• 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.

When is a marriage a 'Marriage'?

TonyClayton said:
I cannot agree that the 'consent' has anything to do with the marriage, or the becoming one flesh. That is purely sexual.
Click to expand...
I do not agree that a woman who was seduced (Exodus 22:16-17) or raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) has to marry the man without her consent. The Scriptures show that a woman must consent to a marriage, so I believe that also applies to these commandments for marriage. If you'll carefully notice, it is the man who is commanded to marry the woman. Perhaps that is because he is the one who has put her in a terrible position and has done something that should only be for a covenant relationship of marriage.

Examples in Scripture that demonstrate that a woman is to consent to marriage are:
Then they called Rebekah and said to her, "Will you go with this man?" And she said, "I will go." (Genesis 24:58, NASB)
Click to expand...
and, from this week's Torah portion,
This is what the LORD has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, 'Let them marry whom they wish; only they must marry within the family of the tribe of their father.' (Numbers 36:6, NASB)
Click to expand...
Does that prove my point to you? I hope I have been clear enough.

Now, for some personal insight. My wife abandoned me nearly five years ago after becoming pregnant with our little girl, Adeline. We were never married, but we were living together and planning a future together. We had the blessing of our families, but she never took a vow with me. I really don't think it is necessary for her to vow to me, for her decision to come and live with me and start building a family is "good enough". If a woman goes that far I think that most elders would rule that she has consented to the marriage. It might not actually be a marriage per se, but it is at least a pilegesh (concubine) relationship.

A woman that a man has a short sexual relationship with would, in most cases, still have to verbally consent to the marriage. But, I am not a Torah scholar and I am prone to many mistakes. If a woman were to start living with her lover then, in many cases, that might indicate consent as well.
 
There were other thoughts I was hoping to post, but forgot in my last post, so please allow me to post them here.

I object to the idea that the 'consent' or 'commitment' is a condition of a marriage taking place. Although commitment is ideal, it has no function whatsoever in making the two into one flesh. My point is that God joins together, not man, because let not man separate what God has joined. How does God join? Through a commitment? That commitment is man, not God. God only joins through intercourse - as Paul says, know ye not that the two become one flesh (talking of a harlot in saying we should not seek to have intercourse with harlots - because in spite of no commitment, you still become one flesh!) We agree that intercourse is the actual marriage,

By what mechanism, then, is intercourse rendered null and void if there is no commitment?

It begs the question, how do you measure the commitment? Surely there are many levels of commitment possible. How does one realise that one has reached the thresh hold?

Then the other question - what if they do not get the commitment of the ex- to allow this new marriage? Whose commitment is required? Is there not a third party to consider?

Quite plainly the 'commitment', although rightly sought, is an invention of man. It is the VIRGINITY which makes the marriage, nothing else.
 
I wish I could read the posts I am replying to while replying if you know what I mean. But I can't. However, this is what I remember from your post.

Your two quotes from the Bible. The case of Rebecca did occur to me, but it does not prove anything. It does not prove that the marriage took place BECAUSE of her consent. The same can be said of the other passage.

I know they consented, but that made no difference. It is immaterial to the marriage. The burden of proof is on you. The marriage did not take place at the consent, neither would the marriage been null and void had they had intercourse without her consent (as I have shown in Deuteronomy) and only went on her father's consent for instance.

I believe everyone will see that is plain.

I know where you are coming from. There is a need to overcome this problem of divorce, or previous marital relations or previous sexual relations. However, Christ is plain that divorce in not permitted in any case save for fornication. As I said, fornication has yet to be properly defined.
 
You are right in that it is the union that unites the two. It is that that makes them one. However, there is a transfer of responsibility from father to husband. This is noted in the case where the girl is raped. He must still pay the brideprice for virgins but he doesn't get the girl. He pays that because that is what the father would normally received from his virgin daughter's marriage... but the girl has not been given to a man, and is still marriageable (though she is not a virgin). I know you don't agree with that last statement, but this is just a quick post.

As for the father making such void, it is the same when a girl pledges herself to do something. When her father or husband hears about it he may void it with no sin by any party. It is as if the agreement never happened. However, if he hears about it and accepts it, but later refuses it, he is held accountable for the sin of his daughter. His daughter is not held accountable for not fulfilling what she was supposed to do.
 
The first thing we ought to remember when considering the Law of moses is that Jesus abrogated one or two things which relate to what you have just said, that she is still marriagable - she is NOT.

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

The same can be said about the husband 'voiding' things. From the beginning it was not so.

The second point I would like to make is that if a man raped a woman, the penalty was death! This is the only thing which allowed her to be freed from the man as her husband.
 
TonyClayton said:
I object to the idea that the 'consent' or 'commitment' is a condition of a marriage taking place. Although commitment is ideal, it has no function whatsoever in making the two into one flesh. My point is that God joins together, not man, because let not man separate what God has joined. How does God join? Through a commitment? That commitment is man, not God. God only joins through intercourse - as Paul says, know ye not that the two become one flesh (talking of a harlot in saying we should not seek to have intercourse with harlots - because in spite of no commitment, you still become one flesh!) We agree that intercourse is the actual marriage,
Click to expand...
You must weigh what Paul said against other Scripture. I have already shown how consent from a woman is an element of marriage. I would also like to point out that a father must consent to a marriage, as is evident in the Exodus 22:16-17 example, where we read,
If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her {to be} his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.
Click to expand...
A virgin who was seduced may want to marry her seducer, the man who seduced her might want to marry her, but if her father refuses then there will not be a marriage. Hashem clearly allows the father to veto the marriage, but not for marriage only. Generally, a man can veto any decision his daughter and wife make (Numbers 30). It's a good thing too, for what if your daughter is mentally handicapped and not very good at taking care of herself? Would you want a man you believe will abuse her being her husband? No way.

While it is best if two people marry after coitus, it is not going to happen in some circumstances and that isn't something that is evil - Hashem allows it.

Let's consider the virgin who is raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). If that woman was raped by a man who, it is believed, will continue to abuse her then it really isn't something she should be forced into. As a father, I would never allow an evil, unrepentant man who has raped my daughter to marry her. However, if a man like Shechem (Genesis 34) raped my daughter I would likely allow the marriage. A woman and her father have a say in what her future will be with this man. I believe that it would be very honourable if a woman were to decide to marry her attacker and bring reconciliation to the situation, as that would be a wonderful witness to the world of the redeeming power of Hashem's grace. But, I believe that no woman can be forced to marry her attacker.

(p.s. Those who want to understand Tony's position better can read a pamphlet he made up on this topic, "WHO IS MY WIFE?")
 
I once thought the way you did, but knowing the inconsistencies of that position towards the word of God and not being able to find the solution I sought God for assistance directly. He gave, and it agrees with scripture, and does not exceed it. Notice with the position you hold you are saying what the scripture does not say. You are taking ideas from it, theories that can easily be taken and that even I took, but those ideas are not directly in the text, but instead assumption made from pondering it that go beyond what was said to assume what is not written. Trust me, that is not good. The thread with those posts are here: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=562

As for rape, there was only a penalty of death for the man who raped another man's wife. For a virgin this was not so. Such is explained in detail in the books of Moses. The reasons for this can be plainly seen in the girls that simply claim a man raped them when really they consented, or rather felt guilty afterwards, which seems to happen frequently enough these days. Even concerning me, months after my wife left me she claimed I beat and raped her (a lie that she seems to have spread to her friends and family). She also claimed to a guy when she was looking for a new boyfriend that she was pregnant by a random guy who raped her and the police were looking for him. Such is the way of liars.
 
Hello I love this type of discussion, when done in the spirit of Christ. And may it continue.

However, I would like to invite the Lord too. Lord Jesus, be in our conversation, may you be glorified here. We thank you for our lives and for this discussion board where we can meet people. I pray for the truth about polygamy to be known and shared, all over the world. Bless and strengthen polygamous families. Bless the children as they are in the best ever environment they could be with not just one, but two or more loving mums. I pray for my two children too, and their two mums, though separated. What a blessing. And may people find the families that you have ordained for them here. In Jesus name I pray, Amen.

Dear friend, we are no longer talking about Hashem here, it no longer applies, as there is no longer a levitical priesthood. However, what we see there are shadows of the truth, and it certainly is true for marriage. But what Jesus was saying is that consent from anyone no longer applies to make or break a marriage, as marriage does not CONSIST in this. Is anyone getting me??

Obviously people have to consent to live in the same house, and have marital relations, but the marriage consists in the intercourse alone. This is an all important distinction I have made.

As I said, regarding rape, you have no problem, because the rapist would be executed according to the strict law.

Let us look at what Jesus said.

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Are we going to try and bend this rule to fit into our own mould?
 
Also, I find the laws of Moses make it clear enough as to such things of divorce, in the way Jesus put it. The rules still apply, even to Christians. Jesus was stating that Moses gave them that law so that when they DID put away their wives they would do it in a way that cleared the women of any show of sin or wrong, etc... showing that they were free to marry again, and the sin rests on the man who divorced her, as women are not to be without a covering.

Jesus EXPLAINED what was said many times before, as He usually did. He did not change. He did not fix. He did not add a jot or tittle to what was said before. He brought out wisdom from what was said. He did not change it.

Also, I wouldn't say Moses changed anything either. He was given rituals and such as well as the explainations of righteous behavior, because Israel was set apart and was supposed to bear the signs, histories, prophets and such. But as far as righteousness is concerned, things weren't changed. A man was supposed to marry his dead brother's wife before Moses came. After it was the same. Gentiles were not given the rituals and such, but we have always had the burden of doing what is right.
 
TonyClayton said:
there is no longer a levitical priesthood.
Click to expand...
Not true. When the Temple is rebuilt there will again be Priests ministering to Hashem there.

I'm sorry, but too many of your beliefs are different than mine and I don't have the patience right now to address them all. Perhaps you can ruminate on the few points I've made already and we can continue this another time?
 
sadanyagci said:
The rules still apply, even to Christians. Jesus was stating that Moses gave them that law so that when they DID put away their wives they would do it in a way that cleared the women of any show of sin or wrong, etc... showing that they were free to marry again, and the sin rests on the man who divorced her, as women are not to be without a covering.
Click to expand...
Thank you. To emphasise what my brother just said, you will notice that in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, we have the divorce regulations. Notice that Hashem is saying that a woman can remarry after she has been sent out of her husband's home with her divorce papers. If it were adultery for her to remarry our Master certainly wouldn't have given a commandment to regulate her "adulterous" behaviour.
 
But we are not talking about Hashem, I do not believe in Hashem. I believe in Jesus.

And sadanyagci however 'honourably' they put away their wives, it still does not clear either them or him from Adultery, as Jesus says... you agree that Jesus says divorce is not permitted. But your point is irrelevant.

Let us look at the fine detail, and discuss, point by point.
 
Just so you guys know djanakes is no longer on the board. He left over this topic, (I think). Considering other posts of this nature, I think we will have a difficult time coming to a consensus here. I must take a little issue with something that was said though...

sadanyagci said:
Jesus EXPLAINED what was said many times before, as He usually did. He did not change. He did not fix. He did not add a jot or tittle to what was said before. He brought out wisdom from what was said. He did not change it.
Click to expand...

If this is true then what about the following scriptures?

Matthew 5 -

21“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22“But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

27“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

33“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34“But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35“nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36“Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37“But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39“But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40“If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41“And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42“Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.
43“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44“But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45“that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47“And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48“Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

Hebrews 8:7-13 -

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11“None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12“For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

These are some of the scriptures that tell us that God DID change thing things through Jesus Christ. We have to come up to a whole new level in the Spirit from where the people who lived under the Law of Moses got to. If Christians want to enter into God's rest, (as the Israelites failed to do) then we have to learn to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. The law of the Spirit of life in CHrist Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death, but I am a whole lot more accountable, Hebrews 10:26-31...

26For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
The Holy Bible, New King James Version, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982.

The subject of divorce and remarriage cannot be understood by reading the literal Word without enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, any more than anyone can understand the true meanings of what Jesus and the apostles taught without the same. I hope that we can all get to the place of perfection in Christ that Jesus suffered and died for us to achieve, (Matt. 5:48).

Be blessed,

Ray
 
Jesus is Hashem??? Where did you get that from?

Back to the main topic. Marriage = virginity

There is no other way. I have thoroughly discussed it with people and we seem to end up where we began. So I think if we are going to go over the ground, let the next person to post a comment please list the points we are to discuss and we can go over them point by point until we reach everyone's satisfation at every point made. Otherwise it is pointless.

So let us base the discussion on the premises MARRIAGE = VIRGINITY
 
You believe in YHWH, don't you? LORD, God, Adonai, etc. You know, the God we serve. YHWH is Hashem. Hashem is Hebrew for "the Name", and is used by people who feel the Name itself shouldn't be used. A name derived from The Name is Jehovah.

As for Jesus (aka. Yeshua by his homeys) he is God. God's name is THE NAME. Hashem = The Name. Thus, Jesus is Hashem, by that reasoning. If you believe Jesus is God, then you believe Hashem is Jesus.

Lets move this M = V discussion to this thread you posted here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=666
 
Obviously people have to consent to live in the same house, and have marital relations, but the marriage consists in the intercourse alone. This is an all important distinction I have made.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Tony, but this distinction is the problem. It is incorrect, and everything else which follows from that assumption will be in error.

Cases already discussed in this thread make that clear. A virgin who has been defiled has lost her virginity, but is clearly NOT a wife. Depending on the circumstances, she MAY be (given consent, clearly - not only hers, but her father's), or she even end up being a widow (strike that - better said, a "former virgin defiled by a formerly-living rapist").

The "one flesh" error has been discussed here at length before (perhaps a link can be added if I find it) - but the short answer includes not only the "one can be one flesh with a harlot" observation, but also that one can be "one flesh" with an adulteress. The term can reference the act, or the obvious potential consequence of the act (a baby, or 'one NEW flesh'); it constitutes CONSUMMATION of the marriage Covenant, not initiation of it. (Much has been written, here and elsewhere, about the long-standing process of BETROTHAL. Such women were considered wives, not yet consummated in finality. MANY examples, including Mary and Joseph, speak of this situation, and the serious nature of breach of it.)

I'll try to post a bit more, including perhaps another link or two, a bit later (I have an errand in the meantime)...but will add for now that I have frequently argued that the common quotations of Matthew 5:32 (AKJV, etc) contain at least one error:

The words translated as "put away" and "properly divorced", via provision of a 'get' or certificate as per Deut. 24:1 and 24:3, are rendered inconsistently (from both the Greek, and arguably the Hebrew or Aramaic in which He spoke it).

The corrected text translates the words for "put away" consistently, particularly the last word, incorrectly rendered 'divorced':

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is PUT AWAY committeth adultery.

Finally, this correction from an article on the "exception clause" in that same text may be helpful as well, since many people read that clause backwards.

From "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage", http://www.missiontoisrael.org/m-d-remar.php?print=1

How do these acts of fornication relate to Yeshua’s declaration in Matthew 5:31-32? In Matthew 5 Yeshua was not condemning divorce, but rather the putting away of a wife without a bill of divorcement. Matthew 5:31-32 should have been translated as follows. I have inserted the Greek words and some acts of fornication for clarification:

It hath been said [in Deuteronomy 24:1], Whosoever shall put away [apolusee] his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement [apostasion]: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away [apoluoon] his wife [without a writing of divorcement], saving for the cause of fornication [incest, bestiality, etc], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is [not divorced but only] put away [apolelumeneen], committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:31-32)

Deuteronomy 24:1 forbids a man from putting away his lawful wife without a certificate of divorce. But, a divorce certificate is not required if the union is porneias, or fornication. Such relationships are not lawful marriages and do not require a divorce certificate.
Click to expand...

Blessings,

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top