0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[Pacman]

Part of the problem is that we've invented this term marriage that doesn't exist in the Bible. Neither do the terms husband or wife. The Bible only refers to men and the women they've mastered. Yes, you can make a covenant with a woman you've mastered if you like. It's not necessary though.

I’m not sure the covenant has to be “with” her. God makes covenants throughout scripture based on his own will and in many instances (possibly all) the other party is simply informed of the covenant.

I am actually starting to lean more towards the “both” position and the covenant doesn’t have to be formal or even spoken. It can simply be a mindset that the man has when he takes or purchases his woman.

 

[Cap]

Genesis 1:28 he commands it.

How can gen 1:28 be before gen 2:18-25?

 

[Pacman]

How can gen 1:28 be before gen 2:18-25?

I’m not saying it is. Im just saying that while they were in the garden God commands them to have sex. Seemingly immediately after introducing the two of them...

 

[Cap]

I’m not saying it is. Im just saying that while they were in the garden God commands them to have sex. Seemingly immediately after introducing the two of them...

The point of the reference to the specific verses gen 2:18-25, in the creation of a marriage by God, there is no sex in that creation of a marriage in the beginning.

The discussion here is trying to claim that sex creates marriage. These verses say otherwise, which in my mind implies that sex is not a requirement to begin a marriage. And my further thinking is that God is the one who creates a spiritual marriage. We create physical ones that God may or may not find binding.

I do agree that a covenant, or vow, is the foundation for a marriage, and is consummated by an intimate relationship of sex.

con·sum·mate
verb

1.
make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse:
"they did not consummate their marriage until months after it took place"

 

[Pacman]

If sex makes you married what keeps you married? Obviously you cannot have sex 24/7 there has to be something else.
The something else is covenant.
The start of the covenant might simply be implied the first time he has sex with her, it might be a dowry paid to her father, it might be a verbal agreement, it might be vows exchanged at a wedding. But I believe it has to be there in order to actually be able to call her your woman.

I don’t believe a one night stand makes you married. It does however obligate marriage.

 

[Pacman]

The point of the reference to the specific verses gen 2:18-25, in the creation of a marriage by God, there is no sex in that creation of a marriage in the beginning.

The discussion here is trying to claim that sex creates marriage. These verses say otherwise, which in my mind implies that sex is not a requirement to begin a marriage. And my further thinking is that God is the one who creates a spiritual marriage. We create physical ones that God may or may not find binding.

I do agree that a covenant, or vow, is the foundation for a marriage, and is consummated by an intimate relationship of sex.

con·sum·mate
verb

1.
make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse:
"they did not consummate their marriage until months after it took place"

Understood I misread your post and I thought you were implying that Adam and Eve didn’t have sex until after the fall...

 

[Cap]

I don’t believe a one night stand makes you married. It does however obligate marriage.

But that obligation can be denied by a father, therefore not necessarily an absolute.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Beyond bogus. Scripture makes clear that Joseph slept with Mary. Certainly they were in a very unique state from Christ's conception until then but this marriage was consummated. You're straying close to early Roman Christians who wanted "married" couples to live in celibacy if they could.

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.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Christ does not refer at all to Adam's "bone of my bone" statement. He refers simply to one flesh. Your are essentially claiming that Christ is referencing Adam's alleged covenant

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.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I am astounded and frankly flabbergasted. I literally don't know how to respond to the idea that there was no mention of sex in the Garden marriage.

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.

 

[Pacman]

One flesh never means sex. It always means family.

This is another thing I want to figure out. I’m not completely sure what it means exactly. A lot of monogamy only advocates claim They know what it means. I personally don’t know for sure what it means.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is another thing I want to figure out. I’m not completely sure what it means exactly. A lot of monogamy only advocates claim They know what it means. I personally don’t know for sure what it means.

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.

 

[Cap]

But that obligation can be denied by a father, therefore not necessarily an absolute.

Sorry to push this further, but I was just sitting here thinking and it accurred to me, if a father can deny an obligation to marry after sex, why can't God our Father do the same?

 

[rockfox]

The real implication here is that sex is a covenant. Maybe you could say that marriage is formed by a covenant and that covenant is sex.

No.

Not at all. Joseph and Mary are an example of a couple who are married without having sex.

Were they married or simply betrothed?

One flesh never means sex. It always means family.

I don't agree with Zec but I find this doubtful to. For example, sex with a harlot in 1 Cor 6. One flesh is a very strong allusion to the penetrative act of sex as well as the resulting conception.

But that obligation can be denied by a father, therefore not necessarily an absolute.

Ya, it's a contingent obligation. But the important part of that passage is they aren't married until after the father approves and the man pays the dowry. Sex didn't instantiate the marriage (or marital covenant) in the instant, just kicked in gear the process of creating it.

 

[rockfox]

It's important to point out, my position and Zec's are not very far apart. And if we implement the injunction of Deut 22:28-29 (i.e. we hold marriage begin's when God says it should begin) the general result under either his view and mine on that passage is the same:

• the permission of the father required before marriage
• taking a girls virginity means you're about to get married (in practical terms, if not theological) unless the father objects
• dramatically fewer single mothers, damaged women, old maids, and divorces (and the attendant crime, poverty, and heartache that goes with them all)
• dramatically more men marrying virgins and having happy marriages

The difference is, that we have an awful mess at hand now to deal with as we work toward that happy future. And the idea of sex=marriage, besides being wrong, keeps men away from otherwise eligable women and puts up mental roadblocks that prevents fathers and churches from implementing God's will for marriage formation.

 

[steve]

Sorry to push this further, but I was just sitting here thinking and it accurred to me, if a father can deny an obligation to marry after sex, why can't God our Father do the same?

Because YHWH has reserved that right unto a father, but He never reserved that right unto Himself. Free will and all that.

Further thought; the father of the young man who lay with the girl also has no right to deny the marriage. Which would actually be more like YHWH’s position.

 

[Cap]

Further thought; the father of the young man who lay with the girl also has no right to deny the marriage. Which would actually be more like YHWH’s position.

Good point.

However, 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?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I don't agree with Zec but I find this doubtful to. For example, sex with a harlot in 1 Cor 6. One flesh is a very strong allusion to the penetrative act of sex as well as the resulting conception.

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.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’m not saying it is. Im just saying that while they were in the garden God commands them to have sex. Seemingly immediately after introducing the two of them...

Yes! First thing.

 

[The Revolting Man]

But that obligation can be denied by a father, therefore not necessarily an absolute.

This isn't quite as cut and dried as all that. We've talked about it before in the instance of the captured woman. Also the verse you're referring could simply be an exception for those cases when the father refuses to hand her over so that the man and woman aren't bound because of some one else's intransigence. The way it's written if a guy gets away with the girl and can retain possession then his marriage sounds like it could be legitimate.