• 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.

0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
This issue has been thrashed out many times, and never gets anywhere. Instead, everyone keeps reiterating the same points over and over in different ways and becoming more entrenched in their individual views, often without fully understanding the position of those with differing views. I don't want to have such a debate again. Instead, I would like us to all work together to carefully define each position and to have every point explained clearly, once, and in a place that is easy for people to find. Then anyone can refer to these threads as a resource and use them as the basis for their own research, or for writing a document on the topic.

To structure this clearly, I have started several threads, each with a specific purpose.

0) This thread is for general discussion, keep debate to a minimum but if it must happen it goes here. If in doubt, post here. This is the primary discussion thread.

Then I have three additional threads that exist simply to collate the scriptural evidence supporting each position. No discussion of other positions is to occur in those threads. Each should ultimately have each point made once, comprehensively but efficiently, so they are quick to read while carefully elaborating the position. To achieve this, I will delete any posts that stray off-topic, and may do some trimming if some points become too repetitive.

I see four basic answers to "When does marriage begin?", and I have a thread for each position.
1) Sex forms a marriage (if you have sex you are married by default, unless you were ineligible to marry)
2) Covenant forms a marriage (marriage is formed by contract / agreement / covenant / consent, sex may then occur within marriage)
3) Possession / Either forms a marriage (if you have a woman and nobody else objects, she's your wife)
4) Both form a marriage (only once you have a covenant, and have consummated it with sex, are you married).

If there are any other basic positions that should be added to this list, tell me here. If one of these needs to be redefined, tell me also. I'm not structuring this discussion to achieve a particular outcome, I have no agenda here. I'm structuring it simply in an attempt to actually be able to address the topic without dissolving into yet another back-and-forth debate that goes nowhere.

Past threads on this topic for reference (and to see the previous arguments this topic has caused!):
What constitutes marriage?
Profane Relationships
Genesis 2:24
Concubines... just a bit of mental jousting
Sex, marriage & emotions - ramblings of a FW

Related, could be useful:
Language affects our ability to think
One flesh
 
Last edited:
I think it is very important to keep in mind throughout this discussion that Hebrew and Greek do not have a word for "wife". Only "woman". Eve was Adam's woman. Sarah was Abraham's woman. Hagar was also Abraham's woman. The English word "wife" also originally meant simply "woman".

Much of what we think about marriage has come from the mystification of marriage and ceremonies introduced by the Roman Catholic church, and largely continued by the Protestant church. We tend to see "marriage" as a spiritually mystical "holy matrimony" - but that term is an invention of the Catholic church. This means that we can get very heated and upset when someone challenges our view of when "marriage" begins, because we see marriage as an absolutely critical religious institution. But it never used to be a religious institution, it isn't one in scripture, it was a purely secular affair (no religious ceremonies involved). It has serious spiritual implications when it comes to defining what behaviour is sinful and what is righteous, I am not denying that, but it wasn't in itself a religious institution. It may be that we get so heated about this issue because we simply have the wrong emphasis.

One application of this is to the definition of concubine. If we see "marriage" as a religious institution, we can get very upset over whether a concubine is a "wife" or just a woman that a man happens to sleep with. But in Hebrew, both "wife" and "woman" are the same word. So both a "wife" and a "concubine" are women who belong, in one way or another, to a man, and whom he is legitimately able to sleep with without sinning. Neither is more or less "holy" than the other. The precise difference is still worth discussing, but not worth getting upset about, because rather than putting the artificial Catholic doctrine of "holy matrimony" into the mix and trying to decide whether concubines are "in" or "out", we can simply look at the practical implications and calmly consider the obligations of men to their wives vs their concubines.

So let's discuss when "marriage" begins - but bear in mind throughout this discussion that what we believe "marriage" is must be firmly based on scripture.

I could define "marriage" as being simply "a state where a man is in authority over a woman (as defined in scripture), where both have responsibilities to each other as defined in scripture (love, lifelong commitment etc), and both may have sexual intercourse with each other without sinning".

So when considering the issue of "does X form a marriage?", rather than thinking "does X form a mystical spiritual union?", it may be clearer to think "does X form a union containing authority, responsibility, and sex without sin? (termed 'marriage' for convenience)"

If someone else says a particular act doesn't form a "marriage", and you believe it does form a "marriage", rather than arguing this question as a whole, go back to the fundamentals. Ask:
- Does this act result in the man being in authority over the woman?
- Does this act result in the man and woman having responsibilities towards each other as defined in scripture?
- Following this act, may the man and woman have sex without sinning?
When re-worded in that way, you may find that you actually hold very similar positions, but were just using different terminology (one applying the word "marriage" and the other not applying it, but both seeing similar practical implications).

For instance, in Biblical times, if a man purchased a slave woman and then decided to sleep with her, she was generally termed a "concubine". Often people assume she didn't have a true marriage. However, the man was in authority over her, they had mutual responsibilities (clearly defined in scripture), and could have sex without sinning (no law against it, and no other man had a claim on her). So they were "married", and could be together without sinning. They might not have had the sort of relationship we would personally want a married couple to have, but that is not the question.

Note that I've discussed this question using the example of concubines in order to choose a "neutral" question that is not one of the three positions stated above. My points here relate to how we consider all three positions. I don't intend to debate concubines here as such, except where they inform one of these positions.
 
Ok, I'm going to add my opinion in here. Don't dismiss is guys just 'cause I'm a woman and it seems simple. Often the bible comes back to simple and we try to complicate it. Like you're all trying to complicate when marriage begins. Same argument, all the time. And you're all wrong (sorry dear). You all think you're right, because you can come up with scripture to back up your viewpoint. There is scripture to say that marriage begins at covenant, sex, and possession. That's because all three are in play. You guys want to pick it apart to come up with the absolute starting point. But you're missing what marriage is.
Samuel had it, here:
FollowingHim said:
I could define "marriage" as being simply "a state where a man is in authority over a woman (as defined in scripture), where both have responsibilities to each other as defined in scripture (love, lifelong commitment etc), and both may have sexual intercourse with each other without sinning".
Click to expand...
That is marriage. Authority (possession), covenant, sex. They ALL make up marriage. You can't have marriage without all of them.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't responsibilities if you've done one of those things without the others. Say you've had sex with a woman but have chosen not to have a covenant with her, well then you have an obligation to sort out the rest of it, don't you? Obligation doesn't make marriage. Say you chose to have a covenant with a woman but never have sex with her (can't image why, but the same rules apply here), then you have an obligation to fulfil your duties and be married. Bible says you need to do that. You don't do that, you're sinning, doesn't mean you're married.
Is this making any sense? I'm typing this quickly because my baby is awake and wanting a feed, lol.
Synopsis. You're all wrong, and you're all right. Make it simpler, guys. YHWH made his laws easy to understand :).
 
The most detailed scriptural account of a marriage (if we call the debated deuterocanonical books "scripture", I take them to be at least worth using to expand our understanding of concepts already introduced in the accepted books), is in the book of Tobit. I find this a lovely account, and find myself reading it several times over whenever I read it. It describes the personal relationships between people well, and includes both covenant and sexual intercourse. I post it to this primary thread because I am unclear whether it supports covenant or sex beginning a marriage, as both take place and an argument can be made either way. It is highly worth reading.

To explain the context, because the story is a bit odd: Tobit is blind, and has prayed for healing. His cousin's daughter Sarah is under the influence of a demon, who kills any man who tries to marry her. Both have cried out to God in prayer (chapter 3), and the angel Raphael has been sent to heal them both and to cause Sarah to marry Tobit's son Tobias, bringing joy and a future to both of their families. Tobias is now travelling with Raphael / Azarias to the house of Raguel, his father Tobit's cousin. Raphael has told Tobias that he is to marry Sarah, and has told Tobias how to drive away the demon by burning the entrails of a fish (a weird practical action, but comparable to Elisha telling a man to bathe in the Jordan to cure leprosy or Yeshua placing mud on a man's eyes to heal him). Don't dismiss it just because it is weird, I'd recommend reading the entire book of Tobit, which is short, to understand this account in context.
Tobit 7-8 said:
7:
1 They came to Ecbatana, and arrived at the house of Raguel. But Sarah met them; and she greeted them, and they her. Then she brought them into the house. 2 Raguel said to Edna his wife, “This young man really resembles Tobit my cousin!” 3 And Raguel asked them, “Where are you two from, kindred?”
They said to him, “We are of the sons of Naphtali, who are captives in Nineveh.”
4 He said to them, “Do you know Tobit our brother?”
They said, “We know him.”
Then he said to them, “Is he in good health?”
5 They said, “He is both alive, and in good health.” Tobias said, “He is my father.”
6 And Raguel sprang up, and kissed him, wept, 7 blessed him, and said to him, “You are the son of an honest and good man.” When he had heard that Tobit had lost his sight, he was grieved, and wept; 8 and Edna his wife and Sarah his daughter wept. They received them gladly; and they killed a ram of the flock, and served them meat.
But Tobias said to Raphael, “Brother Azarias, speak of those things of which you talked about in the way, and let the matter be finished.”
9 So he communicated the thing to Raguel. Raguel said to Tobias, “Eat, drink, and make merry: 10 for it belongs to you to take my child. However I will tell you the truth. 11 I have given my child to seven men, and whenever they came in to her, they died in the night. But for the present be merry.”
And Tobias said, “I will taste nothing here, until you all make a covenant and enter into that covenant with me.”
12 Raguel said, “Take her to yourself from now on according to custom. You are her relative, and she is yours. The merciful God will give all good success to you.” 13 And he called his daughter Sarah, and took her by the hand, and gave her to be wife of Tobias, and said, “Behold, take her to yourself after the law of Moses, and lead her away to your father.” And he blessed them. 14 He called Edna his wife, then took a book, wrote a contract, and sealed it. 15 Then they began to eat.
16 And Raguel called his wife Edna, and said to her, “Sister, prepare the other chamber, and bring her in there.” 17 She did as he asked her, and brought her in there. She wept, and she received the tears of her daughter, and said to her, 18 “Be comforted, my child. May the Lord of heaven and earth give you favor for this your sorrow. Be comforted, my daughter.”

8:
1When they had finished their supper, they brought Tobias in to her. 2 But as he went, he remembered the words of Raphael, and took the ashes of the incense, and put the heart and the liver of the fish on them, and made smoke with them. 3 When the demon smelled that smell, it fled into the uppermost parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him. 4 But after they were both shut in together, Tobias rose up from the bed, and said, “Sister, arise, and let’s pray that the Lord may have mercy on us.” 5 And Tobias began to say, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers, and blessed is your holy and glorious name forever. Let the heavens bless you, and all your creatures. 6 You made Adam, and gave him Eve his wife for a helper and support. From them came the seed of men. You said, it is not good that the man should be alone. Let’s make him a helper like him. 7 And now, O Lord, I take not this my sister for lust, but in truth. Command that I may find mercy and grow old with her.”
8 She said with him, “Amen.” And they both slept that night.
9 Raguel arose, and went and dug a grave, 10 saying, “Lest he also should die.” 11 And Raguel came into his house, 12 and said to Edna his wife, “Send one of the maidservants, and let them see if he is alive. If not, we will bury him, and no man will know it.”
13 So the maidservant opened the door, and went in, and found them both sleeping, 14 and came out, and told them that he was alive.
15 Then Raguel blessed God, saying, “Blessed are you, O God, with all pure and holy blessing! Let your saints bless you, and all your creatures! Let all your angels and your elect bless you forever! 16 Blessed are you, because you have made me glad; and it has not happened to me as I suspected; but you have dealt with us according to your great mercy. 17 Blessed are you, because you have had mercy on two that were the only begotten children of their parents. Show them mercy, O Lord. Fulfill their life in health with gladness and mercy.
18 He commanded his servants to fill the grave. 19 He kept the wedding feast for them fourteen days. 20 Before the days of the wedding feast were finished, Raguel sware to him, that he should not depart till the fourteen days of the wedding feast were fulfilled; 21 and that then he should take half of his goods, and go in safety to his father; and the rest, said he, when my wife and I die.
Click to expand...
The great detail shows us many fascinating aspects to this:
  • A written contract
  • Physical handing of the wife to the husband
  • Sexual intercourse (probably, not necessarily, but implied by the euphemism "slept that night")
  • Prayer (interestingly not present in any marriage account in the accepted canon of scripture)
  • Marriage of relatives being so accepted that Sarah was assumed to "belong to" Tobias simply because he was her close relative and so should inherit her father's property (6:9-12 states this even more strongly, see Numbers 36)
  • A husband being used to deliver his wife from demonic oppression (this is directly relevant to the lives of some people here)
  • Inheritence
  • Obvious joy, expressed through prayer
It doesn't clearly show whether the marriage began when Raguel wrote the contract and handed Sarah to Tobias, or whether it only began once Tobias had sex with Sarah with the permission of her father. But it's fascinating regardless.

I feel this illustrates the ideal, how marriage should be formed in ideal circumstances (minus the demon and the fish guts - but then again every real-world couple will have their own unique issues to deal with!). It's good to look at the ideal situation first, how marriage should work with all factors in play, before considering what obligations doing only one of these things may bring. And this is the most detailed "ideal" account I know of.
 
Last edited:
Ok, now for this one flesh argument you all get your panties in a knot about. One FLESH. The word is right in front of you. It's not spiritual. You don't become One SPIRIT, or One SOUL, you become One FLESH.
This is going to get graphic, look away if you can't deal with such matters.
When a couple have sex, the man ejaculates his sperm into a woman's vagina. Part of him, part of his DNA is inside of her. When a woman is ovulating there is no plug at the cervix like there is the rest of the month (except for during her period, but I'm going to assume people aren't having sex then because the thought of it grosses me out). Now, to get pregnant, the sperm has to reach the egg, but the egg isn't just sitting in the uterus above the cervix hanging out for the guy, nope, it's way back in the ovary, and starting to make it's way down the fallopian tube. So, to get to the egg, these sperm have to travel through the uterus, and most of the way down the fallopian tube until they find it. Hopefully one manages to get in, and you get a baby (yay!), but what happens to the millions of other sperm? They get absorbed by the mother's body. And so you become one FLESH.
Check out this article:
The conclusions of this study noted that the possible sources of male michrochimerism included known pregnancies, miscarriages, vanished male twins, or sexual intercourse. This means that through intercourse alone there is a potential for women to hold onto male genes and DNA within their organs and blood stream for their entire life!
Click to expand...
This doesn't make you married. One flesh on it's own does not make you married. The study found that women also had DNA from their sons inside them, and I'm pretty sure that carrying and birthing a son does not make you married to him! Like I said above, you need all 3 things to be in play. But if you explained this to every single teenager during sex-ed at school, I bet you'd have a lot less sex before marriage going on.
 
Last edited:
This one is easy to solve:
I'M RIGHT!
YOU'RE ALL WRONG!
(Unless you agree with me):D

In all seriousness, I really joined this group because I hated "debate" tactics from other sites. I was part of one forum that was supposedly from my part of the Christian spectrum. I brought up polygyny and basically got shot up, down and all around with very little scholarship. When I tried to present my side in a dignified manner, it was mostly wise cracks and snide comments (I presume mom and dad's basement dwellers). Only one member chose to engage in opposition by using somewhat sound hermaneutics and even Greek. I actually managed to get one to eventually concede that it wasn't sinful, but he begged me not to take up a second because he feared the negative outcomes.

I would much rather ask questions. I believe it is Dennis Prager who says clarity is better that agreement in conversation.

I hope my side has been made clear.
I don't agree with other positions, but this is not a major point of theology, so it's not the end of the world.

I retire from this issue.



Now I propose a safer topic....Sovereign election, or free will????:eek:
 
Mojo, your viewpoint has been made clear in another thread, and many other people's viewpoints have been made clear elsewhere. However those scattered discussions are not easy for anyone researching the issue to find. And frankly, I'm not really interested in knowing what person X thinks, but rather what scripture says.

In the five years I have been on this forum, this issue has re-emerged time and time again, yet never have we had a discussion that I would be comfortable pointing people towards as a good reference if they wish to understand the issue further. The issue continually re-emerges because it is a very important question, yet arguments occur because strong emotions are attached to it. I hope here to gradually accumulate sound teaching from all perspectives in one place as a good reference. Any contributions you would like to make at any point would be greatly appreciated (thanks for your post on the covenant thread). If there are any other points you have made elsewhere that you think are worth being easy for people to find in future when researching the issue, please post them here - not to debate the issue at all, rather for the benefit of future readers.
 
Totally understand the premise of this thread (getting your perspective across without the tension and point/counterpoint).

I'm just lamenting the fact that I ventured down a road I don't like.

I'm retiring for now because I want to cool my head off, not because I think it is a "debate" thread.

I may come out of retirement on this topic another day, with scripture and hopefully sound exegesis and logic with it.
 
FollowingHim2 said:
Authority (possession), covenant, sex. They ALL make up marriage. You can't have marriage without all of them.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't responsibilities if you've done one of those things without the others. Say you've had sex with a woman but have chosen not to have a covenant with her, well then you have an obligation to sort out the rest of it, don't you? Obligation doesn't make marriage. Say you chose to have a covenant with a woman but never have sex with her (can't image why, but the same rules apply here), then you have an obligation to fulfil your duties and be married. Bible says you need to do that. You don't do that, you're sinning, doesn't mean you're married.
Click to expand...
Sarah has introduced a fourth option here - both covenant and sex are required for marriage. It's a valid possibility, I'll add it to the list for consideration.
 
I think there may be a fifth option too - that more than one of the above are valid ways to be considered married, and perhaps that doesn't deserve it's own thread.

To flesh this out a bit, I would suggest this doesn't mean that for some a covenant doesn't equal marriage or sex doesn't equal marriage, but perhaps either of those options can equal marriage. I presume possession could work the same way. For example, a man who is injured and cannot consummate a marriage may still be considered married through covenant, whereas a man who has sex with an eligible woman may be married to her.
 
That's essentially the point I've tried to present in the "Possession" option - that if a man and a woman are together for one reason or another, whether by covenant or sex, they are married. Either one can form a marriage. I use the word "possession" in the sense that if a man possesses a woman for any legitimate reason she should be considered his wife. But I may not have worded this clearly enough.
 
I am still learning how to post, so I hope my link below worked correctly. :(

IMHO marriage is a variant of "Possession"; it is the "cleaving" that begins or creates the marriage, not the sex, the minister, the covenant, or some state marriage certificate. The covenant is a detail within the cleaving; a responsibility of the marriage and this can be discussed before a marriage takes place. Marriage does not happen as soon as the covenant is created. Sex is a fruit of the marriage; a responsibility within the marriage, for multiplying and enjoyment to bring them closer together. Marriage is in the state of mind:

FollowingHim said:
I could define "marriage" as being simply "a state where a man is in authority over a woman (as defined in scripture), where both have responsibilities to each other as defined in scripture (love, lifelong commitment etc), and both may have sexual intercourse with each other without sinning".
Click to expand...

Marriage is a man cleaving to his woman.

Therefore shall man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave (dabaq; to cling; keep close) to his wife (ishshah; woman), and they shall be one flesh (echad basar; one body, kindred, family unit). Gen 2:24

Man will leave his parents and cling to a woman and become a family that has responsibilities to one another which includes sex (to have children and enjoyment) along with other commitments.

If any element can be removed from the marriage equation and the marriage is still intact, then that element does not constitute marriage (e.g. sex; if you remove sex, it does not resolve the marriage therefore it cannot create marriage, although, as discussed earlier, it can be a means to marriage). Which brings us back to the "state of mind". The only way to dissolve a marriage is through the state of mind (which may lend more to the hardness of heart) followed by the Bill of Divorcement of course. This would explain why divorce rates are so high. Too many people believe that marriage is the piece of paper or contract and not the state of mind that the parties are within with YHWH. If you want to put the exact moment to marriage, it is when the woman agrees to cleave to and become the man's woman or helpmeet.
 
Last edited:
Maybe another way to look at this is to exchange the word marriage for husband and wife or better still, man and woman. At what point does the union of a man and woman exist? Simply, when the woman agrees to become the man's woman, after being asked by the man. A man promises (makes a covenant to the woman) to love her, keep her close, take care of her, and protect her (dabaq; cleave to her), but she has not agreed yet, therefore they are still not man and woman until she agrees to cleave to him in return, rather submits to him (state of mind). Then and only then are they man and woman (i.e., husband and wife, married) and become one family/body unit (echad basar; one flesh).
 
Last edited:
@FH2 said "Say you chose to have a covenant with a woman but never have sex with her (can't image why, but the same rules apply here), then you have an obligation to fulfil your duties and be married."

Could you elaborate on the scenario here? Is this a current day situation or the handmaiden that you have brought into the house for practical purposes?
(OT culture)


It seems to me that this would be a situation like you described above where there exists an authority or covenant (not familial, wife, daughter, sister, mother) but it is a covenant with understood contingencies. It is a possibility that it will be converted to a familial covenant at some point depending entirely upon whether or not she is viewed as being a positive asset to the family.

A variant of this type relationship may be the answer to a lot of issues mentioned elsewhere in the forum about bringing in an additional wife.
The existing flow chart appears to go like this: Interest, courting (investigating theoretical compatibility), Full Covenant.
The 'handmaid' Flow chart would look like this: Interest, courting ( investigating theoretical compatibility), Limited Covenant (investigating practical compatibility to determine if a lifetime covenant is desired), Full Covenant (the handmaid is now converted to wife with all associated benefits, rights and responsibilities)

Limited covenant initially (written of course) (not a contract, just a simple list of understood guidelines; the Ten Expectations?) with the understanding that it may be converted or cut off at later date (predetermined or to be determined), limited contact physically, (this would not be dating/courting, this is simply an opportunity for both parties to demonstrate servant hood) a chance to observe and integrate, a chance to belong as a valued 'guest' of the family until such a time as all parties are ready to convert the limited covenant into a forever covenant.

If it was approached this way, it could be presented to anyone outside the adults involved as a house guest.
This might have the side benefit of being able to acquaint them with the extended family and let them be accepted as a part of the family. Later, if you decide to convert the covenant, if the extended family already accepts her as a part of the family, it's not as big a step to accept that she now has different, more important role in the family.

Gotta go to work now. Maybe I'll try to flesh this idea out later.
 
Last edited:
Here's a possibility to consider: Divine arrangement vs. human arrangement. In the inauguration of a new marriage the divine arrangement is spelled out for us in Genesis 2:24: A man and a woman decide to come out from under their families of origin (leaving mother and father), and form a new independent household (husband and wife holding fast to one another, along with any future children), by consummating the marriage via sexual intercourse (becoming one flesh). What God leaves to human arrangement is how that new family is publically recognized by the community (for the sake of avoiding: sin/or the appearance thereof, scandal, AND so that things are done decently and in good order). The provision for human arrangement is why A: you don't see in the Bible any prescribed ceremonies for marriage. B: one sees a plethora of marriage customs across the various tribes and nations. FWIW.
 
Don said:
I have read each of the four positions and I see some valid points for each position. I need to re-study this whole area. I did not know there is no Hebrew or Greek word for wife.. only one for woman and man. Interesting!
Click to expand...
The deeper you study polygyny, the deeper you will have to investigate marriage....period!

So much has been tainted by culture that we cannot see the forest from the trees. We dwell in our cultural expectations and fail to see Gods biblical expectations.

I'm likening this journey to someone leaving Catholicism and thinking that traditions were biblical, then realizing that true scriptural teachings might be diametrically opposed.

Catholics are not the only tradition followers......we fundamental/evangelical believers have a LOT of traditions we call "Bible".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top