• 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

How would you apply these principles where one (sexual) partner believed that marriage had occurred but the other did not, so that in effect the second partner thought they had sinned?
I mean that the "liberty" of one party had actually become a "stumblingblock" to the other (along the lines of 1Cor 8:9-13)?
Would you say that there was no marriage because there could not have been any real "contract" or that marriage had occurred because the mechanics had been satisfied?
And if we assume doctrinal agreement on everything except the validity of polygamy or what constitutes marriage, could such a situation introduce issues of believer and unbeliever that are relevant?
 
Quartus said:
How would you apply these principles where one (sexual) partner believed that marriage had occurred but the other did not, so that in effect the second partner thought they had sinned?
I mean that the "liberty" of one party had actually become a "stumblingblock" to the other (along the lines of 1Cor 8:9-13)?
Would you say that there was no marriage because there could not have been any real "contract" or that marriage had occurred because the mechanics had been satisfied?
And if we assume doctrinal agreement on everything except the validity of polygamy or what constitutes marriage, could such a situation introduce issues of believer and unbeliever that are relevant?
Click to expand...
First, polygyny is not a core "believer/non-believer" doctrine, so I don't think that would be the biggest problem.

Second, sexual sin is forgiveable.

Third, you have an interesting predicament. Would the two parties be able to reconcile their differences and just decide to make a formal covenant to satisfy the party who felt sin? The party who felt they were already married wouldn't lose anything.
 
Thanks Mojo, I don't really disagree with any of that but a couple of difficulties nevertheless
Although not a core doctrine as such, doctrine affects behaviour, and the question is one of behaviour, of whether the responsibilities of being married or not married apply .
Certainly such a sin could be forgiven, but the question is, would God consider that a marriage had occurred (resulting in obligations on H/W) or would it simply be a case of sinning no more?

Perhaps more importantly, I think the believer/non-believer issue is relevant to divorce 1Cor 7.
It seems to me that the issues are relevant to polygamy have much deeper ramifications to the Christian world at large when applied to the practice of divorce and remarriage.
Coming from a monogamy-only point of view, there is equality: if Christ says something regarding divorced sisters, that gets applied to divorced brethren, and vice versa.
But coming from a polygamy perspective, what the Gospels teach about divorced sisters cannot be automatically applied to divorced brethren, and vice versa.

So even if many Christians don't want to consider having more than one wife, there should be enough of them who are sufficiently responsible who would want to try and sort out divorce and remarriage on the correct scriptural basis.
 
@ZecAustin:
Yes, the example was meant to be based on a sexual relationship... and yes I agree it would be that simple in an OT culture where everyone lived under established rules - that would have been recognised as marriage.
But in our day we don't have agreement on this and although this is only my second day on the site, there are plenty of examples of members not agreeing with their church on the issues of polygamy, which suggests they agree with everything except polygamy.

To me this issue is a very real problem with preaching polygamy - what happens when a "strong" brother meets a "weak" sister, or vice versa? to the extent that I come to think that monogamy and polygamy would struggle to be contained in the same fellowship, or it would potentially introduce all sorts of (temporary) immorality into a church.

Putting the last two posts together then, maybe just maybe, concentrating on reforming divorce (on polygamous principles) would be a way to introduce more OT legislation into mainstream Christian thought. While polygamy remains outside the law, most Christians would be happy to leave it that as polygamy was illegal that bit wasn't relevant. But then if one day the law was changed.... we might be a lot further along the way.
 
Quartus said:
And if we assume doctrinal agreement on everything except the validity of polygamy or what constitutes marriage,
Click to expand...
ZecAustin said:
Was there sex? Were both parties free to marry? If you answered yes to both questions then you're married.
Click to expand...

If there is a difference in the understanding of the validity of polygamy, then at least on one side the belief is that the other party was "not free to marry" and thus for that person the belief in the requirement for monogamy would mean that in their mind no marriage was formed.

Under the assumption that the party that does not believe in polygamy is the woman.
Not understanding the status of the woman (virgin or not) would not Exodus 22:16 be worthy of consideration. But then to balance our thinking perhaps we could consider verse 17. So just the act of intercourse does not constitute a marriage.
If her conscience is injured then was it truly a marital contract or was she seduced and thus injured?
According to Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:29 the obligation to take her as a wife comes upon the man, but the decision for her to become his wife belongs to another. However she may not still be under the headship of her father thus such a precedent would not apply.

The issue may be that if she is feeling defiled and thus that she has walked in sin, the only way that will change is if she were to accept that polygamy is acceptable before God. The challenge now would be to assist her to see this, when she would possibly consider any such reasoning as justification of former conduct.

Today many have fallen into such a predicament and with the standards and teachings of Christendom firmly entrenched in ones head its a very hard situation to resolve. There is no simple answer, for today if one party does not recognize that the marital union was formed then no marital union was formed, as by the standards of modern society both a man and a woman have the right to choose.
 
Quartus said:
To me this issue is a very real problem with preaching polygamy - what happens when a "strong" brother meets a "weak" sister, or vice versa? to the extent that I come to think that monogamy and polygamy would struggle to be contained in the same fellowship
Click to expand...

If a man "already" believes in polygamy and was considering a sister that did not believe in polygamy, to proceed with the union, he would need to be willing to forgo any such right to practice polygamy for only a fool would set his wife up for heart break and the marital stresses that would ensue.
 
Quartus said:
Thanks Mojo, I don't really disagree with any of that but a couple of difficulties nevertheless
Although not a core doctrine as such, doctrine affects behaviour, and the question is one of behaviour, of whether the responsibilities of being married or not married apply .
Certainly such a sin could be forgiven, but the question is, would God consider that a marriage had occurred (resulting in obligations on H/W) or would it simply be a case of sinning no more?

Perhaps more importantly, I think the believer/non-believer issue is relevant to divorce 1Cor 7.
It seems to me that the issues are relevant to polygamy have much deeper ramifications to the Christian world at large when applied to the practice of divorce and remarriage.
Coming from a monogamy-only point of view, there is equality: if Christ says something regarding divorced sisters, that gets applied to divorced brethren, and vice versa.
But coming from a polygamy perspective, what the Gospels teach about divorced sisters cannot be automatically applied to divorced brethren, and vice versa.

So even if many Christians don't want to consider having more than one wife, there should be enough of them who are sufficiently responsible who would want to try and sort out divorce and remarriage on the correct scriptural basis.
Click to expand...
If you're just talking a sex act, you're talking to the wrong person. I am on record as believing covenant = marriage.

You're right. Having talked to "monogamy only" adherents, the argument is that what is said to women applies to men and vice versa. It's not a stable stool to lean on, though, because then you have to inevitably make exceptions eventually.

Your post was about a marriage scenario, so introducing divorce is going to muddy it up. Maybe a separate post on that?
 
Before this goes much further, everyone ought to read the initial post in this thread. The whole purpose for this thread was to keep the debate on this topic to a minimum by giving a good space to share thoughts on when marriage begins without debating the same points over and over. If there is new information, it should be shared in one of the sub-threads. The topic of divorce should also probably be moved to its own thread.
 
Agreed my example would be based on Deut 22:25-30 without in any way detracting from the clear implications of God calling Mary Joseph's "wife" before they came together (Matt 1:20).
My example would therefore be relevant
if one partner (A) had thought they were both making a covenant (justifying sex because God recognised polygamous marriage), but later found that
the other partner (B) did not believe that they had made/could make a covenant and what had occurred was sinful.
Sex would clearly have to stop because of B's conscience. But how does A proceed according to A's conscience? is A to regard B as divorced or single, and is B's belief/conscience relevant?

Yes I appreciate divorce would be a separate subject to deal with in any detail, (perhaps needing a totally new section to keep many possible threads in one place?). Nevertheless this post is about "when" marriage occurs, which leads to "whether" it has occurred, which must then dictate the subsequent course of action. Happy to leave divorce at a superficial level here, but I think it emphasises that defining "marriage" to know what constitutes it and "when" it occurs is not just an interesting academic question but has hugely important practical considerations.
(Also it would be inconclusive to discuss divorce if there was no agreement on when/whether marriage had taken place in the first place, which is an excuse for chipping away at it here. Anyway thank you for your comments on this).
 
I believe that Samuel’s point here (What constitutes marriage? #11) should be elevated to its own position here. Namely (if I understand him correctly), that what constitutes “marriage” is really just important as a practical matter to establish boundaries between neighbors, and not as some metaphysical reality.

Adultery and marriage are not so clearly defined as we would like, because they are more practical than spiritual. Adultery has to do with the relative defiling of women (and therefore also includes some forms of porneia), and the guilt of adultery is assigned to the person or persons that are the practical cause of the adulteration. The guilt of adultery in the case of a married woman belongs to the man who defiles his neighbors wife (and to the woman herself, if she is willing participant). But likewise, the Lord seems to place the guilt of the practical adulteration of a frivolously divorced woman on her former husband (and possibly on her new husband). But the real point is that “what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Likewise, in “A History and Philosophy of Marriage”, James Campbell puts it as (roughly, from memory) “love is the mistress; marriage is the hand-maiden”.

Stealing is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, but we don’t suppose that Heaven maintains some cosmic register of deeds where the title to every atom in every paperclip is assigned each to the soul of its true owner. Adultery is likewise forbidden, but as with stealing, the importance of what constitutes “marriage” is how it relates to your neighbors. There is no cosmic registry of marriage certificates in Heaven recording who is truly married to whom.
 
Last edited:
@jkstrick, post #11 is by aineo. Were you referring to post #12 or something else?
 
Ah, thanks.

The shade of blue the CSS uses for links doesn't always stand out enough from the grey/black text to get noticed; that has tripped up others as well. I may tinker with that some this weekend.
 
Marriage is very well defined in scripture if you're trying to do it right. It is very easy to know how to form a marriage correctly. What we're all talking about is the limits, the outer edges of marriage. Is this a marriage? Am I bound by that or the other? This can be dangerous territory for speculation.

God hates divorce. Adultery carries the death penalty. Trying to find the extreme limits of God's hate and the death penalty reminds me of the old mariners maps, here there be dragons.
 
for me my marriage began once we made our committment to each other before God, our friends and family and our minister. Even though I was already living in the home before our marriage I kept to myself and he slept with the first wife only until our ceremony. For me, regardless if it is a mono or a poly that is when marriage begins for me.

B
 
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...
In your study, because it is about husband, wife, and marriage; look up also the original definition of “husband.” If there is no distinction between woman and wife in the original texts, which I agree; then would not the word “husband” also not be related to a man married to a woman or wife? In God’s numbers, perfection is three. Not one or two. One can be in a sex filled relationship or sexless relationship and still not married. Simply put, if we are not joined to Christ (the husband) mind, body, and spirit; can we say we are His Bride? Just because I physically sit in a chicken house (church) will never make me a chicken. I have counseled couples, that so called had “fallen out of Love.” It is not because of sex, which they assume. It’s root of “falling out of Love” is rooted in disconnecting by mind and or spirit. I have recommended they try reconnecting mentally and spiritually. Amazing how the physical is renewed. This is the similar to the problem we have when we disconnect with our Husband. Hope this helps in the discussion. Really enjoy reading everyone’s thoughts. Very enriching.
 
No, engagement is different to betrothal. In scripture, marriage does appear to begin in some form at betrothal (as a betrothed woman can commit adultery). But betrothal was when all the formal binding agreements were made, from then they were considered married just not yet consummated.

Modern engagement is a completely informal statement of intent, it does not parallel betrothal. The closest parallel we have is a formal wedding ceremony. If a couple have a wedding and say vows, we consider them married immediately, even if not yet consummated. If the wife slept with someone else that afternoon we would consider her to have committed adultery.

As I understand it, betrothal parallels a wedding ceremony. The only difference is the length of time between the formal agreements and consummation. Engagement is an unrelated modern invention and can be broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top