Marriage according to Scripture

Matthew 22:2, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son", and He is coming again for those that would not come. Israel will go to Him in that day.

 

ituttut;
I was using the scriptures to show there was some kind of a ceremony when a marriage took place in Jesus's time.

 

So what about a couple who, for physical reasons, cannot consummate their marriage? Perhaps they are simply too old, or perhaps he or she has physical limitations. Are they not really married?

So how does one have sex with a harlot? Isn't that just the forming of a new marriage, if you are correct? And what is a command against fornication? There is no such thing as fornication in your view, it seems to me. Any sex act is simply the forming of a new marriage.

Contrary to your position, sex does not form a marriage. It never has and never will. A marriage is formed by a covenant between a man and a woman before to live together in exclusive harmony with each other. That is why the Bible calls it a covenant.

 

I believe there are two distinct aspect or Marriage similar to baptism or salvation.

There is the spiritual union then there is the public acknowledgement.

I don't believe every union I performed was sanctioned by God and so the two never became one and Man was able to set assunder what God did not join together. Do I advocate divorce, no God forbid! This is why I remained silent and just read this thread. I was hoping someone would really expound on the spiritual aspect of marriage as opposed to the ceremony and wearing of rings etc...


.............. EDIT:

When two become one, bone on bone, flesh on flesh is unseperable because no man can determine where one ends and the other begins. They have become one. Marriage as a union has no predefined lines because there are none. One is not complete without the other and like with Christ, there is no part this and part that they are 100% one. The Bible specifies to take completely...

Paul then gives some conditions other than cheating where putting away of a secular spouse is acceptable. Is Paul also implying that all unions are not ordained by God? How do we know a God ordained union from a lustful union?

Just some thoughts to get the ball rolling.

 

Matt: 01
No sex here and Mary was Joseph's wife and I am sure Heaven recognized it.

19: Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20: But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21: And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22: Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24: Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

I'm wondering if some here have forgotten that man looks on the appearance of man while God looks at the heart. While marriage can certainly have a secular definition, I don't think God has any problem whatsoever in determining what is and isn't a marriage between two people. He even knows the difference between fornication and marriage. While He left the trappings and ceremonial things for culture to determine, He Himself created the institution of marriage.

 

Good point, from my interpretation of this passage they must have completed the ceremony but never comsumated the union. As menageriekeeper said, Heaven must have a different definition of marriage.

 

My mistake.

 

They are committed to each other, but I cannot see how this can make the two become one; perhaps in mind becoming kindred spirits, but we in Spirit become One with Christ Jesus. I don't see how we can misconstrue what Paul says. The Harlot and the man become one and God says the two will become one.

If one cannot consummate the marriage then the other one can't either with that particular person. If one is able to perform and has an affair, committing the "marriage act" with another, that person could not be in adultery, but married to another in the sight of God. I don't see how we can commit adultery when we are still two, and not "married, becoming one".


To me, the story of Boaz and Ruth confirm further what marriage is, and what it is meant to be. Ruth 4:10, "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day." There is no other way we can bring about "blood inheritance".

Fornication is Idolatry that leads to Homosexuality, Bestiality, Free love, and not committing the marriage act.

Are you not putting your question to Paul? He is the one that said it.

But the proof is in the pudding. How did you get here? Was it not by "blood covenant"?

 

Mary was "espoused" to Joseph as wife. He was not at her house, so he went and got her, bringing her to his house. People thought they had done the "marriage act", but they had not. They later consummated their marriage. Was Joseph considered to be "one with Mary when the Highest overshadowed her". We must keep Mary a virgin.

 

Scripture says Joseph was her husband. Because he had not "knew her yet" did not mean he was not her husband and does not make her "not a virgin".

Marriage is something that has been passed down through time. We just didn't pick it up and decided to go and get married. I have also, always thought if there was a "Bill of Divorcement", it would make sense there was some kind of document even in those days, but that is just me and I don't have scripture except what I just give.

Matt:

19: Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

espouse

Late Latin sponsare to betroth, from Latin sponsus betrothed -- more at SPOUSE
1 : MARRY
2 : to take up and support as a cause : become attached to
:jesus:

 

Yes, but the oneness in marriage is far more than sex.

Which doesn’t answer the questions. If a couple is physically unable to have sex, can they still be married?

So how is that adultery? Adultery is having sex with someone other than your spouse. In your position, that is impossible, because the sex is just the forming of a new marriage. It would be polygamy, not adultery.

I am not sure what this means exactly.

But again, if sex is what makes a marriage, isn’t fornication simply getting married?

No you said it. Paul said something very different.

No, I got here by natural procreation. That is not a covenant.

 

Wasn't the formal Jewish custom in that day to ask the father for the daughter? The man then usually went back home (Jesus tells us this) for a year to build a home, or add a room to the parent's home. This time element also would show the "maid" could very well be a virgin, a good sign they had not yet come to together or she being unfaithful. When Joseph took her as his wife, they evidently had no "big wedding" as it was done quietly, but those that knew them, thought they had actually become one now, that Joseph had taken her. To the world it was all legal and above board. And afterward Joseph did not get rid of her, for she evidently "spotted", else we could safely bet Joseph would have gotten rid of her as shown in Deuteronomy 24:1, and 22:12-14.

If Joseph had refused to take Mary as "wife" for the world to see, Jesus would have carried the stigma of being an "illegitimate offspring", and not even the churches would believe she was a virgin (with conviction) for they would believe man (Joseph) for he would tell the world she was pregnant before they ever performed the act of marriage, becoming one. He would say "I have no part with this fornicating woman that married, becoming one with another.

Joseph being the man he was, believing God, by faith took Mary to be his wife. Had Joseph not taken her to be His wife, and not being a just man, Joseph by law could have called for her death (Deut. 22:20-24). He took her and put her away quietly.

Espouse as many other words has more than one meaning. It is to take up a cause, ideology; a practice accepted to become fact by many, or perhaps not so many. Don't you "espouse the theory" Paul is in error, as he does not know that Harlot and man did not become married by doing the sex act? As you do not believe this, can you please explain how we can accomplish the directive God gave to us to be fruitful?

If it is Mind over Matter, I believe we have made ourselves God. God is capable of making Mary to be fruitful without being sexual about it, but is any "flesh" able to duplicate that feat, and seed? Did God "marry" Mary? Of course not for God is Spirit, and we live in the flesh. We in our own spirit can produce nothing, but in the flesh becoming one, we can do a great job. That is the way he made us, and this is the purpose he made us the way we are. Had not the "act of marriage" of the man and the woman been done down through the ages, there would have been no "vessel" to carry and deliver Jesus into the world.

 

Great question! I say yes because marriage is more a spiritual union that a physical. The majority of the marriages that end in divorce was built on this unstable foundation. Those be both of my $00.02.

 

Interesting, here is what my Vine's says.

Espoused
Usage Number: 1
Strong's Number: <G718>
Original Word: ἁρμόζω, harmozō
Usage Notes: "to fit, join" (from harmos, "a joint, joining;" the root ar---, signifying "to fit," is in evidence in various languages; cp. arthron, "a joint," arithmos, "a number," etc.), is used in the Middle Voice, of marrying or giving in marriage; in 2 Cor. 11:2 it is rendered "espoused," metaphorically of the relationship established between Christ and the local church, through the Apostle's instrumentality. The thought may be that of "fitting" or "joining" to one husband, the Middle Voice expressing the Apostle's interest or desire in doing so.

Usage Number: 2
Strong's Number: <G3423>
Original Word: μνηστεύω, mnēsteuō
Usage Notes: "to woo and win, to espouse or promise in marriage," is used in the Passive Voice in Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27; Luke 2:5, all with reference to the Virgin Mary, RV, "betrothed," for AV, "espoused," in each case. See BETROTH.
—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

It almost makes you both right.

EDIT... So you know my opinion of word studies, this is Vines view just as Strongs and even Bro Bob has a view.

 

I must admit that Mary was a virgin while espoused to Joseph, so what you say has merit.

Luke: 01
"24": And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,

"25": Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

"26": And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

"27": To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Is "husband" and "espoused" the same thing and we still have the problem if Jesus was born before Mary was the wife of Joseph then we have the thing of people saying Jesus was conceived out of wedlock.


Matt: 01
19": Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

"20": But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou

son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

"21": And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

"22": Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

"23": Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"24": Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

"25": And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Well ituttut, according to the above scripture, Joseph was her husband before he knew her. Joseph also "took her" before he

"knew her" until the child was born. Now if she was just pregnant, when Joseph took her as the angel told him to do, then she
was his wife and lived with him nine months at least before he "knew" her. Lets say she was ready to have Jesus when

Joseph "took her" as the angel told him to do, then Jesus would still of been labeled of being conceived out of wed lock. If

Mary was not the wife of Joseph at least nine months before Jesus was born, then Jesus would of been labeled as being

conceived in fornication or adultery.

 

I've been reading these versus over and over but you finally made the click. Thanks Bro. Bob, I see why you made a better living with your mind.

Scripture clearly says Joseph took her as his wife before he "knew" her. How did we ever conclude concummation was a part of being married?

 

Amen! But we are not married until we do the sex act. The marriage to the Harlot is more than sex as it is fornication. I see it as idol worship for the act of sex is our goal, becoming our God. It perverts what marriage is to be, and that is to make one for the purpose to become one to carry out our directive to produce a living offspring, God willing.

In name, Yes. They make a vow/s to do so. The two marry and in Law they are married for Tax purposes, etc. In the eyes of the world they are married. But in the Body, they cannot possibly become one.

Can you show instance in scripture of a couple married apart from bodily joining each other? Genesis 38:8, "And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother."

We come back to "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid". We are not David, or Solomon, but made One with Christ, and they were not while they lived. With a "soul partner" we become one in "spirit", but we also are one in body when joining them, and will be "body" in eternity.

I didn't say it was adultery.

God told us to get married, and not fornicate.

What is your version of what Paul said?

But you said marriage is a "covenant", and I agree for if there is no marriage there is no "Covenant". So the "covenant" you speak of has to take place in marriage; it is called by you "natural procreation" which we can call the "sex act".

What you call a "covenant", and it is a covenant, a covenant of promise. We can see "promise" made, and covenant made by God, and this fits "marriage also". We promise to marry each other, and then we make a "promise" to "marry". To a "harlot" we make a promise (to pay), then "marry", becoming one with her, but no further commitment by either party. This marriage is in "fornication".

We go to God and Abram, and God and Abraham for further enlightenment. God tell's Abram to leave his house and family (this is what the woman does), and God makes promises (which the man is to do), and they agree to "marry". When we agree to marry we know what we are supposed to do to bring about the "marriage". It is as God says in Genesis 17:2, "And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." Marriage, this covenant you agreed is to have "natural procreation" included. It is the focal point of marriage, for without the "sex act", the marriage could never be carried out. Everything changes. God after telling of the "covenant", and what the covenant will produce (multiplication) there is to be a name change (Abram to Abraham), so the woman becomes Mrs. To Mr., for in the act of "natural procreation", God said the two become one. This is promise in covenant, and covenant made, or completed.

A "covenant" to be made active must include the "Body". It's just as covenant was made with Abram, but the "covenant" did not come into effect until Abram became Abraham and Abraham had to involve his body.

 

SFIC

Good one!

:thumbs:

 

So what about the couple who is physically unable to perform sexually? Can’t you see the nonsense of your position? They are married, even though they can’t have sex.

Absolute and utter nonsense.

Why would I need to? Can you show that every couple ever married in Scripture had sex? No, of course not.

Yes, so he clearly teaches that sex isn’t what makes people married.

You can read it in any good translation.

But the sex act is never called a covenant in Scripture.

In short, your position is totally unbiblical. It is man made philosophy that has nothing to do with Scripture. You should abandon it immediately.