The Church, the State and marriage

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I am finally going to join in on an aspect of this thread:

I used to teach that the Biblical view was that once a man and a woman had engaged in sexual intercourse in the Biblical view, a marriage had taken place. Then I got to know people who promote that view.

I will give you an example of the thinking: Bob pays Sara $100 to have sex with him. In his veiw it is not wrong because he has contracted a valid Biblical marriage.

Bob now waits 24 hours to re-charge his batteries, so to speak. During this time he assumes that Sara has done business with another customer. On that basis, Bob declares taht the marriage vows have been broken and he is now free to marry again.

With his batteries charged up, Bob now goes out again and for a payment of $100 to Mary he contracts another Biblical marriage.

More in the next post.

[Gregory Matthews]

Several years ago I was looking in a library and I came across a book on Jewish marriage customs in ancient times, dating back to the time of Christ.

That book made a clear distinction between adultry and fornication. In the view of that book, fornicaiton, which was a lessor sin, occured between a male and a female prior to or without the benefit of a valid marriage.

NOTE: There was not concept in that book of sexual intercourse constituting a valid marriage.

Sorry that I cannot cite any kind of a reference. Yes, I knwow that this decreases the value of my comment.

More in the next post.

[Gregory Matthews]

I have come to the place where I beleive that the Biblical view of marriage has two sides, so to speak.

One side, as I see it, is a civil side where the couple complly with whatever registeration requirements exist in the society in which they live.

NOTE: I once lived in a society where the civil requirement was simply for the couple to sign their name in the "family registery," and official government document.

NOTE: I got married in that society to an American citizen. As a U.S. citizen the legal requirements in that society were something else. We had to travel to three (3) different government agencies, in the capital of the country, and sign documnents. Then we had to go the the U.S. Embasy and sign more paper work. You know, I could write to a government agency in thata country, today, and obtain a copy of my marriage certificate that would be accepted in U.S. courts of law.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

NOTE: I got married in that society to an American citizen. As a U.S. citizen the legal requirements in that society were something else. We had to travel to three (3) different government agencies, in the capital of the country, and sign documnents. Then we had to go the the U.S. Embasy and sign more paper work. You know, I could write to a government agency in thata country, today, and obtain a copy of my marriage certificate that would be accepted in U.S. courts of law.

Just out of curiosity, would that be an Asian country, such as Korea?

[Gregory Matthews]

YEs, Korea.

[olger]

I don't know what Tom's view of marriage and sex is but the Bible does not teach that having sex and getting married are one in the same.

True, Shane.

og

[Tom Wetmore]

Perhaps reading the whole thread before offering a comment might be helpful. A lot was said between Shane's early statement you quoted and your affirmation of whatever it was he meant at that time.

[olger]

Thanks.

The Bible does not teach that premarital sex equals marriage. Thus my affirmation.

Premarital sex immediately brings three consequences into a person's life. Guilt, shame, and fear. It also teaches a person how to commit adultery.

[Tom Wetmore]

I find it strangely ironic that you and some others here seem to have totally missed the point that I am trying to make. The push back from Shane, and it appears from you, seems to be that I am somehow eroding the morality of the question or diminishing marriage. That could not be further from the truth.

What I am saying is that the Biblical principle is that sex is only to be within marriage. It is the one sure act that binds two lives together like no other. You simply cannot separate the two concepts. That is why sex in any other context is dealt with so severely. God sees it as just that important. Murder carries the death penalty. Illicit sex carries the death penalty. Those who end a life must die. Those who kill a marriage must die.

[there buster]

You've been consistent, and correct, Tom. Shane and Olger are confusing exegesis and biblical theology with systematic theology. You and I are emphasizing what the Bible author said and understood at the time. Shane and olger are talking about its meaning for today.

This sort of leap is common. But when it is not recognized, it leads to a calcification of doctrine, that is, a failure for systematics to adapt to changing circumstances.

This three-fold process, by the way, is what allows the Bible to be both unchanging in principle, and flexible in application. Because of several factors, Islam lacks this understanding, and thus has had difficulty coping with the changes of the last 250 years or so, the same period which saw it's decline in power.

[John317]

And this is Exodus 22:15&16 15. If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall provide her with a marriage contract as a wife. 16. If her father refuses to give her to him [in marriage], he shall weigh out money according to the dowry of the virgins.

This is proof that having sex with a woman did not in and of itself constitute marriage. In order to be married, the father must give his permission and the groom must give him a bride-payment.

Exodus 22: 16 says, "... he must pay the bride-price for her to be his wife" (REB).

Any good Bible dictionary will show that there was more to getting married and making a woman one's wife than having sex with her.

It's made plain, for instance, in Genesis 34: 2, 12. There its says that although Shechem had sex with Dinah, they weren't yet considered married.

In Gen. 29, a bride-price is paid, there's a wedding feast or celebration, and then the girl went to the man's tent and they had sexual relations. The girl was referred to as a "wife" once the couple were engaged, even before they had had sexual relations. So in Gen. 29: 21, Jacob tells Laban to give him "his wife" in order that he could "go in to her," i.e., take her home to his tent and have sexual relations.

[Tom Wetmore]

[there buster]

ditto, Tom.

[Woody]

Hey ... let's make a list of ditto heads. I'll add my name to the list.

[phkrause]

Lets say we will but not.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

Exodus 22: 16 says, "... he must pay the bride-price for her to be his wife" (REB).

Any good Bible dictionary will show that there was more to getting married and making a woman one's wife than having sex with her.

Of course. In order to read it any other way one has to first decide to believe something different. Then go to the Bible and read into it the preconceived doctrine. This is exactly how gay doctrine is arrived at.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26, 27)

Gay theology will point out the word I have underlined. They believe the word "natural" indicates these verses are talking about heterosexuals committing homosexual acts. According to gay theology it is "natural" for homosexuals to have gay sex so that is not sinful. However it is unnatural for heterosexuals to have gay sex so that is sinful. That kind of logic has to be arrived at before reading the text. The text itself will not lean anyone to that conclusion.

And so it is with Exodus 22:15, 16. The verses clearly teach that a marriage requires the father's consent and dowry. Without the father's consent or the dowry, there is no marriage.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just light a match to that straw man...

What does it take to consummate a marriage?

What happens if a man and woman never consummate their marriage?

What does an annulment mean?

[John317]

What does it take to consummate a marriage?

What happens if a man and woman never consummate their marriage?

What does an annulment mean?

Let's examine this in the light of the human parents of Jesus. We do not know for sure that Joseph or Mary ever had sex. I think they probably did, but we don't know for sure, and millions of Christians and many excellent Bible scholars don't believe they did. Neither the Bible nor Ellen White tell us that they did.

We know that they didn't have sex for the first 9 or 10 months of their marriage, yet there is no question that they were married during that time. Joseph was the husband and Mary the wife-- and this before they ever had sex, and even if they never had sex.

Nevertheless, they were certainly married in the eyes of God as well as in the eyes of the Jewish authorities.

Granted that their experience was not typical, yet it shows that there are other fundamental things beside sex that constitute marriage, and therefore sex is not absolutely essential in order for a marriage relationship to exist between a man and a woman.

[Tom Wetmore]

First of all, the highly speculative "scholarship" that Mary and Joseph never had sex is largely in service of Marian theology that holds the perpetual virginity of Mary the Mother of God who was "ever virgin". The step further in that very Catholic heresy is that she herself was the product of immaculate conception free from the taint of any original sin and that she lived her whole life without sin. To engage in intercourse would have tainted her. Sexual intercourse was viewed as passing on original sin, if not the orginal sin itself.

As for Mary and Joseph being married "in the eyes of God", I shudder at the thought that you think to have a view through His eyes to even say that, much less know it to be a true fact. That is beyond speculation and of a most dangerous sort... Where is your proof? I suspect that when God did the miracle in Mary's womb, He was little concerned about human conventions of marriage.

As for Jewish authorities, again where is your evidence?

I would suggest to you that a "marriage" without any sex, is not a true marriage. It is two people living together holding themselves out to be be married which is a fundamental deception. It leaves out the "cleaving" part of God's created design for man and woman to "leave and cleave". (Gen. 2:23,24)

[John317]

Tom, can you prove- or show persuasive Bible evidence-- that Joseph and Mary had sex?

They were certainly married for the first 9 months, yet they did not have sex. I don't know of anyone who would say that since they didn't have sex, they weren't married at that time.

I believe they did have sex but my belief about this is conjecture. We do not know if they had sex. But if they didn't, would that mean they weren't married? I don't think so.

[there buster]

You can't be married in the U.S. without a blood test and a marriage license. Oh, but wait, we aren't talking about today. We're 2000 years away from Mary and Joseph. And they were 1500 years away from the Exodus.

Guys, you can't apply the standards of one time and place against those of another time and place. In Jacob's day, there was no standard (forget legal) marriage ceremony. There were customs. But if a man and an unmarried woman had consensual sex-- that's all it took. Was it different in the time of Mary and Joseph? Yes. But it was about 1900 years later.

And as for the ridiculous appeal for 'proof' that Joseph and Mary had sex-- words fail. I don't think we have any 'proof' that they ate--certainly none that they eliminated waste from their bodies. The Bible didn't concern itself with such issues. As for sex, if they married, the Bible authors would be satisfied that their marital status spoke for itself.

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I never got a blood test in order to get married.

Annulment, as applied to marriage, is not found in the Bible. The idea that a marriage needs to be consummated by sex is not Biblical either. I believe these are Catholic doctrines but am not sure where they really came from. I know of people that have been paralyzed, unable to have sexual relations, and married someone. Today we would consider them married even if they didn't have sex. I don't know how that would have been dealt with in Biblical days although there is strong indication that sex was sealing the deal. The Bible clearly indicates that the father's permission and a dowry were required and indicates that sexual intercourse sealed the deal.

[Jeannieb43]

I think we're confusing the condition of "being betrothed" with "being married." I understand the status of Mary and Joseph prior to Christ's birth as being "betrothed" -- i.e., engaged to be married. And when Joseph heard of Mary's visit from the angel, he "thought to put her away privately," in other words, he considered canceling the engagement because of the false picture her pregnancy would provide. But God told him differently, and then he did not try to interfere.

I don't know at what point exactly Mary was able to proudly exhibit the signs of her pregnancy rather than try to hide it. But if she'd had foresight enough to know what a marvelous miracle this birth would be, she might have been able to be proud of being pregnant even though unmarried.

Even though Joseph himself already had other children from a prior marriage, I picture Mary as being a very young woman, a virgin, who had not been intimate with any man. Thus God could use her as a vessel through which to bring God the Son Incarnate into the world.

[something akin to the situation with EGW. She was an unspoiled youth when God first spoke through her.]

[Tom Wetmore]

Well, the text (Matthew 1:25) that you rely on to establish their lack of sex before Jesus was born says that Joseph did not "know" her until Jesus was born. That certainly infers that "knowing" her started after that since it infers a change or transition from the previous assertion. If he never "knew" her the phrase "until..." wouldn't have been necessary. And I might suggest that the implication of the preceding verse along with this qualifying assertion is that Joseph took Mary home "as if" she were his wife, even though he didn't actually consummate that marriage "until" after Jesus was born.

And there is quite significant Biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary is referred to as their mother. It is only the dogmatism of the Roman Catholic Mariology that disputes this clear evidence in order to uphold the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity.

I find all that to be "persuasive Bible evidence".

[Dr. Shane]

While I didn't get a blood test, I did get my father-in-law's permission and bought him a refrigerator so, that is kind of like a dowry.