Featured What constututes a marriage?

I'm glad we agree on the generally accepted definition of fornication.

Now let's see whether two people are fornicating or if they are actually in the bounds of what God considers marriage.

And I would first point out in regards tot his...fornication demands intimate relations.

This is applicable only in the sense that intimate relations are not considered fornication.

So we further define fornication as any intimate relations outside of marriage which helps us to answer the OP concerning how we would arrive at a Biblically based marriage, or what constitutes as marriage in the eyes of God.

And Paul is not teaching that God is saying this...

This is not meant to be a proof-text to define and teach God's will concerning marriage, but the opposite...to keep believers from fornication.

It is not a bride in view, it is a harlot. So the act in view makes the woman a harlot. The immediate text clarifies this:


1 Corinthians 6:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 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.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.


We can't justify pre-marital sex and then say, "Well, you guys sinned...you're married now."

Rather, they are told they have sinned according to the very Word of God.

I agree, a marriage is an agreement between two parties...

...when it is secular marriage in view.

Christian (and that is really our focus) and Biblical marriage is an agreement between three parties, the Primary being God Himself.

The husband and wife agree to God's will in regards to marriage, whereby neither would justify "going into their mother's tent" and then trying to say that constitutes Biblical Marriage. It wasn't the case in the culture of that day, and it is not the case in our culture. Even unbelievers know this, and teach their kids, if their kids are lucky...to restrict intimate relations to the person they marry.

My wife was taught this by her father, a Marine who drinks quite a bit who is not in relationship with God in any visible manner (though he has changed his views quite a bit since my wife and I were married, thankfully). My wife attended a Baptist Church when we met and her father thought they were a cult, lol.

In the culture of Joseph and Mary, betrothal was as good as being married, and that does not deny that there was a custom in regards to marriage in that day. That no ceremony had yet taken place is irrelevant, the relevant issue in this discussion is that Scripture makes it very clear...

...they were not living together and they had not had intimate relations yet.

There is no justification for us, in our culture, to try to bypass this fundamental teaching in Scripture and say it is okay for anyone, teen to elderly...to live together as man and wife apart from the traditional ceremony and laws of the land that even gay people fight to have the right to.

That is ironic, no? Gay people want to be recognized as married in the eyes of the law, yet Christians are debating whether one has to actually go through the "ritual" of marriage?

Continued...

 

Christ recognized marriage:


John 4:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:

18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.


Now let's look at why God allowed divorce:


Matthew 19:6-8

King James Version (KJV)

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


I had someone tell me the other day that they were in love, and the one they were in love with was going to divorce his wife and marry her. Their argument was they were under the impression that God would bring the person He chose for them into their life, and they believed He had done that with this person.

I told her, "God didn't cause you to fall in love with a married man."

She said, "But he's going to divorce his wife!"

I said, "That doesn't change the fact that you are in love with a married man."

That is the same thing you are doing in trying to find an escape clause for this elderly couple who think more of their money than they do each other. No faith their needs, just that the government will.

Continued...

 

I don't know you tell me...can you find an example of husband and wife living together before they are considered married in the eyes of the culture?

Yes, but one which is willfully lawless.

It's not just a matter of money, it is a matter of declaration. It is a matter of law. And for some of us...it's a matter of pride. I am happy that there is no question that my wife and I were married.

Is that the case in a common law arrangement? Can I or my wife just pick up and go and that be the end of it? As common law partners can?

Does the common law partner express a willingness to enter into a covenant before God that they know is meant not to be broken?

The obvious answer is no.

Sympathy for this elderly couple is not that great from my perspective. I see no reason to try to rationalize something and then overlook that it is not marriage that is about money...

...it is the elderly couple, hypothetical I hope, who is making it monetary.

"Man's regulation" has often a Biblical basis for the regulations. How regulations should be considered is irrelevant to Biblical Doctrine itself. Maybe the government does benefit, and married couple's do suffer due to those regulations, but let's not let that obscure what used to be pretty obvious to most people not so terribly long ago.

And I am not sure that you ever answered my question directly, what are you going to counsel the teens who come into your office and say they're married because they went into their mother's tent?

Do you have the authority to say "Well, you guys are now married, so you need to ______________?"


God bless.

 

Please show me how you get that from the two quotes presented.

God bless.

 

I think you answer the first question quite well.

In regards to common law "marriages," yes, I believe that is living in sin. We have no Biblical basis for justifying two people living together as man and wife, where the "common" reason is most often for intimate relations.

Modern views are that people should "check out the goods" before committing...we don't see that in Scripture, but the opposite, that this is viewed as fornication.

When we impose a context of marriage into any relationship, then as Christians we have a standard and standards by which we regulate our doctrine concerning marriage. No Scripture teaches that we bypass the laws of the land, but at the same time no Scripture teaches that we violate fundamental principles because the law of the land does so.

The law of the land also recognizes gay marriage in many states...do we recognize that as marriage?

Again, you are trying to rationalize this because of sympathy for the elderly, and I can understand that. But that doesn't mean it can be considered Biblical.


God bless.

 

Okay, gotcha, thanks for clarifying the context. I was trying to see what I missed in the Scripture posted, lol.

The truth is...both are considered adulterers, no fornication needed (and there was no intimate relations between the two that I know of).

The point is that this is what is being done in condoning two people living together as man and wife without the ceremony. I am sure you would agree that the ceremony doesn't truly encompass all we view marriage as, but also consider that God's perspective has to be included. The only people that would actually view this as a marriage would be those two. They would not go into the service and say "We are man and wife even though we haven't been married like the rest of you folks were."

So the parallel would go something like this: "God did not tell you to shack up with the one you want to be married to."

"God did not move you to defraud the government."

If they want to shack up, great. Just don't call it Christian marriage.


God bless.

 

Doesn't negate the fact that people also shack up.

Both are wrong.

And this is the problem with "checking out the goods" without the commitment marriage demands...you simply will not know the person you marry until after you marry them.

When people are dating (and this is what shacking up to amounts to) they put their best foot forward. That is not always the case after marriage.

The point is this: it's shacking up when two people live together as man and wife without getting married.

Many? What do you base this on, and how does that change the fact that they are shacking up?

Why?

Because they know they are not married.

To my knowledge there is a time required for it to be considered common-law marriage, seven years I think.

Up until that point, my friend...they are not married.

You won't change that fact.

What are you going to tell your hypothetical elderly couple...keep your head low until the seven years are up?

And when they are considered common-law marriage...do their benefits change?

What do they do then to maintain their idolatry?

Agreed, so what do we call their "marriage" before they are legally recognized as a married couple?

Shacking up.

So is avoiding marriage because someone is not willing to count the cost of marriage. Correction...because they are counting the cost, lol.

So is shacking up.

Right here:


1 Corinthians 7

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.


So if there is intimate relations before one is married, which dismantles the argument having intimate relations means one is married in the eyes of God, what is it called?

Fornication.

Not the consummation of marriage.

What do you mean "not by tradition?"

You gave Isaac as an example, and that has been commented on. The tradition of that culture is clearly seen in how that marriage is arranged.

How would the Corinthians have been married? What is the tradition they would have practiced?


I found this.

One statement commonly cited as evidence about the headcovering customs of Greek women is in Plutarch's Sayings of Spartans (written during the first century a.d.). Concerning a Spartan he writes, "When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, 'Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them!'"

(the quote is the link)

It goes on to say...


The Romans had a special headcovering custom for brides, as we do today. The bridal veil was a piece of cloth called a flammeum (lit. "flame-colored"), because it was dyed bright orange, and it was draped over the bride's head without covering her face (figure 20). Recently some biblical expositors have asserted that in Rome a married woman would always keep her head covered as a sign that she was married, but this assertion is not very well supported by ancient sources. The "veiling of the bride" spoken of in ancient sources pertains only to the wedding ceremony, not to a change of ordinary clothing.



There was one garment, however, that did have marital significance among the Romans. It was a sleeveless robe called a stola, worn over the tunica (figure 21). Traditionally, married women were expected to wear this extra layer of clothing in public. But in the first century this custom was apparently losing its force. Married women began to appear in public without the stola, and this gave rise to some complaints from conservative-minded Romans. There was some discussion about it in the Roman Senate, and severe legal steps were taken so as to compel married women to wear the stola, but it does not seem to have had the desired effect. At the end of the second century Tertullian makes reference to the ineffective decrees in Rome, where women had "abjured the stole," among other things, that they may go about "more openly" (On the Pallium, chapter 4). He declares that in Rome he sees "no distinction left in dress between matrons and harlots" (Apology for the Christians, chapter 6).


So it would appear that a traditional view that Paul's teaching has an application to our modern traditions would be reasonable.

Imagine, conservatives have been trying to maintain a dignified perspective of marriage for quite a while, lol.


God bless.

 

There is nothing here that denies the points made, my friend. You leave out that which is relevant to the primary point that shacking up does not constitute marriage:


Definition of Common Law Marriage A common law marriage is one in which the couple, usually a man and woman, lives together for a period of time and holds themselves out to friends, family and the community as "being married," but never go through a formal ceremony or get a marriage license. Here are three requirements for most states. Just "living together" is not enough to validate a common law marriage.

I'm not going to argue common law or the laws of this land, even though that is not going to justify shacking up either.


What is important is what Scripture states, and so far you are coming up empty for support for the hypothetical.

And can I ask, it is hypothetical, isn't it? You haven't actually counseled an elderly couple to shack up and that this would be okay in the eyes of God, have you?


God bless.

 

I agree.

Would you think Adam at the moment of his sin, that is becoming with her, dead in trespass and sin, married to Eve or was he at that moment, only betrothed to Eve.

My reason for asking that is found in Matt. 1:23-25

Did Adam because of his own lust see James 1:14,15 trespass against what belonged to God as the help meet for the man?

Gen 2:18 LXX καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεός οὐ καλὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον μόνον ποιήσωμεν αὐτῷ βοηθὸν κατ᾽ αὐτόν
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Let your conversation be without covetousness; and becontent with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper (βοηθός,) and I will not fear what man shall do unto me. Heb 13:4-6

 

1 Corinthians 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Would she be an harlot because she has had relations with one or more before and the first, still living, would be considered as who she was the wife thereof?

 

Well, I would suggest that you find a passage where there is no traditional custom of marriage and two people become man and wife apart from that custom, and then perhaps you might be able to support that a little better. As it stands, the ceremony is seen in the tradition itself.

Christ's teachings in regards to marriage shows the ceremony involved, in my view, anyway, and while our customs differ, the society still has a standard for what they consider to be marriage.

And I would suggest that Deuteronomy 22 is not a good proof-text, because it states that if one does engage in intimate relationship...they have to be married. And this would apply only to willing partners (in crime, lol), it would not apply to rape, where the penalty would not be marriage, but death:


Deuteronomy 22:23-27

King James Version (KJV)

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.


The woman claiming rape in the country was different than the one in the city, where such a cry is presumed something that would be heard, meaning, if it were rape then she should have cried out.

The point is that intimate relations before marriage is forbidden, that is just basic.

And we see in your proof-text something that has to be dealt with:


Deuteronomy 22:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


That is, again we see a distinction between who is married and who is not.

When Paul taught "Be married for the sake of fornication," would he be seen as making a distinction that a particular culture's marriage was in view, or would we see this as a general statement? Wouldn't we see ceremony in the Hebrew culture? Even if it was an arranged marriage (particularly when the Arranger was God)?

I tried to bring up for discussion in another thread I think it was, as to what the Bible teaches about dating.

A few posts were made but the point I see is that no-one really dated in those cultures, so we have to account for the culture itself.

So I don't think we have to look to other cultures (and the secular culture of our land which legalizes gay marriage is the best/worst example) to define what constitutes marriage, there is a similarity in all in that we know what being married is and what not being married is.


God bless.

 

It is NOT marriage. The verse Paul quoted was spoken of those in a marriage relationship. His application isn't to say that fornication is marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. What happens between a man and a harlot is not marriage. It is sex. Fornication and adultery corrupt and pollute above other sins, but the joining is not marriage.

Only God can join in marriage, and there is no pronouncement that whoredom engages one in that blessed estate.

 

I agree completely, that has been the basis of my own arguments throughout the thread.

I said...


And while on a spiritual level fornication is equated with marriage, that doesn't change the fact that it is still a harlot in view:


I tried to clarify this here:

It's basically asking if Paul is saying that because we join ourselves with an harlot that on a spiritual level we engage in what is supposed to me for the marriage, is that what God wants for us?

The obvious answer is no, God's plan is for us to have a wife, not an harlot.

That point is made here as well:

So too make this a proof-text for defining marriage is not a good idea, because marriage is not the intent, but...fleeing fornication is.

And Paul will reiterate this in ch.7 when he is discussing marriage and gives definitive instruction on it. The reverse is true there, where we avoid fornication by marrying, lol. As opposed to fornicating and then calling that marriage.

The faith my grandfather was a part of took a pretty extreme view of this, and believed those who had intimate relations were "married in the eyes of God." I take issue with that, because fornication violates Biblical Marriage which is taught in Scripture. Shall we say that a woman raped has a new husband in God's eyes? No.

So we should look at how Scripture defines marriage, and it is just my view that an elderly couple, nor a teenage couple, can legitimately be called married because they either live together or "go into their mother's tent," as the phrase has come up.

Marriage is a covenant between three parties, I believe, the Husband, Wife, and God. And if we violate any principle as set forth in Scripture in regards to marriage, then we should not try to make it a Biblical Marriage. Gay marriage violates Biblical Marriage Principles from jump street, and it is not just those who actually believe the Bible that acknowledge that. Even among unbelievers we see opposition to calling something marriage because a group wants to redefine marriage.


God bless.

 

Its been a great thread, though, thanks revmwc.


God bless.