versions that somebody points to and rightly or wrongly says "that one alone is God's inspired word" agree on this point. So I really don't know what you meant. Can you clarify that briefly?
Click to expand...
I’m starting a new thread. This is a fascinating passage on many levels.
 
FollowingHim said:
@Off-gridinwv, I agree this thread should not be derailed into an argument over which version of the Bible is the best. But I am curious what you meant with your first statement, that this was not what God's Word says. The KJV says "covenant", the Hebrew says beriyth (which means covenant), and the LXX says diatheke, (which means covenant). So all three of the Bible versions that somebody points to and rightly or wrongly says "that one alone is God's inspired word" agree on this point. So I really don't know what you meant. Can you clarify that briefly?
Click to expand...
Here’s the new thread discussing this mind bomb passage.

Meat - Thy Covenant Wife: Malachi 2:14

There has been a development in the ongoing Covenant Wars. For years now there has been an ongoing debate about what is the minimum conditions necessary to form a “marriage”. The consensus has always been that a covenant of some kind was required. A small but dedicated band of thrill seekers...
www.biblicalfamilies.org www.biblicalfamilies.org

@FollowingHim @NickF @Off-gridinwv @frederick
 
How do some of you explain away the fact that after Shechem slept with Dinah, he asked for her hand in marriage? How do you explain away the fact that Samson slept with a Philistinian woman who is NEVER referred to as his wife?
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
How do some of you explain away the fact that after Shechem slept with Dinah, he asked for her hand in marriage? How do you explain away the fact that Samson slept with a Philistinian woman who is NEVER referred to as his wife?
Click to expand...
It's easy to explain.
First, Shechem had no right to have sex with Dinah until that right was given to him by Jacob. If Jacob had given Dinah to Shechem first, she would be his and then the right to have sex would already be in place.
Second, Samson had sex with a random Philistine woman who he had no formal relationship with. Cheers.
 
frederick said:
It's easy to explain.
First, Shechem had no right to have sex with Dinah until that right was given to him by Jacob. If Jacob had given Dinah to Shechem first, she would be his and then the right to have sex would already be in place.
Click to expand...
Wait a second. That means sex doesn’t equal marriage. But…. But…. 😏
 
MeganC said:
If you were a woman you would not be so flippant about this perception.
Click to expand...
I was trying to add levity to a topic I’ve been extremely serious about. I’m not being flippant.

I am not a woman. My gender has no bearing on how seriously I take marriage.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
How do some of you explain away the fact that after Shechem slept with Dinah, he asked for her hand in marriage? How do you explain away the fact that Samson slept with a Philistinian woman who is NEVER referred to as his wife?
Click to expand...
How do I explain away the actions of pagans, rapists and a semi-apostate man child? For clarification purposes is that your question?
 
FollowingHim said:
To structure this clearly, I have started several threads, each with a specific purpose.

0) This thread is for general discussion, keep debate to a minimum but if it must happen it goes here. If in doubt, post here. This is the primary discussion thread.

Then I have three additional threads that exist simply to collate the scriptural evidence supporting each position. No discussion of other positions is to occur in those threads. Each should ultimately have each point made once, comprehensively but efficiently, so they are quick to read while carefully elaborating the position. To achieve this, I will delete any posts that stray off-topic, and may do some trimming if some points become too repetitive.

I see four basic answers to "When does marriage begin?", and I have a thread for each position.
1) Sex forms a marriage (if you have sex you are married by default, unless you were ineligible to marry)
2) Covenant forms a marriage (marriage is formed by contract / agreement / covenant / consent, sex may then occur within marriage)
3) Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)
4) Both form a marriage (only once you have a covenant, and have consummated it with sex, are you married).
Click to expand...
My opinion is that it begins at the betrothal, that is to say, it begins with a promise. Him: "Will you be my wife?" Her: "Yes." The rest is an expression of that vow with the caveat that Dad knew about it and approved it (Nm. 30:1-16). This is the best way in my view. Ways of expressing the vow changed during the nomadic to agricultural to village stages of Israelite life and even further into the Middle ages when marriage became a sacrament. However, in the beginning, what made them married was the 'yes', and the implication there, in my view, was that the 'yes' was 'yes, let's make a family together.' The familial structure and expressions are a result of the vow which binds them in marriage. In contra-hallmark fashion, this 'contractual bond' is what made it marriage. The party is what made it a wedding :)

I believe this because Dt. 22:23-24 calls a betrothed woman a wife and a man can be charged with adultery for sleeping with her. It can't be reduced to sex, because Dt. 22:28 speaks only of the couple having sex and then being 'found out,' which would require the marriage arrangement. If they aren't found out, marriage isn't required, which means they aren't married by having sex. I believe this law infers a regular sexual relationship as well. It's not mere possession, because that form of marriage is concubinage since it is without betrothal (kiddushin) and its subsequent marriage benefits (ketubbah). Therefore, marriage at its conception is the first step of betrothal.
 
smilingjack said:
My opinion is that it begins at the betrothal, that is to say, it begins with a promise. Him: "Will you be my wife?" Her: "Yes." The rest is an expression of that vow with the caveat that Dad knew about it and approved it (Nm. 30:1-16). This is the best way in my view. Ways of expressing the vow changed during the nomadic to agricultural to village stages of Israelite life and even further into the Middle ages when marriage became a sacrament. However, in the beginning, what made them married was the 'yes', and the implication there, in my view, was that the 'yes' was 'yes, let's make a family together.' The familial structure and expressions are a result of the vow which binds them in marriage. In contra-hallmark fashion, this 'contractual bond' is what made it marriage. The party is what made it a wedding :)

I believe this because Dt. 22:23-24 calls a betrothed woman a wife and a man can be charged with adultery for sleeping with her. It can't be reduced to sex, because Dt. 22:28 speaks only of the couple having sex and then being 'found out,' which would require the marriage arrangement. If they aren't found out, marriage isn't required, which means they aren't married by having sex. I believe this law infers a regular sexual relationship as well. It's not mere possession, because that form of marriage is concubinage since it is without betrothal (kiddushin) and its subsequent marriage benefits (ketubbah). Therefore, marriage at its conception is the first step of betrothal.
Click to expand...
I’d like to welcome you personally to the Biblical Families Jousting Tournament where every day is a battle and usually the same battle. Saddle up!
 
smilingjack said:
My opinion is that it begins at the betrothal, that is to say, it begins with a promise. Him: "Will you be my wife?" Her: "Yes." The rest is an expression of that vow with the caveat that Dad knew about it and approved it (Nm. 30:1-16). This is the best way in my view. Ways of expressing the vow changed during the nomadic to agricultural to village stages of Israelite life and even further into the Middle ages when marriage became a sacrament. However, in the beginning, what made them married was the 'yes', and the implication there, in my view, was that the 'yes' was 'yes, let's make a family together.' The familial structure and expressions are a result of the vow which binds them in marriage. In contra-hallmark fashion, this 'contractual bond' is what made it marriage. The party is what made it a wedding :)

I believe this because Dt. 22:23-24 calls a betrothed woman a wife and a man can be charged with adultery for sleeping with her. It can't be reduced to sex, because Dt. 22:28 speaks only of the couple having sex and then being 'found out,' which would require the marriage arrangement. If they aren't found out, marriage isn't required, which means they aren't married by having sex. I believe this law infers a regular sexual relationship as well. It's not mere possession, because that form of marriage is concubinage since it is without betrothal (kiddushin) and its subsequent marriage benefits (ketubbah). Therefore, marriage at its conception is the first step of betrothal.
Click to expand...
Well I really thought it began with, "I'll take THAT one!" and the rest is a contractual fulfillment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top