Biblical Marriage

[sarcrew]

We have several threads and a lot of opinions posted right now about divorce. So, here's a very touchy but relevant question. How many here will state that their marriage, or future marriage, is or will be Biblical?
Remember, to become one flesh - as the Bible means it, as I take it, you and the spouse must be a virgin (at the very least the woman must be - ladies I say this because many men in the OT had many wives, but you never see a Biblical woman with more than one husband - in fact the original OT meaning of adultery was sex between a married woman and a man not her husband) . You became one flesh with the first person you have sex with, which is why we are told not to have sex outside of marriage. IMHO


Wayne

[tired]

So what are we supposed to do if we weren't virgins? I was backslidden for 8 years. I did many things I am not proud of, but I repented of it. Do we never get married?

[tired]

Sorry if I came off to harsh, but you hit a button I guess.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Being "one flesh" entails much more than just sex. A man and his wife should be one not only physically but also mentally, spiritually, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, sacrew, but it seems that what you are asking is how many folks here had pre-marital sex and nothing more.

I know plenty of people who were virgins when married that don't have a Biblical marriage. Some aren't even saved.

I also know people who were sexually abused, raped, etc. and can't/couldn't technically enter a marriage as a virgin.

And there are others who were unsaved/backslidden before marriage.


A Biblical marriage is one that shows the picture of Christ and His Church.


Here's a little outline I got from a college professor called "The Purpose of Marriage"

Procreation - replenish the earth
Pleasure - sex
Provision - Security for the woman
Protection - from adultery
Picture - of Christ and the Church
Partnership - Mate for man

[sarcrew]

Tired - no offense taken. That is actually a good question. I don't have the answer. I know my marriage certainly started on the wrong foot and ended that way as well. After some get to know me here a little better I hope they will learn that I posit many things to gain clarity - not to debate. Maybe we can both share a journey of discovery on this topic.


Wayne

[sarcrew]

Bakers -- I agree a marriage is far more than sex but you overlook the purpose and meaning of "consumation" - without which it is not a marriage. By Biblical (OT Jewish) custom, the new groom even brought out "proof" the new wife was a virgin!

Wayne

PS - I care not who had pre-marital sex - but for some to so doggedly hammer the divorced and ignore the fact that many marriages are not even a true marriage (legal - yes, Biblical - no) is . . . hmm. . . worrisome.

[HappyChristian]

Wayne, by your definition then, those who live together, if their partner was their first sexual partner, have a more Biblical (but not legal) marriage than those who may have made a mistake, repented and then married and are doing all they can to serve the Lord and be the right kind of spouse. Don't think so!

[Bakershalfdozen]

Sex does not equal marriage. Yes there was a custom of "proof of virginity" in the O.T. but the husband was not required to have his wife stoned if she was otherwise. It was his prerogative but not a requirement (think Joseph's dilemma). They were still married.

You said that in order for it to be a Biblical marriage, the wife must be a virgin. David married Abigail after she had been married to another man. God commanded Jewish husbands to marry their dead brother's wives in order to preserve family name and heritage. Boaz married Ruth who had been married. Are you saying that none of those marriages were Biblical (i.e., in God's will)??

They didn't have the huge wedding and ceremony and all that like we do today but they did have a custom of marriage and a formality. A guy could sign a paper, pay money, or simply agree to take a particular woman as his wife but it was still more than just having sex equaling marriage.

A lot of that was just Jewish law and custom though.

In the N.T. God says the marriage requirement is that both are saved. Are we to flee fornication? Yes but if someone is unsaved or backslidden before marriage and fornicates with many woman, he doesn't have to go back to his "first time" and marry that person. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for fornicating with prostitutes because of the "one flesh" issue and the picture of Christ and the Church. However, he didn't not tell them that they had to go marry the first prostitute they fornicated with.

Marriage is a commitment to God and to each other, witnessed by God. It is a commitment to future purity (if there was immorality involved) and growing together as co-heirs of the grace of life.

[Jerry]

in fact the original OT meaning of adultery was sex between a married woman and a man not her husband.

I do not believe the Scriptures limit adultery to just a married woman cheating on her husband - it is any married person (male or female) committing sex outside of their marriage.

[Anon]

I Corinthians 6:15 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.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God?s.


According to this passage it does seem that sex does join you with another person as "one". I haven't studied it out indefinitely but it seems to point that way. Even in the old testament when Tamar was raped by her brother (to make this difficult :lol ) :

II Sam 13:18 And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king?s daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.
19 And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her garment of divers colours that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying.20 And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom?s house.


Now I'm not saying anything about who should and who should not get married at this point because esp in our day and age its a touchy subject and I haven't really organized my thoughts about it at this point.... however it seems that Biblically a virgin was a virgin, and that it didn't matter how you lost it, if you lost it you were no longer a virgin and many times they no longer were allowed to be married.

This is why also, although this is a controversial issue, if you study out the book of Esther you will find that pretty much the way the king found who he wanted to marry is who he spent the night with. After he tried out each girl, the girl was sent to the house of the king's concubines...basically she was no longer free to get married to someone else.

Esther 2:12 Now when every maid?s turn was come to go in to king Ahasuerus, after that she had been twelve months, according to the manner of the women, (for so were the days of their purifications accomplished, to wit, six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with sweet odours, and with other things for the purifying of the women;)
13 Then thus came every maiden unto the king; whatsoever she desired was given her to go with her out of the house of the women unto the king?s house.
14 In the evening she went, and on the morrow she returned into the second house of the women, to the custody of Shaashgaz, the king?s chamberlain, which kept the concubines: she came in unto the king no more, except the king delighted in her, and that she were called by name.

Basically I guess my point is that IMO you do end up being "one" with someone you have relations with and that is why I am pretty much of the opinion that divorce/remarriage and fornication is the New Testament equivalent of polygamy.

:bolt:

[pneu-engine]

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God?s.


According to this passage it does seem that sex does join you with another person as "one". I haven't studied it out indefinitely but it seems to point that way. Even in the old testament when Tamar was raped by her brother (to make this difficult :lol ) :


Basically I guess my point is that IMO you do end up being "one" with someone you have relations with and that is why I am pretty much of the opinion that divorce/remarriage and fornication is the New Testament equivalent of polygamy.

Yes, the "union" creates "one flesh", but it does not equate to marriage. This is the epitome of confusion which God hates and detests with a white-hot passion. :eek

[Anon]

Yes, the "union" creates "one flesh", but it does not equate to marriage. This is the epitome of confusion which God hates and detests with a white-hot passion.

I know it isn't marriage officially but say you have ten one-night stands, I believe that is the modern day equivalent of polygamy in God's eyes. It would be the same as having old testament concubines.

[pneu-engine]

I know it isn't marriage officially but say you have ten one-night stands, I believe that is the modern day equivalent of polygamy in God's eyes. It would be the same as having old testament concubines.

Yeah, that too. More confusion as well.

[Jerry]

The OT people were still legally married to their concubines - they were not living in fornication or adultery. What a concubine was is basically an inferior wife, most of the time whose children did not have a part in the inheritance (or very little in comparison to the other wives).

[Anon]

The OT people were still legally married to their concubines - they were not living in fornication or adultery. What a concubine was is basically an inferior wife' date=' most of the time whose children did not have a part in the inheritance (or very little in comparison to the other wives).[/quote']

So why was polygamy ok in the OT but not in the NT?