0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion

[MeganC]

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

Wow, we had a similar experience! I started out babysitting for the family and then I eventually moved in. Not long after that I married into the family (they called it handfasting at the time to avoid legal problems in California) and he never slept with me before the ceremony. Still, and this is just me, I didn't feel 'married' until the wedding night because where it wasn't legal I could still just walk away with no consequences. Natural sex is what sealed everything for me because after that I felt married.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Megan I read your blog. What happened with his first wife? What can be learned for those of us who wish to build a stronger family? Does anybody have an example of a poly-family where they have been able to keep it together? I don't want to end up in a situation where I succeed in getting a second wife, but it does not last a lifetime, either with the wife I already have, or the new wife I hope to one day marry.

 

[andrew]

Thanks, mystic (and rockfox)! Post and account deleted.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When I saw the big dogs posting on this one I got excited. I thought we were going to fire the old girl back up.

 

[Paulsen]

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.

So what would that mean for a women who has sex with men to get things? I dont mearly mean prostitution, but there are clearly women who have sex to impress their friends (I know plenty of girls/women who did that in high school). I know women who have had sex with a man to get gifts... would you consider prostitutes or sexual opportunists married to the men they have slept with?

 

[Curtis Gerhart]

So what would that mean for a women who has sex with men to get things? I dont mearly mean prostitution, but there are clearly women who have sex to impress their friends (I know plenty of girls/women who did that in high school). I know women who have had sex with a man to get gifts... would you consider prostitutes or sexual opportunists married to the men they have slept with?

First, if one were to look up the etymology or even an older definition of “prostitution”, the definition is, “any medium of exchange for sexual favors.” Ssoooooo, it doesn’t mean just money. With that said, I have yet to see a diffinitive line where just sex makes two people married. The Bible speaks of four types of Love. Agape, which is godly or selfless love; Phila, which is friendship or mental love; Storgé, which is affection or parental love; and finally Eros, which is romantic love or physical. What many do not realize is that only marriage based on God brings these four Loves together. Then without agape Love, the other three become “arbitrary” or based on an otonomous thinking. So, this begs the question, if we do not bring all four of these to the relationship, then are we truly ever married? Extensive study, word by word, of John 4 would be needed here. Also, 1 Corinthians 13. Does sex really make a marriage? IMO, that without Real Love(agape), then every relationship collapses. Then too, with Real Love, all four loves can grow and flourish. If sex makes a couple married, then why did Joseph want to privately put Mary away, yet there was no sex. My marriage in the Bride is when I see His Love, accept His Love, and give my Love in return as the consumation and to never be with another. So in conclusion, without Real Love it is questionable if there is or was a marriage. See John 4. Again, Real Love is the key to being married and not a covenant or sex. Just my thoughts.

 

[Paulsen]

First, if one were to look up the etymology or even an older definition of “prostitution”, the definition is, “any medium of exchange for sexual favors.” Ssoooooo, it doesn’t mean just money. With that said, I have yet to see a diffinitive line where just sex makes two people married. The Bible speaks of four types of Love. Agape, which is godly or selfless love; Phila, which is friendship or mental love; Storgé, which is affection or parental love; and finally Eros, which is romantic love or physical. What many do not realize is that only marriage based on God brings these four Loves together. Then without agape Love, the other three become “arbitrary” or based on an otonomous thinking. So, this begs the question, if we do not bring all four of these to the relationship, then are we truly ever married? Extensive study, word by word, of John 4 would be needed here. Also, 1 Corinthians 13. Does sex really make a marriage? IMO, that without Real Love(agape), then every relationship collapses. Then too, with Real Love, all four loves can grow and flourish. If sex makes a couple married, then why did Joseph want to privately put Mary away, yet there was no sex. My marriage in the Bride is when I see His Love, accept His Love, and give my Love in return as the consumation and to never be with another. So in conclusion, without Real Love it is questionable if there is or was a marriage. See John 4. Again, Real Love is the key to being married and not a covenant or sex. Just my thoughts.

Very helpful thoughts. Your response helped give me a clearer view of why Jesus does not speak highly of "putting away" a wife. Putting someone away seems to be devoid of all four types of love. I can see why Jesus described it as a hard hearted thing to do.

 

[FollowingHim]

So what would that mean for a women who has sex with men to get things? I dont mearly mean prostitution, but there are clearly women who have sex to impress their friends (I know plenty of girls/women who did that in high school). I know women who have had sex with a man to get gifts... would you consider prostitutes or sexual opportunists married to the men they have slept with?

I would consider them to have a moral obligation to marry the person they have slept with, but not to be married yet. If they just had sex once in exchange for cash or other favours, then he hardly possesses her. A man cannot claim to "possess" a prostitute he slept with, as they'd have competing claims with too many other men. And the same goes for a high school slut. Their sex didn't form marriages - but may have formed obligations.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Oh come on people! Paul says it clearly, if you have sex with a harlot you've become one flesh. It's the exact phrase Jesus uses when quoting the Genesis marriage. It doesn't get any clearer. Unless marriage is something other than one flesh sleeping with a woman causes a marriage.

 

[Cap]

Oh come on people! Paul says it clearly, if you have sex with a harlot you've become one flesh. It's the exact phrase Jesus uses when quoting the Genesis marriage. It doesn't get any clearer. Unless marriage is something other than one flesh sleeping with a woman causes a marriage.

Or the difference between spiritual and physical relationships.

 

[Paulsen]

Oh come on people! Paul says it clearly, if you have sex with a harlot you've become one flesh. It's the exact phrase Jesus uses when quoting the Genesis marriage. It doesn't get any clearer. Unless marriage is something other than one flesh sleeping with a woman causes a marriage.

You seem agitated, could you have a little patience for those of us sorting things out?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

It's the exact phrase Jesus uses when quoting the Genesis marriage.

The exact phrase is
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one†flesh

The Greek word there is kollao which is interchangeable with proskollao both of which are always used in scripture to indicate an alliance, or bonding of some sort like marriage and are never used to indicate a sexual “joining”. That is reserved for words/situations like fornication/adultery etc.

Your assumption that sex with a harlot equals “joining” is a conflation of ideas and words. It is true that you can have sex with a harlot, and it is also true that you can marry a harlot. But having sex with a harlot equals fornication unless you have also “kallao’ed” her.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

John 4:16-18

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
The woman answered and said, I have (echo Strongs 2192) no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said,†I have (echo) no husband:
For thou hast had (echo) five husbands; and he whom thou now hast (echo) is not thy husband: in that sadist thou truly.

Echo. Strongs 2192.

1. to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
   1. to be closely joined to a person or a thing

So in plain 21st century English, she says that she is not presently joined to a husband. Jesus confirms that this is her present reality though she has been joined to five men who were her husband (presumably sequentially) and they are currently no longer joined to her. The sixth man that she is currently “echo” ed to is not her husband as she said. The remarkable thing here is that Christ said that she spoke truly about her current status. Echo’ed but without a husband.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You seem agitated, could you have a little patience for those of us sorting things out?

I am a little agitated Paulsen but not at you.

The exact phrase is
for two, saith he, shall be one†flesh

One flesh is the exact phrase sir. We've been over this before. I Corinthians 6:16 . "Do ye not know that he [that is] joined to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh." English Revised Version.

John 4:16-18

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.
The woman answered and said, I have (echo Strongs 2192) no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said,†I have (echo) no husband:
For thou hast had (echo) five husbands; and he whom thou now hast (echo) is not thy husband: in that sadist thou truly.

Echo. Strongs 2192.

1. to hold one's self to a thing, to lay hold of a thing, to adhere or cling to
   1. to be closely joined to a person or a thing

So in plain 21st century English, she says that she is not presently joined to a husband. Jesus confirms that this is her present reality though she has been joined to five men who were her husband (presumably sequentially) and they are currently no longer joined to her. The sixth man that she is currently “echo” ed to is not her husband as she said. The remarkable thing here is that Christ said that she spoke truly about her current status. Echo’ed but without a husband.

There are a whole raft of reasons why the man the woman at the well was with was not her husband. We've been over it before. My main belief is that it was in fact an adulterous relationship that interrupted her fifth legitimate marriage. Remember that the woman was flabbergasted that Jesus would know that and it was the basis for her testimony to the people. It makes sense that it was something that wasn't common knowledge.

All of that being said though, we have gone over this ground repeatedly and heatedly and recently. I encourage Paulsen to look back through the debate. Please pay attention to the Biblical meaning of fornication and how exactly a marriage is formed if not through sex. Good luck and Godspeed. I think this is one of the pivotal issues in the idea of Biblical marriage. If we get this wrong we could lose the whole battle. We will become a group of adulterers claiming to have the truth but really just leading others astray.

 

[Pacman]

I am a little agitated Paulsen but not at you.

One flesh is the exact phrase sir. We've been over this before. I Corinthians 6:16 . "Do ye not know that he [that is] joined to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh." English Revised Version.



There are a whole raft of reasons why the man the woman at the well was with was not her husband. We've been over it before. My main belief is that it was in fact an adulterous relationship that interrupted her fifth legitimate marriage. Remember that the woman was flabbergasted that Jesus would know that and it was the basis for her testimony to the people. It makes sense that it was something that wasn't common knowledge.

All of that being said though, we have gone over this ground repeatedly and heatedly and recently. I encourage Paulsen to look back through the debate. Please pay attention to the Biblical meaning of fornication and how exactly a marriage is formed if not through sex. Good luck and Godspeed. I think this is one of the pivotal issues in the idea of Biblical marriage. If we get this wrong we could lose the whole battle. We will become a group of adulterers claiming to have the truth but really just leading others astray.

Zec it’s rare that I disagree with you but on this point I have to disagree. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself and there are several contradictions if the act of sex with an eligible woman = marriage. Exodus 22:16,17 is one example. Notice that they are not married at the act of sex but he is required to “endow” her and her father has the right to refuse him. How is that possible if the act of sex makes them married?

You are correct that this has been discussed at length and it would probably be beneficial for all of us to review those discussions...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Zec it’s rare that I disagree with you but on this point I have to disagree. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself and there are several contradictions if the act of sex with an eligible woman = marriage. Exodus 22:16,17 is one example. Notice that they are not married at the act of sex but he is required to “endow” her and her father has the right to refuse him. How is that possible if the act of sex makes them married?

You are correct that this has been discussed at length and it would probably be beneficial for all of us to review those discussions...

I'm sorry Pacman but this is actually a verse that proves me right. He has endowed her to be is wife. The father has the option to nullify it (Numbers 30 throws some light on this) and if he does the dummy still has to pay the bride price but he took her as a wife when had sex with her. We went through this quite thoroughly in another thread but I can't remember the name of it. It might even be this one.

 

[Pacman]

I'm sorry Pacman but this is actually a verse that proves me right. He has endowed her to be is wife. The father has the option to nullify it (Numbers 30 throws some light on this) and if he does the dummy still has to pay the bride price but he took her as a wife when had sex with her. We went through this quite thoroughly in another thread but I can't remember the name of it. It might even be this one.

I will reviewing it again. But it seems that based on the grammar, the passage does not support your claim.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I will reviewing it again. But it seems that based on the grammar, the passage does not support your claim.

You may be right but I would be interested to know what the point of the passage is if a status change of some kind hasn't occurred. And then of course there is the eternal and solvable problem about what to do with the act of sex outside of marriage. If it doesn't make a marriage is it completely okay? Is sex with an unmarried woman who you don't marry a sin? If so where is it listed? This is where I would ask that you double check the definition of fornication in the Bible. There are many thorny theological issues we must resolve if I am wrong. And I am frequently wrong.

 

[Pacman]

If it doesn't make a marriage is it completely okay?

Sort of... I would say based on the passage in question it makes him obligated to marry her. Also I would say that when a man does this with no intention to marry her he has run afoul of Exodus 20:17 and desired to unlawfully posess her. So no I cannot find scripture to support that the action is sin but in order to get to that point he has coveted which is clearly a sin.

I would say this verse also applies...
1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

 

[rockfox]

Sort of... I would say based on the passage in question it makes him obligated to marry her. Also I would say that when a man does this with no intention to marry her he has run afoul of Exodus 20:17 and desired to unlawfully posess her. So no I cannot find scripture to support that the action is sin but in order to get to that point he has coveted which is clearly a sin.

I would say this verse also applies...
1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

This is my view. He is obligated to marry her; but isn't yet married. It's a fine distinction. The sex=marriage view doesn't really gain you anything over 'obligated to marry' but does add a whole heap of needless complications given the lack of virgins these days.