1: When does marriage begin? - Sex

[Keith Martin]

I would have to dig through the archives to find the thread, and we all know I'm not going to and it would be pointless too because it was the MOST EPIX BF thread of all time it would take hours to dig through, but Paul makes it pretty clear that sex with a harlot does form a "one flesh" relationship and he uses the exact same phrase that Jesus uses when he addresses marriage and quotes the Old Testament.

Here it is:

I Cor. 6:15,16: In the context of explaining the gravity of what it means to be a member of the Body of Christ, Paul invokes prostitution to refer to that which one should avoid, continuing [CLNT], "Or are you not aware that he who joins a prostitute is one body? For, He [Yahweh] is averring, the two will be one flesh."

 

[Keith Martin]

My son uses an online bible and concordance a lot, and it is quick and has other advantages. I still prefer the paper concordance and am glad we have it. There are other advantages that it has over digital....like the visual impact of seeing the quantity of words....or the list from the same word.

All I can say is, Amen, Hallelujah. Hard copy wins hands down. imn-s-ho.

 

[Keith Martin]

Gynecology. There, I fixed it for you. You're welcome

Check out this link: https://www.drmortons.co.uk/blog/the-etymology-of-gynaecology-or-is-it-gynecology/, where he explains the etymology of the word that, loosely translated, means the study of the environmental regions of the woman.

I also looked up the Hebrew word for woman transliterated as ishˑshah, which, as everyone knows (even the Anglo-SexFiends) is properly translated as "possessor of an ish," from which we discover the linguistic connection between that and 'fish'.

Ish and fish. If only Dr. Seuss were around when we needed him!

;^j

 

[FollowingHim]

Limited time, two brief comments:

Also, while you are technically correct about there being no Hebrew word for marry, I think you and @FollowingHim are focusing down too hard on individual words. In order to glean truth from Scripture, we always have to take context into account, most especially the context of related words in a sentence that naturally modify each other.

I agree, which is why in my own post I deliberately mentioned two members who had the scholarly ability to tell me if I was getting anything wrong, to bring this to their attention!
However even with this contextual consideration, we are still left with the word being "man" or "woman", and the context just meaning "her man" or "his woman". It is legitimate to translate these as "husband" or "wife" in English. But it is valuable to know the original construction of the terms, because they do put a different tone on the entire issue.

I also looked up the Hebrew word for woman transliterated as ishˑshah, which, as everyone knows (even the Anglo-SexFiends) is properly translated as "possessor of an ish,"

Everyone doesn't know that, I haven't spotted it in any lexicon I've looked at before, but I could have missed it. Could you provide a reference for this translation?
Edit: Oh, it was a joke. My mistake!

 

[rockfox]

Could you please explain your understanding of how I Cor. 6 asserts that sex doesn't establish a marriage?

Because it doesn't speak of it as if a marriage was created. The passage would read totally different if that was the case. Nor would that make any sense considering I haven't seen any evidence that the Jews or the Greeks or the early Christians believed sex triggered a marriage and lots to the contrary.

 

[Keith Martin]

Because it doesn't speak of it as if a marriage was created. The passage would read totally different if that was the case. Nor would that make any sense considering I haven't seen any evidence that the Jews or the Greeks or the early Christians believed sex triggered a marriage and lots to the contrary.

Well, instead of just saying that, I think you owe it to us to give us a sampling of "lots to the contrary," sir.

And how differently would it need to read in I Cor. 6 to "speak of it as if a marriage" were created than to say, as it does, in verse 16?: "Or are you not aware that he who joins a prostitute is one body? For, He [Yahweh] is averring, the two will be one flesh." [CLNT]

 

[rockfox]

I agree, which is why in my own post I deliberately mentioned two members who had the scholarly ability to tell me if I was getting anything wrong, to bring this to their attention!
However even with this contextual consideration, we are still left with the word being "man" or "woman", and the context just meaning "her man" or "his woman". It is legitimate to translate these as "husband" or "wife" in English. But it is valuable to know the original construction of the terms, because they do put a different tone on the entire issue.

Agreed. It could mean in English either man or husband. The only way to know which is from the context. It's a translation decision; which is why I point to the lexicons and not any one translation; and specifically the BDB at that link. Part of my point was, don't hang your theological point on an arbitrary translation decision. The other part is, look very carefully at the underlying language. We don't have much scripture to go on with this issue and the translation could easily mislead. Looking at the original language and other info about the culture will shed a lot more light on things. What they did. How they thought. A lot of this comes to paradigm.

 

[eye4them]

@Keith Martin, it seems to me there could be no such woman as a harlot/prostitute if sex constituted beginning/continuing a marriage, or adultery. That is, how could there be a harlot if her second customer was an adulterer? Should she not be called an adulteress and not harlot? Some time ago, I responded to a question (here; http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/germania-tacitus.13724/#post-154278) concerning harlots. Please see my two posts after that for further discussion of these matters.

 

[Keith Martin]

@Keith Martin, it seems to me there could be no such woman as a harlot/prostitute if sex constituted beginning/continuing a marriage, or adultery. That is, how could there be a harlot if her second customer was an adulterer? Should she not be called an adulteress and not harlot? Some time ago, I responded to a question (here; http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/germania-tacitus.13724/#post-154278) concerning harlots. Please see my two posts after that for further discussion of these matters.

Thanks for directing me there -- it was an interesting thread from start to finish. Much food for thought, and it inspires me to put some more thought into how Scripture differentiates who does and doesn't count when it comes to defining sexual interaction as counting or not counting as adultery.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It kind of reminds me of the Nazarite vows. I always thought that a Nazarite vow was for life, just like marriage. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the lifetime vows were a rarity, but a abbreviated version of them was much more common and was typically vowed to the end of the year or Feast of Trumpets. The difference between the two was intent and term length. I think its the same with marriage.

IMO, its a good, better, best scenario.

Sex alone can constitute and initiate marriage as long as that is the intent between the two of them. This is a good scenario. There’s nothing wrong with this approach provided that one party doesnt try to make it mean something that the other doesnt or hasn’t agreed to. It seems that this is the crux of the matter re: the harlot. Her intent is to exchange sex for something she needs, usually for a very limited time frame. This is the term of the (probably verbal) “contract” or covenant. For a man to think or assert that she’s married to him because he paid her to have sex seems . . . . Odd to say the least. Her intent is not to sell herself as a slave/servant/concubine for life, but only to lease her assets for a set time. OTOH, a man and woman who make some sort of pledge or indicate their intent to marry and then have sex appear to me to be married. Not because of the sex, but because of the intent associated with the sex.

Sex with a written covenant is an even better scenario as it creates an actual contract/covenant where the terms and conditions or expectations are written out. Especially if there are witnesses besides God. In this scenario, intent is not left to chance or memory or the whim of disgruntled spouse.

Sex with a written covenant, witnesses besides and including God, and the blessings of the Father is the best scenario. Here everyone is on the same page and apparently approving of the match and willing to help and bless any way they can. Intent is blatantly aware to any and everyone.

It seems that this debate has drug on because we have argued each position as being either right or wrong when in reality, they are each an acceptable form of marriage, provided that each party intends it to be marriage. They differ not in right or wrong, but in degrees of provable intent, with the best scenario providing each party with the most protection based on demonstrated intent.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I've still never had anyone show me what does make a marriage in scripture. There is no talk of covenants. There are no contracts. There is nothing but a man taking a woman. What is the one thing that sets the relationship between a "husband' and a "wife"? It's sex. I think we're over complicating things.

 

[Keith Martin]

I've still never had anyone show me what does make a marriage in scripture. There is no talk of covenants. There are no contracts. There is nothing but a man taking a woman. What is the one thing that sets the relationship between a "husband' and a "wife"? It's sex. I think we're over complicating things.

There's also something to be said for sex being the hands-down paramount reason why people get married: sex and its bonding, procreative, satisfying and relieving properties. Absent that, how often would men and women form permanent relationships? Like the Doobie Brothers sang, "Without love [and they meant sex], where would you be now?" Without sex, most of us guys would mostly just sustain life-long friendships with other guys; after all, they'd be far easier to comprehend. And the girls, what would they do if it weren't for sex? Hell if I know!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I've still never had anyone show me what does make a marriage in scripture. There is no talk of covenants. There are no contracts. There is nothing but a man taking a woman. What is the one thing that sets the relationship between a "husband' and a "wife"? It's sex. I think we're over complicating things.

I’m not sure if anyone else did it correctly, but here’s how God did it.
Ezekiel 16:8
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

 

[cnystrom]

I’m not sure if anyone else did it correctly, but here’s how God did it.
Ezekiel 16:8
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

I like it!

It echos Ruth Chapter 3, too, except in that case Ruth was proposing marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I’m not sure if anyone else did it correctly, but here’s how God did it.
Ezekiel 16:8
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

That's a great passage. It might lack a few of the details I would like to see before I built a major theology around marriage but I do like what it says. Of course spreading his skirt over her and covering her nakedness could be euphemisms for sex. I tend to think they are. The whole passage starts off with God noting that her time was the time of love. It almost appears that the sex came before the covenant. Actually I think that it did.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness.

Come on, this is sex! God starts with his relationship noting she is in the time of love and so He covers her nakedness WITH HIS BODY. Sex begins this thing and that is entering into a covenant, what we call marriage. Excuse me while I do the insufferable know it all happy dance.

 

[FollowingHim]

@ZecAustin, of course that part refers to sex (or in this case whatever the spiritual parallel of it is).
And of course the next bit refers to a covenant, that involved "swearing unto thee", so was additional to the sex (yes, you could do the two simultaneously, sounds a lot more fun than swearing fully-clothed in front of a preacher, but they're still two separate things...).
He did both. And after both, he says "thou becamest mine".

Anybody can selectively read just the bit they like and do a know-it-all happy-dance if they want to. Have fun. But once you're finished, read it again and take note of the fact that both aspects are clearly, deliberately and separately mentioned.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@ZecAustin, of course that part refers to sex (or in this case whatever the spiritual parallel of it is).
And of course the next bit refers to a covenant, that involved "swearing unto thee", so was additional to the sex (yes, you could do the two simultaneously, sounds a lot more fun than swearing fully-clothed in front of a preacher, but they're still two separate things...).
He did both. And after both, he says "thou becamest mine".

Anybody can selectively read just the bit they like and do a know-it-all happy-dance if they want to. Have fun. But once you're finished, read it again and take note of the fact that both aspects are clearly, deliberately and separately mentioned.

But what started it? It started with sex. Sex formed the marriage and everything else came after that. Can you hear that faint music? Listen carefully, it says "YOU MAKE ME FEEL LIKE DANCING!!!! I'M GOING DANCE THE NIGHT AWAY! DANCING, YEAH! "

 

[Verifyveritas76]

@ZecAustin, just as you have pointed out the obvious fact that it seems that everything started with sex, allow me to point out an additional obvious fact that God doesnt say that she was his until after he had sworn to her and entered a covenant with her.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@ZecAustin, just as you have pointed out the obvious fact that it seems that everything started with sex, allow me to point out an additional obvious fact that God doesnt say that she was his until after he had sworn to her and entered a covenant with her.

Which she became after He had sex with her....does anyone hear a mid-seventies pop super band in the background....?