Meat Living in Marriage/Covenant or Fornication? - Real world situation/problem

[MeganC]

When God communicates there is no doubt that He's saying something.

Like when He parted the Red Sea for Moses. Led the Israelites with a pillar of fire. When He obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah. Or when He personally fashioned the Ten Commandments and provided them to Moses.

 

[Maddog]

Just my thoughts here:

If God speaks to you it's usually in words or revealed wisdom.

Jesus is felt as present in your life.

With the Holy Spirit you discover what's being told to you in how events unfold. Like a friend of ours got a burning to replace the dim lights in his church with brighter LED lights. He just had a bug up his tailpipe to do this and not long after he got it done COVID hit and the church had to move to online services...and the lighting in the sanctuary just happened to be perfect for video.

That kind of thing. The Holy Spirit just tends to be much more subtle than God or Jesus tend to be.

That type of thing happens more often than not in my family. On the whim of a whisper we will do something and the blessing appears. (Sometimes even an agitation, Megan) I want to believe that it is God doing the whispering and that not of myself. I will give thanks to Him most definitely for His gifts. I have begun to recognise those events and make allowance in my schedule for it.

 

[steve]

1 Kings 19:12 (KJV)
And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

He is not always as obvious as we want Him to be.
And sometimes you hear, but you aren’t sure.

 

[JudahYAHites]

Hello All,

I have been reading all of the discussion threads which relate to what constitutes a marriage that are currently happening. They are all blurring together a bit for me, so instead of this getting buried on a comments section I decided to create a new post.

I wanted to propose a real life situation example for everyone to address. Instead of just working in theoreticals, what advice would you give to a woman in the below scenario so she would not be living in sin. Answers should be based on your understanding of what marriage is or is not.

Note: This is NOT MY issue, (happily married here) but its someone I know.

Suppose a woman comes to you asking for counsel.
Here is her situation: “I became saved after already living in sin with the father of my now two children. We are still not married. Since becoming saved, I have seen and learned why God wants us to be married before having children and living together. My partner, however, is not a believer and doesn’t see the need to ‘rush into’ getting married even though I want to honor God and do so. How do I handle this? He is a great father and I don’t see leading him to Christ by breaking apart our family?”

Is this woman biblically married, or living in fornication?

She is married.

For being biblically married/covenant:
Does the fact they had sex mean they are married?

No.

Does the fact they have children together mean they are married?

No.

Does the fact that the husband is supporting his family, raising his kids, and having and is sexually exclusive with this woman (as her only sexual partner) constitute a marriage/covenant?

No, the conversation and declaration of her husband and her agreement would clarify the situation but seeming as he is not saying no to getting married just not wanting to get the paperwork or do the ceremony at this moment in time it would seem safe to say, without details that they are already covenanted.

Scripture states if he is pleased to stay with her then she should not leave, its pretty clear she should relax and focus on being a daughter of Sarah, because the children and husband are all clean now.

Or if in Fornication:
Are they living in fornication due to the fact that the man does not consider them to be married?

The man only understands marriage in the context of the pagan roman construct of marriage.

Are they living in fornication because they don't have a recognized marriage by the church/state?

Not necessarily no.

If they are living in fornication should the wife stay with the man or leave him as she would be living in a state of sin?

Stay with the man. Sin is transgression of the law of YAH.

If they separated:
Would the children belong to the man or woman if they are not technically married?

She would not be bound if he left being an unbeliever.

They are his children but custody would be the issue.

I am sure there are other questions that can be addressed but I wanted to throw some out there.

And GO!

 

[smilingjack]

Bruce Malina

Suppose a woman comes to you asking for counsel.
Here is her situation: “I became saved after already living in sin with the father of my now two children. We are still not married. Since becoming saved, I have seen and learned why God wants us to be married before having children and living together. My partner, however, is not a believer and doesn’t see the need to ‘rush into’ getting married even though I want to honor God and do so. How do I handle this? He is a great father and I don’t see leading him to Christ by breaking apart our family?

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon issue, is it? First Corinthians 7:14 helps us to understand that they should not divorce and that her testimony over time may lead him to Christ. She should continue living as they are and she should raise her children up to love God and others.

Is this woman biblically married, or living in fornication?

I would say that there is no such thing as 'living in fornication.' I know that statement can be troubling for some. There is a reason most modern translations don't include that word in it anymore and instead use 'sexual immorality.' Bruce Malina's work in 1972 was one of the foundational scholarly sources that made this happen. His findings were that the Greek 'porneia' is not, on the basis of traditional or contemporary usage, mean pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature, i.e. what we call 'fornication' today.

To be 'biblically married', in my view, is a covenant before to fulfill the Creation Mandate. Even though I love to see the big celebration around it, it is not a mandatory moment. The church's authorization of marriages is an embraced Roman concept that became heavily foundational to church-over-family power. That same government-over-family power exists today in my view.

For being biblically married/covenant:
Does the fact they had sex mean they are married?
Does the fact they have children together mean they are married?
Does the fact that the husband is supporting his family, raising his kids, and having and is sexually exclusive with this woman (as her only sexual partner) constitute a marriage/covenant?

No - Yes - No. Sex doesn't equal marriage, the covenant to fulfill the creation mandate does. If they are fulfilling it, that's prima facie evidence haha.

Or if in Fornication:
Are they living in fornication due to the fact that the man does not consider them to be married?
Are they living in fornication because they don't have a recognized marriage by the church/state?
If they are living in fornication should the wife stay with the man or leave him as she would be living in a state of sin?

No - no - stay (not living in a state of sin). If it was a state of sin, Paul would have condemned the gentile wife's conversion and the gentile husband's non-conversion as a non-marriage. He said they should stay married, which infers that Paul agreed that a wife with kids (regardless of previous religious or non-religious views) is still considered married. The hope is that one of the parent's conversions will sanctify the kids.

If they separated:
Would the children belong to the man or woman if they are not technically married?

That's a tough one, isn't it?

I am sure there are other questions that can be addressed but I wanted to throw some out there.

And GO!

 

[rockfox]

His findings were that the Greek 'porneia' is not, on the basis of traditional or contemporary usage, mean pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature, i.e. what we call 'fornication' today.

So basically the same argument they use to justify homosexuality?

 

[smilingjack]

So basically the same argument they use to justify homosexuality?

I’m not sure what that has to do with homosexuality. What makes you think that this is an argument used to justify homosexuality?

 

[rockfox]

I’m not sure what that has to do with homosexuality. What makes you think that this is an argument used to justify homosexuality?

I said it's the same argument, the same line of reasoning. So if you use this to justify pre-marital sex it also means homosexuality is ok.

Their claim is the word referred to temple prostitution not private gay sex, which is a simpler way of saying, "not mean pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature"

 

[raulus]

I believe this is the pattern for taking a wife. A reflection of God's husbanding.

“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.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭16‬:‭8‬

Covenant before ownership.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I believe this is the pattern for taking a wife. A reflection of God's husbanding.

“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.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭16‬:‭8‬

Covenant before ownership.

So sex before covenant, covenant before ownership?

 

[FollowingHim]

It was bad evough that @The Revolting Man has been reading the components of that verse as being in chronological order. Now @b_ce is reading it in reverse chronological order!

What follows the "yea" is a poetic parallelism, that describes from a different angle the same thing the first part described. Sex and covenant both happen in this verse, essentially simultaneously. There is no chronological sequence - and certainly not a reverse one.

 

[raulus]

So sex before covenant, covenant before ownership?

I never read sex explicitly in there, but I get your point. so I guess i agree with followinghim, that they are probably concurrent acts. Thanks for the correction there.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What follows the "yea" is a poetic parallelism

Ah, it’s poetic. It’s not something literal that hard, fast rules can be drawn from? Interesting.

So then the covenant could be the covenant God made with Israel, much like the Malachi verse? The covenant part could be where this rich poetry blurs back in to the literal object of the figurative literary device?

 

[FollowingHim]

Well, God never actually physically had sex with Israel. What He did was give them a covenant. The covenant is literal, the sex is a figurative illustration of that.

But the fact that the illustration of sex is used as a figurative illustration of a covenant is informative. What is the connection between covenants and sex that causes this illustration to be used?

 

[The Revolting Man]

But the fact that the illustration of sex is used as a figurative illustration of a covenant is informative. What is the connection between covenants and sex that causes this illustration to be used?

Now you’re talking. Sex is a covenant, ideally, one even sealed with blood.

The problem with the other side of this debate is that they’re objection has always been, “Well it can’t JUST be sex, it has to be something more than that.” They’ve devalued sex to barely more than a physical act and so they have to find some way to respiritualize “marriage”.

But think about what sex represents in the spiritual realm. We’re going to the wedding feast. What happens at the end of the wedding feast? What were the foolish virgins locked out of? The answer is sex.

We need to put sex back in its proper place. God will condemn you to physical and spiritual death over sex. It is apparently very, very important. More than important enough to be what forms a “marriage”.

 

[Maddog]

Well, God never actually physically had sex with Israel. What He did was give them a covenant. The covenant is literal, the sex is a figurative illustration of that.
OK, what was the activity the God our Father did that was representative of sex or the "one flesh"? What was the new life created by the Father? We understand the covenant aspect, whether it is a big fancy wedding or a simple contractual agreement but I dont see the newborn baby produced by the wife(Israel). Or, are we taking the analogy too far from it's mooring?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well, God never actually physically had sex with Israel. What He did was give them a covenant. The covenant is literal, the sex is a figurative illustration of that.
OK, what was the activity the God our Father did that was representative of sex or the "one flesh"? What was the new life created by the Father? We understand the covenant aspect, whether it is a big fancy wedding or a simple contractual agreement but I dont see the newborn baby produced by the wife(Israel). Or, are we taking the analogy too far from it's mooring?

But there was figurative sex. There’s no way around the analogies.

 

[Maddog]

what was the "figurative sex?" I must be missing something here.

 

[The Revolting Man]

what was the "figurative sex?" I must be missing something here.

I mean God frequently says that He’s figuratively having sex with Israel. The entire Song of Solomon comes to mind as do significant portions of Ezekiel.

 

[Maddog]

The Song was quite literally flesh and bone people and a beautiful loving relationship complete with teasing, testing, and tears. But the OP was about Numbers 30 and I asked a side question.