-
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.
1: When does marriage begin? - Sex
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
Oops, you're right. Dang, I've avoided posting in these threads 'til now specifically because I remembered that the OP gave instructions to limit ourselves in this thread to a certain kind of reply.
I add this note only to deter further OT posts, unless and until these posts get moved to a new thread.
I add this note only to deter further OT posts, unless and until these posts get moved to a new thread.
Actually, I meant what I wrote, but my grammar and syntax were off. Here is how I should have written it: "The (inappropriate) messages are that having a Leave It To Beaver life is an entitlement and that we have no right to expect full adult functioning from anyone who missed out on that LITB entitlement -- and that we should applaud as supposed super heroes anyone who manages to resist the temptation to use having had a rough life as an excuse to stand on the sidelines."
I suspect your reconstruction is actually better, though, @mystic, because it uses far fewer words to make the point!
Thank you both for your gentle correction and your compliments on other aspects of my post.
Whoops! I stand corrected for posting at all in this thread. I suppose by the time I got involved I misconstrued it to be a forum for fine-tuning how Scripture supports that marriage begins when sex is involved. I never considered myself to be arguing against that position, because it's one I hold.
Before my previous post, I made the mistake of failing to refresh my page and didn't realize posts had moved to page 5. I will, though, cease and desist from here on out. I think it's pretty well established that Leviticus 18 supports the marriage-is-initiated-by-sex position.
Which sex position? I want to make sure that I actually married my wife!
Sorry, I am the OP, and I have also contributed to moving off-track...
Very interesting perspective on child sexual abuse trauma @Keith Martin. Thanks for posting it. Lots to discuss there, probably best in another thread, but it's very thought-provoking.
Very interesting perspective on child sexual abuse trauma @Keith Martin. Thanks for posting it. Lots to discuss there, probably best in another thread, but it's very thought-provoking.
I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out which position actually got us there
That deal was sealed, we are golden.
I know we're trying to get this thread back on track, but want to add a postscript that can then be moved with any block of posts that is used to create a new thread.
Angel rape is not the biggest takeaway from the story of S&G (and of course, neither is homosexuality, which isn't even on the list)—the problem was pride, plenty, and idleness. (Samuel already referred to this verse above.)
I don't find the appropriate understanding of "strange flesh" in Jude to be as obvious as Keith and Samuel do, and that doesn't really matter. I find no ambiguity, though, in a statement that "this was the sin of Sodom"; seems to me that's pretty clear.Ezekiel said:
And if our arrogant, overweight, distraction-addicted culture doesn't match this indictment point for point, I'd like someone to point out to me one that does....
I am only posting to acknowledge that Andrew makes a good point. My assertion about angel rape was far too unilateral. Amen on the pride, plenty, and idleness!
And I'd like to humbly said that apparently I was way off the mark on some of my understanding of the whole S & G story. The basics I've gotten from "church teachings." Other comments that really raised some eybrows on this thread were dots I thought I'd connected in deductive reasoning--again apparently faulty. Thank you for the discussions. If this goes to another thread, I'll be watching and interested. How I appreciate the interaction in BF!!!
This is just food for thought re: the stated focus of the thread. It may also be somewhat applicable to the thread on adultery. I was reading in Jeremiah to find some info on another topic and ran across these verses.
Jer. 5:7&8. How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.
They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife.
The topic is adultery and is not limited here to chasing the neighbors wife, but also includes hooking up with harlots. If sex = marriage, why would this passage include sex with a harlot as being adultery. Surely the harlot’s houses weren’t filled with the neighbors wives?
Jer. 5:7&8. How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses.
They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife.
The topic is adultery and is not limited here to chasing the neighbors wife, but also includes hooking up with harlots. If sex = marriage, why would this passage include sex with a harlot as being adultery. Surely the harlot’s houses weren’t filled with the neighbors wives?
Maybe it was separate incidents?
Maybe “and” was more of “and also”.
So far as I can tell there is no Ancient Hebrew word for marry. Words translated as that mean things like 'take', 'buy', 'woman', 'seize', etc.
Careful about the translation here. The word harlot here could mean (I'm not 100% about this) a woman who commits adultery; and that would be fitting of the context. All the more so since this is at least in part an allegory for the Hebrew's chasing after foreign gods (also likely literally true).
He's not making a point about brothel's, but rather making a statement along the same lines of "every one [man] neighed after his neighbor's wife' to highlight the enormity of the problem on the other side of the coin: the volume of men an adulteress was seeing. It wasn't a one time indiscretion.
However in echo of your point, in 1 Cor 6 we have another example where sex doesn't establish a marriage.
Last edited:
Marriage isn't referred as a legal agreement in the bible, it's clearly a commitment but even more so "he took her as his wife" implies she's his property without any form of government authority. Legal marriage didn't exist until a few hundred years ago. Biblically marriage isn't decided by a "feeling" its it's a choice.
The only refinement or further explanation i can offer with scriptural backing is the subject of Concubines. Men clearly had sex with them resulting in offspring and they lived within the home as a form of a wife but were not given this title. The society at the time would not recognize them as wives but they clearly were because of the act of sex or they would have been listed as harlots, but they clearly were titled concubine because they exclusively slept with one man. ex: "Judges 8:30-31 Now Gideon had seventy sons who were his direct descendants, for he had many wives. His concubine who was in Shechem also bore him a son, and he named him Abimelech.
Then there is the Bombshell of Judges 19 where it is confirmed that a concubine is married.
In those days Israel had no king.
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him.
If we look closely the term "her husband" is used to define a marriage has taken place.
Then there is the Bombshell of Judges 19 where it is confirmed that a concubine is married.
In those days Israel had no king.
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him.
If we look closely the term "her husband" is used to define a marriage has taken place.
Not even that long ago in most places.
If you look at the most ancient of cultures, it was a private agreement between groom and father. To the extent government was involved, it was only to prevent abuses. Think prohibiting unjust contracts not defining marriage. The Roman Catholic church eventually seized control of it; later giving it over to secular government. Thats a gross simplification of post 1 A.D history but you get the idea.
To hit on both Herbie and Sean's points; the meaning of concubine differed from culture to culture but the difference was usually a lack of contract or lack of social/legal recognition. It could also be an issue of status (royal husband & commoner wife or a slave taken as wife).
Amoung the Hebrews the difference was likely whether or not she had a contract. It was less legal purchase and more seduction (and Judges 19 is illustrative of this) or purchase (as in the case of slaves).
Last edited:
Be careful about making these kind of leaps. This is where English gets in the way of our understanding. The word 'marriage' does not exist in Hebrew. And the word translated 'husband' here is the word man/male. I might be wrong but so far as my limited understanding goes, I can't see that that word necessarily means husband. The conception is less husband and wife as "man" and "man's woman." It was more a connotation of possession; wherein authority over the woman passed from father to husband.
I don't know Hebrew or Yiddish, there are translation differences in this case. However context in this case does not change because if either wife or concubine is used the same Hebrew word for man or Husband would have been used so I don't understand why that would make any difference here unless your saying that a different Hebrew word would have been used here had it been a wife. Can you kind of expand upon your explanation here so I can have a much better understanding of this in the future. Is there more than one Hebrew word for Husband?