The story of the woman at the well has made me speculate that marriage doesn't occur at the point of sexual intimacy, but actually when a man chooses to take a woman as his wife. When a man betrothed a wife to himself under the law she was considered his wife, long before any intimacy took place. Jesus told the woman at the well that she had had five husbands and the man she was with was not her husband. It would seem that sex alone isn't the only deciding factor. Thoughts?
-
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.
What constitutes marriage?
- Thread starter Asforme&myhouse
- Start date
This has been thrashed out several times before, and tends to unfortunately end up rather heated as there are people with very firm views either side of the fence. Check out this very long thread to find some valuable commentary on the issue in between the bickering...
Essentially, there are two main views on what constitutes a marriage.
1) Marriage is fundamentally formed by sex.
Once an available couple have sex, they are married. If the woman was a virgin and her father decides the man isn't suitable, he can annul the marriage (but a valid marriage did take place, and would stand if he did not annul it).
2) Marriage is fundamentally formed by covenant.
When a couple form a covenant to marry (ie become betrothed, have a church marriage ceremony where this commitment is professed, or simply covenant to each other in private), they are considered as if they were married under the law even if they have not yet had sex. Sex seals (consummates) the covenant that has been made.
If an available couple have sex prior to forming a marriage covenant, they are not married. If the woman was a virgin, they are required to marry, unless her father refuses to allow them to marry, in which case no marriage takes place at all.
There are a lot of scriptures that can be cited and logical arguments that can be made for either perspective. Personally, I feel (2) is more consistent with scripture - the point you make about betrothal being one of the key reasons for that. This is the position I take in my "Marriage from the Bible alone" document, which you'll probably find helpful as you ponder this. However I freely admit it is not cut-and-dried, and a plausible case can be made for either position.
@ZecAustin and I once briefly discussed putting this together into a simple clear document that presented both options and their scriptural backing for people to come to their own conclusions on, we really should do that because this is an important issue that will continue to come up and we should have a single document to point people towards.
Can anyone else remember any other good threads to link to that are worth reading, to save us having to restate everything from scratch?
Essentially, there are two main views on what constitutes a marriage.
1) Marriage is fundamentally formed by sex.
Once an available couple have sex, they are married. If the woman was a virgin and her father decides the man isn't suitable, he can annul the marriage (but a valid marriage did take place, and would stand if he did not annul it).
2) Marriage is fundamentally formed by covenant.
When a couple form a covenant to marry (ie become betrothed, have a church marriage ceremony where this commitment is professed, or simply covenant to each other in private), they are considered as if they were married under the law even if they have not yet had sex. Sex seals (consummates) the covenant that has been made.
If an available couple have sex prior to forming a marriage covenant, they are not married. If the woman was a virgin, they are required to marry, unless her father refuses to allow them to marry, in which case no marriage takes place at all.
There are a lot of scriptures that can be cited and logical arguments that can be made for either perspective. Personally, I feel (2) is more consistent with scripture - the point you make about betrothal being one of the key reasons for that. This is the position I take in my "Marriage from the Bible alone" document, which you'll probably find helpful as you ponder this. However I freely admit it is not cut-and-dried, and a plausible case can be made for either position.
@ZecAustin and I once briefly discussed putting this together into a simple clear document that presented both options and their scriptural backing for people to come to their own conclusions on, we really should do that because this is an important issue that will continue to come up and we should have a single document to point people towards.
Can anyone else remember any other good threads to link to that are worth reading, to save us having to restate everything from scratch?
True, both seem to have lots of support, but I can't help reference what many polygynists use as argument for polygyny.
If God "married" both Israel and Judah, then how did he consummate? When Christ takes his Bride (church) with the marriage feast of the lamb, what consummates it?
Both seem to reference covenant and commitment...not sex...in my humble opinion.
If God "married" both Israel and Judah, then how did he consummate? When Christ takes his Bride (church) with the marriage feast of the lamb, what consummates it?
Both seem to reference covenant and commitment...not sex...in my humble opinion.
That very long and contentious thread did manage to make me nuance my position a little.
I fall firmly in the "sex is marriage" camp but with the addition now that I do believe a betrothal establishes a proto-marriage that is spiritually binding but that can be dissolved without penalty (by agreement) if there is no sex.
But as far as I can see sex equals marriage. And I don't want to argue about it. Although Samuel is right, we should put together an article.
I fall firmly in the "sex is marriage" camp but with the addition now that I do believe a betrothal establishes a proto-marriage that is spiritually binding but that can be dissolved without penalty (by agreement) if there is no sex.
But as far as I can see sex equals marriage. And I don't want to argue about it. Although Samuel is right, we should put together an article.
I wasn't a part of the old thread on this topic, but I hope my two cents don't prolong this too much, since it seems some may have grown fatigued over it. I have a few questions, then a statement:
Is it a one time sexual act that constitutes marriages?
Is it necessary for ongoing sex to constitute a marriage?
If sex constitutes a marriage, then does homosexual sex constitute marriage?
If a sex act occurred in incest, is it a marriage?
The more I read and study, the more I see the "one Flesh" relationship described in scripture as a euphemism for physical Union...period. I believe we have overly mystified the sexual union to constitute an otherworldly, spiritual connotation to it (the true gnostic heresy I referred to in another thread.). My prospective 2nd wife brought this up once during our polygyny conversations. "But you guys are one flesh, how can I join that?" My reply was that we are one physically, and one in purpose for our lives, but we each still maintain our individual responsibility to God. There is no soul "union". We are not exclusive "soul" mates.
What of the Church and Christ being "married". It is the same. We are united with Him, and we become "like" him, but do we don't become Him. He still retains His distinctness. We cannot become God. He is united to many, and yet United to just one...hard to wrap my head around that one, but it's true.
Is it a one time sexual act that constitutes marriages?
Is it necessary for ongoing sex to constitute a marriage?
If sex constitutes a marriage, then does homosexual sex constitute marriage?
If a sex act occurred in incest, is it a marriage?
The more I read and study, the more I see the "one Flesh" relationship described in scripture as a euphemism for physical Union...period. I believe we have overly mystified the sexual union to constitute an otherworldly, spiritual connotation to it (the true gnostic heresy I referred to in another thread.). My prospective 2nd wife brought this up once during our polygyny conversations. "But you guys are one flesh, how can I join that?" My reply was that we are one physically, and one in purpose for our lives, but we each still maintain our individual responsibility to God. There is no soul "union". We are not exclusive "soul" mates.
What of the Church and Christ being "married". It is the same. We are united with Him, and we become "like" him, but do we don't become Him. He still retains His distinctness. We cannot become God. He is united to many, and yet United to just one...hard to wrap my head around that one, but it's true.
You have a lot of really good questions here. I would point out a few things, the first is that death ends a marital relationship so that, and this is only my opinion but I think it's pretty soundly founded, any sexual act that would result in a death sentence under the Mosaic Law does not result in marriage. It results in death, spiritual if not physical.
When scripture says that the "two will become one flesh" it means that you would be one flesh with both wives separately.
There is much discussion that could be had on your last comment, Mojo. In fact, I am sure there will be. I might reply to more of it later, but for now I wanted to address this:
I would step back and ask this: what is sex? As I understand it, a penis entering a vagina is sex. As such, I do not believe homosexual acts constitute sex. That said, I am not saying this definitively; I could be proven wrong. However, Zec Austin's point is quite on target though, a male lying with a male is an abomination and punishable by death in Law; therefore, even if it were considered "sex", it is unacceptable and not marriage in God's eyes. For reference:
I do want to second what Zec said, the "one flesh" relationship is not exclusive, it is simply saying a man is "one flesh", uniquely, with each of his wives. That said, they are each part of his family, and therefore they could all be called one just as the church is called one.
I would step back and ask this: what is sex? As I understand it, a penis entering a vagina is sex. As such, I do not believe homosexual acts constitute sex. That said, I am not saying this definitively; I could be proven wrong. However, Zec Austin's point is quite on target though, a male lying with a male is an abomination and punishable by death in Law; therefore, even if it were considered "sex", it is unacceptable and not marriage in God's eyes. For reference:
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
I do want to second what Zec said, the "one flesh" relationship is not exclusive, it is simply saying a man is "one flesh", uniquely, with each of his wives. That said, they are each part of his family, and therefore they could all be called one just as the church is called one.
I guess I hoped it to be clearer than I made it, but my response to my prospective #2 about one flesh is precisely as you both stated it. She brought it up because she felt "one flesh" proved exclusivity. I argued that it meant a physical union one=united...without graphics "one flesh in the other flesh".
I agree on male homosexuality. It was a question from me to clarify his position
Now, to open up a real can of worms...since the Mosaic law forbade men lying with men, and therefore negating that as a legitimate marriage, what of two females?
I totally agree with aineo that male entering female reproductive parts is the only true definition of sex, what do we do with the apparent absence of definitive prohibitions against females? Since they have no penetrating appendages (again, without getting graphic and talking about hands and limbs) can two females ever be guilty of abomination since they cannot fit the bill of true sex? Hence...no marriage there either, correct?
Does that have implications in polygyny? I'm not a voyeur, pervert, or a weirdo, but these questions have come up within our discussions here at home regarding polygyny. I believe I have seen questions on this sight regarding "do we all share a bed, or separate?" Believe me, this is nowhere near what I worry about, in regards to polygyny(there are way too many societal and family concerns that come way before this). But...it has come up
Does this question deserve another new thread, or has it come up here before?
It has come up from time to time. Basically, it isn't technically "sex" and scripture is silent on it except for possibly Romans 1:26, which is very vague and could mean various other things also. It is a very divisive issue, with extremely heated opinions on both sides, for obvious reasons. It is unnatural, but cannot conclusively be labelled "sin" in the absence of a law actually stating that. Within the context of polygyny, it is something for a man to prayerfully consider until he is "firmly persuaded" on what he believes is right, and then enforce that as the standard of behaviour expected under his roof. The vast majority of wives will have absolutely no desire for this anyway, so for most people it's a non-issue.
A more relevant point is the availability of women who have had a past lesbian relationship. As such a relationship cannot qualify as marriage (it isn't technically "sex" and isn't between a man and a woman), it can have no implications for their future availability - they wouldn't be committing adultery to leave their lesbian partner and marry a man, because they were never married to begin with so cannot be committing adultery. In practice though, few women are truly lesbians, most become lesbians as a reaction to past negative experiences with men, so woman in that situation will generally have actually had sex with multiple men and those past relationships will need to be considered far more carefully than their time spent with another woman.
A more relevant point is the availability of women who have had a past lesbian relationship. As such a relationship cannot qualify as marriage (it isn't technically "sex" and isn't between a man and a woman), it can have no implications for their future availability - they wouldn't be committing adultery to leave their lesbian partner and marry a man, because they were never married to begin with so cannot be committing adultery. In practice though, few women are truly lesbians, most become lesbians as a reaction to past negative experiences with men, so woman in that situation will generally have actually had sex with multiple men and those past relationships will need to be considered far more carefully than their time spent with another woman.
I thoroughly agree. We have overly mystified a lot of things. Well, the Gnostics and the Catholics overly mystified them, and the Reformation didn't go far enough in getting rid of the heresy.
The more I study the Hebrew behind scripture, the more I am struck with how practical it is. Yeshua doesn't expect us to study so much that we have perfect understanding of theology, He expects us to go and help the widows and the orphans. This is hard for me I must admit, I find it far easier to study the nuances of theology than actually get out into the world and minister to people. But it's absolutely fundamental.
We can get all technical about what technically constitutes marriage. But most of us already know whether we're married or not, and who we are married to. The scriptural instructions regarding how to practically treat our spouses are far more important - but those are the scary passages about love and obedience etc that we can tend to skim over. It's so much easier to split hairs about whether a hypothetical situation would comprise a mystical spiritual union or not while we sit on the couch on the computer ignoring our real-world wives.
Which I'm doing right now. So as not to be a hypocrite, I had better shut this computer down, kiss her, and wash some dishes.
The thing to remember about the lesbianism is that marriage (and this sex) are a metaphor to testify to the proper relationship to have with God. A biblically constituted marriage will illustrate that. In this metaphor God has assigned husbands to stand in for Him and wives to stand in for the church.
The sexual act represents the union of a believer with God. That's why male homosexuality is such a dire sin, it represents two Gods and man's equality with God. Both ideas denying the foundational truths of existence; there is one God and we are to worship Him. This is why its such a popular cause and celebrated sin. It takes God's message and rips it up on n front Him and throw it in His face, very dangerous.
"Lesbianism" doesn't exist. Its not a biblical concept. It has two potential appearances, one already mentioned by Samuel, and its a subject better left to meat-eaters in a private setting.
The Bible has a lot to say about wives and daughters rejecting male authority however and there are a lot of "good" church ladies sitting in a lot of pews across the world who are extreme spiritual lesbians and that get's ignored far too often.
The sexual act represents the union of a believer with God. That's why male homosexuality is such a dire sin, it represents two Gods and man's equality with God. Both ideas denying the foundational truths of existence; there is one God and we are to worship Him. This is why its such a popular cause and celebrated sin. It takes God's message and rips it up on n front Him and throw it in His face, very dangerous.
"Lesbianism" doesn't exist. Its not a biblical concept. It has two potential appearances, one already mentioned by Samuel, and its a subject better left to meat-eaters in a private setting.
The Bible has a lot to say about wives and daughters rejecting male authority however and there are a lot of "good" church ladies sitting in a lot of pews across the world who are extreme spiritual lesbians and that get's ignored far too often.
It would seem to me, and I could be wrong, but it seems like romans 1:26 is talking about women abdicating their female role or "use" and talking about men having sex with other men. God could have forbidden female with female intimacy in the law if He wanted to. He had room to forbid men with men twice, but not women. I think we must be careful when we start assuming things to be sin that are not condemned in the law... Kind of like people do with polygyny.
Ha! So well put. I once had a conversation with Mrs. Mojo and prospective Mrs. Mojo#2 and told them to think of me as their own personal Jesus (yes like the song). In practical structure of spiritual authority in marriage, I found it difficult to describe it in any other way. Christ is head of the church and the husband the head of the wife. As Christ loved and sacrificed for us, we love and sacrifice for the wife(s). Christ is authority over the Church and each INDIVIDUAL member of it. I am authority over my family and each member, no matter how many wives.
Thank you Following Him. I am curious, though. Are you an apologist only, or are you a practicing polygynists? I would like to hear some insight from practitioners, possibly via PM. Any recommendations? In a public forum, it just seems crass to talk about.
Personally, I'm still a monogamist. Unfortunately it seems the more wives people have the less time they have for the forum, which is understandable, but means you will end up talking to a lot of monogamists on here. If you want to talk to practitioners, some will certainly comment here, but I'd highly recommend attending a retreat. Most of the polygamous men focus on making it to in-person fellowship at retreats rather than talk on the online forum. However a number of the women chat weekly on Tuesday nights here, your wife & prospective would be most welcome to join in and meet them there.
I couldn't agree with Samuel more. The retreats are amazing. You will meet some extraordinary families. I have yet to have this conversation yet and I doubt it would come up organically. Its a pretty personal topic.