What is Biblical marriage?
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That doesn't make any sense...I do believe it was a test though. If someone is doing wrong or sinning they could be tempted to lie but a person who is not doing anything wrong/sin such as fornicating with someone would have no reason to lie.
In my opinion, even though she was sinning she answered correctly by saying the man whom she was currently living with and fornicating with was not actually her husband. That's why Jesus commended her on her truthful answer because even though she was sinning by what she was doing she honestly admitted it and didn't try to hide it.
Paul doesn't say becoming one flesh equals being married. Nowhere in that passage did he say that having sex with a harlot meant you married a harlot.
There is a lot more to being married than just having sex.
Even if you take the verse that you guys are using then you can tell there is much more to marriage than sex.
Broken down
First, it says man shall leave mother and father and cleave to his wife. This denotes some type of commitment.
Not many cases of men committing to a prostitute. In fact, most men would say they don't pay a prostitute for sex they pay them to leave. There is no commitment whatsoever to a prostitute.
And they twain shall become one flesh...this is after the first part of commitment has taken place. And yes, this involves physically, but it also involves emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Just because someone has sex with another doesn't mean that they are committed to another or are married.
Then the rest of the scripture says...What God has joined together let not man put asunder....God does not advocate or condone sin or fornication. If a man or woman is drawn away and tempted and consumed by their own lust and commits fornication that doesn't mean that God joined them together.
1 Cor. 6:16 does not say that having sex with a harlot means you are married to a harlot. It just says they become one flesh. If that were the case then you'd also have to use the rest of the verse What God has joined together let not man put asunder.
We know God didn't join people's marriages together under sin. So the best thing to do in a situation like that is to repent and not do it again. There isn't any place in scripture that supports the fact that all anyone has to do is have sex with someone and they are married to them...
The very beginning of 1 Cor. 6 says you know that no fornicators will inherit the kingdom of Heaven...and such were some of you but now you are washed, sanctified, in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God.
The chapter then goes on to warn people not to fall back into sin. That is the whole purpose of 1 Cor. 6:16
In my opinion, even though she was sinning she answered correctly by saying the man whom she was currently living with and fornicating with was not actually her husband. That's why Jesus commended her on her truthful answer because even though she was sinning by what she was doing she honestly admitted it and didn't try to hide it.
Paul doesn't say becoming one flesh equals being married. Nowhere in that passage did he say that having sex with a harlot meant you married a harlot.
There is a lot more to being married than just having sex.
Even if you take the verse that you guys are using then you can tell there is much more to marriage than sex.
Broken down
First, it says man shall leave mother and father and cleave to his wife. This denotes some type of commitment.
Not many cases of men committing to a prostitute. In fact, most men would say they don't pay a prostitute for sex they pay them to leave. There is no commitment whatsoever to a prostitute.
And they twain shall become one flesh...this is after the first part of commitment has taken place. And yes, this involves physically, but it also involves emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. Just because someone has sex with another doesn't mean that they are committed to another or are married.
Then the rest of the scripture says...What God has joined together let not man put asunder....God does not advocate or condone sin or fornication. If a man or woman is drawn away and tempted and consumed by their own lust and commits fornication that doesn't mean that God joined them together.
1 Cor. 6:16 does not say that having sex with a harlot means you are married to a harlot. It just says they become one flesh. If that were the case then you'd also have to use the rest of the verse What God has joined together let not man put asunder.
We know God didn't join people's marriages together under sin. So the best thing to do in a situation like that is to repent and not do it again. There isn't any place in scripture that supports the fact that all anyone has to do is have sex with someone and they are married to them...
The very beginning of 1 Cor. 6 says you know that no fornicators will inherit the kingdom of Heaven...and such were some of you but now you are washed, sanctified, in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God.
The chapter then goes on to warn people not to fall back into sin. That is the whole purpose of 1 Cor. 6:16
Fair enough, but why did Jesus say she is still married to her 5 husbands if she wasn't with them anymore, but the one she is with now is not her husband? Do you think they are still alive and married? If not then how is someone still married to 5 men who are dead? See, she was still married to the 5 men because death releases a spouse from marriage. Just being with a person doesn't make them married, as Jesus pointed out. So what's the missing ingredient... "Becoming one flesh" with someone creates a marriage even after separating. That's what I see.
I think because that it is common speech.
He didn't tell her she was still married to 5 husbands. If that was the case she probably wouldn't have even been there. Back in those days, she would have been stoned way before she was allowed to be married to 5 men at one time...The Jewish men were the only ones allowed to be married to more than one person at a time..lol.
In all seriousness though, He said she had "had" 5 husbands. Notice that is past tense.
Using common speech, people refer to a deceased and even divorced spouse as their husband/wife i.e. After someone's spouse dies people refer to their late husband or late wife. When someone has divorced they refer to them as their Ex-husband, Ex-wife. If people are married more than once you will hear them refer to their 1st husband, 2nd husband etc. This doesn't mean that they are still married, though.
I have never heard this done with a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, and especially not to anyone that someone just had a one night stand with.
That's how I understand it anyway.
He didn't tell her she was still married to 5 husbands. If that was the case she probably wouldn't have even been there. Back in those days, she would have been stoned way before she was allowed to be married to 5 men at one time...The Jewish men were the only ones allowed to be married to more than one person at a time..lol.
In all seriousness though, He said she had "had" 5 husbands. Notice that is past tense.
Using common speech, people refer to a deceased and even divorced spouse as their husband/wife i.e. After someone's spouse dies people refer to their late husband or late wife. When someone has divorced they refer to them as their Ex-husband, Ex-wife. If people are married more than once you will hear them refer to their 1st husband, 2nd husband etc. This doesn't mean that they are still married, though.
I have never heard this done with a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend, and especially not to anyone that someone just had a one night stand with.
That's how I understand it anyway.
They have to be dead or there were legal divorces. If she was legally divorced by one but not the other 4 she would only have had one husband but since Christ said she had 5 husbands means all five were legitimate marriages and also legitimate divorces or endings of marriages.
He never said anything negative about her like "Go and sin no more" etc. Just adding that thought for anyone reading not in contradiction to anything you have said. Being married 5 times is not ideal but also is not against the law.
I think it's noteworthy that, under the law, a man could be compelled to marry a woman he layed with- but he still had to do the formalities and pay for her to be his wife; or the father could simply refuse to give her to him AND still take the money. Ex22.
If sex was indeed what made two become one flesh, then this father ought not to have been able to separate them lawfully. One might say "well, the father is being hard hearted, and Moses allowed this because hard-hardedness" but if that were the case, I doubt the father would also get to keep the money- This law is clearly meant to pre-empt presumptuous men from simply jumping into sex before being given his wife, and the father's ability to demand the money is a punitive measure.
Remember- the Roman Empire would not allow the Jews to carry out executions without their approval. I don't believe the Empire was executing women for adultery at that time. There's a good chance she could have been lawfully divorced multiple times without being executed. There's also the consideration that she could have been divorced by her husbands because they found out she committed adultery, but there were not enough witnesses to stone her to death, or some similar scenario.
If sex was indeed what made two become one flesh, then this father ought not to have been able to separate them lawfully. One might say "well, the father is being hard hearted, and Moses allowed this because hard-hardedness" but if that were the case, I doubt the father would also get to keep the money- This law is clearly meant to pre-empt presumptuous men from simply jumping into sex before being given his wife, and the father's ability to demand the money is a punitive measure.
Remember- the Roman Empire would not allow the Jews to carry out executions without their approval. I don't believe the Empire was executing women for adultery at that time. There's a good chance she could have been lawfully divorced multiple times without being executed. There's also the consideration that she could have been divorced by her husbands because they found out she committed adultery, but there were not enough witnesses to stone her to death, or some similar scenario.
-
1
- Show all
Agreed
That statement I made was a joke and self admittedly and honestly not a very good one...lol
My point was that she was not still legally married to 5 men. Jesus had said that she had been married to 5 men in the past tense. Meaning they had either died or she was divorced from them at that time.
That statement I made was a joke and self admittedly and honestly not a very good one...lol
My point was that she was not still legally married to 5 men. Jesus had said that she had been married to 5 men in the past tense. Meaning they had either died or she was divorced from them at that time.
It's possible her 5 husbands died or someone(s) committed adultery to nullify the marriage, it's also possible that either all 5 abandoned her or she abandoned them. We don't really have enough details to know for sure, but we can look at the possibilities.
She was also a Samaritan, meaning she was a non-Jewish Gentile. I don't know what standard Jesus is holding a non-Jewish woman to. Is He expecting her to follow Jewish law or Samaritan law? Maybe she was a proselyte.
Anyway, it's all a bit vague so any interpretation is probably as good as any here.
I still think that the man she was currently with was not her husband because they hadn't consummated the marriage with physical relations. If they are living together and Jesus says they aren't married then there must be something else they needed to do to get married.
Since there's no discussion literally anywhere about required wedding ceremonies or customs then I guess Sola Scriptura for marriage is leaving parents and becoming one flesh with a spouse.
She was also a Samaritan, meaning she was a non-Jewish Gentile. I don't know what standard Jesus is holding a non-Jewish woman to. Is He expecting her to follow Jewish law or Samaritan law? Maybe she was a proselyte.
Anyway, it's all a bit vague so any interpretation is probably as good as any here.
I still think that the man she was currently with was not her husband because they hadn't consummated the marriage with physical relations. If they are living together and Jesus says they aren't married then there must be something else they needed to do to get married.
Since there's no discussion literally anywhere about required wedding ceremonies or customs then I guess Sola Scriptura for marriage is leaving parents and becoming one flesh with a spouse.
Or maybe they were living together.
Yes I noticed that and it does look like a test. Or maybe it wasn't a test, but rather Jesus meant for her to call one of the husbands she possibly abandoned or had abandoned her. Were female polygamists a thing? When Jesus said "thou hast had 5 husbands" was Jesus thinking "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So since Jesus is God, couldn't He put asunder their marriages right then and there and then referred to them as past tense marriages? Who knows.
Yes I noticed that and it does look like a test. Or maybe it wasn't a test, but rather Jesus meant for her to call one of the husbands she possibly abandoned or had abandoned her. Were female polygamists a thing? When Jesus said "thou hast had 5 husbands" was Jesus thinking "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." So since Jesus is God, couldn't He put asunder their marriages right then and there and then referred to them as past tense marriages? Who knows.
I guess, people can call it speculation, but it just seems to be common sense.
Jesus asked her about her husband knowing that she wasn't currently married. Jesus knew that. Why would he do that if it wasn't a test? Why would he test her by asking her to bring her husband especially if they weren't fornicating or doing anything wrong? It makes no common sense. She told the truth and pretty much confessed that sin to him right there and that is why he commended her on her truthfulness.
Then you have him saying thou hast had 5 husbands.....This is past tense. No way around that.
He did not say you have 5 husbands presently (present tense). He said you have had 5 husbands. That is in the past. Meaning that for whatever reason (death, divorce, whatever) those marriages were no longer in place. They were only past... ex or deceased husbands.
Jesus asked her about her husband knowing that she wasn't currently married. Jesus knew that. Why would he do that if it wasn't a test? Why would he test her by asking her to bring her husband especially if they weren't fornicating or doing anything wrong? It makes no common sense. She told the truth and pretty much confessed that sin to him right there and that is why he commended her on her truthfulness.
Then you have him saying thou hast had 5 husbands.....This is past tense. No way around that.
He did not say you have 5 husbands presently (present tense). He said you have had 5 husbands. That is in the past. Meaning that for whatever reason (death, divorce, whatever) those marriages were no longer in place. They were only past... ex or deceased husbands.
Seriously, if the previous 5 marriages hadn't ended and she told Jesus I have no husband then Jesus wouldn't have said she had spoken truthfully.
He would have said "wrong"...you "have" 5 husbands and the one you now have is not your husband.
That is really the only honest and logical way to interpret that scripture.
He would have said "wrong"...you "have" 5 husbands and the one you now have is not your husband.
That is really the only honest and logical way to interpret that scripture.
People need to ask themselves how living with and having sex with someone and not being legally married would glorify God.
The simple answer to that is that it would not in any way glorify God. It would bring a scandal and reproach upon his holy ways.
Eph. 5
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. a 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
If someone is living with someone else and is not legally married it brings more than just a hint of sexual immorality. That is what is known as fornication. That would actually destroy someone's witness for God, and that is exactly what the devil wants. He is cunning and crafty. His goal is to kill, steal, and destroy. People need to be careful not to let the enemy trick them into trying to justify sin by using half verses and whatnot.
Again, if anyone wants to be married then why not do it legal?
Hebrew 13:4 NKJV
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
The simple answer to that is that it would not in any way glorify God. It would bring a scandal and reproach upon his holy ways.
Eph. 5
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. a 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7Therefore do not be partners with them.
If someone is living with someone else and is not legally married it brings more than just a hint of sexual immorality. That is what is known as fornication. That would actually destroy someone's witness for God, and that is exactly what the devil wants. He is cunning and crafty. His goal is to kill, steal, and destroy. People need to be careful not to let the enemy trick them into trying to justify sin by using half verses and whatnot.
Again, if anyone wants to be married then why not do it legal?
Hebrew 13:4 NKJV
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
(if anyone can tell me how to 'divide' a reply I would appreciate it!--that is to address a specific section)
Amanuensis you said: "One thing we know is that marriages in ancient Jewish history were always recorded in writing, there were contracts and there were witnesses and the records were kept in the temple. Matthew and Luke were able use the temple records to support their genealogies. Later in 70 AD these records were lost in the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews."
As I was reading the post I thought about in Deuteronomy how it talks about issuing a certificate of divorce--so I thought well, then that means they must have had a certificate of marriage--in any case I found this article which was really interesting about Ancient Jewish Marriages--this is an excerpt from it:
"the Book of Deuteronomy specifically states that if a man dislikes his wife, “he writes her a bill of divorcement and gives it in her hand” (24: 3). Modern critics of the Bible have agreed that on the whole, the Deuteronomic law is a product of the century preceding the Babylonian exile. If a written document was employed at that period in dissolving a marriage, we have to assume that it was also employed in contracting a marriage."
"At the beginning of the 20th century, an actual Jewish marriage record during the period of the return from the Babylonian exile was discovered — the oldest marriage contract in Jewish history. The marriage did not take place in Palestine or among the exiles in Babylon, but among the Jews of Elephantine and Aswan, at the southern border of Egypt.
The marriage contract of Mibtachiah [the bride] and As-Hor [the groom] began with a declaration of marriage by As-Hor to Mibtachiah’s father. “I came to thy house for thee to give me thy daughter, Mibtachiah, to wife; she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever.”"
Betrothal and the Wedding
Until late in the Middle Ages, marriage consisted of two ceremonies that were marked by celebrations at two separate times, with an interval between. First came the betrothal [erusin]; and later, the wedding [nissuin]. At the betrothal the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding meant only that the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was consummated.
This division of marriage into two separate events originated in very ancient times when marriage was a purchase, both in its outward form and in its inner meaning. Woman was not recognized as a person but was bought in marriage, like chattel.
Marriage, as with any type of purchase, consisted of two acts. First the price was paid and an agreement reached on the conditions of sale. Sometime later the purchaser took possession of the object. In marriage, the mohar was paid and a detailed agreement reached between the families of the bride and groom. This betrothal was followed by the wedding, when the bride was brought into the home of the groom, who took actual possession of her.
In those days the betrothal was the more important of these two events and maintained its importance as long as marriage was actually based upon a purchase. But as women assumed more importance as individuals, and marriage ceased to be a purchase, attaining moral significance, the actual wedding became more important than the betrothal.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
Amanuensis you said: "One thing we know is that marriages in ancient Jewish history were always recorded in writing, there were contracts and there were witnesses and the records were kept in the temple. Matthew and Luke were able use the temple records to support their genealogies. Later in 70 AD these records were lost in the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the Jews."
As I was reading the post I thought about in Deuteronomy how it talks about issuing a certificate of divorce--so I thought well, then that means they must have had a certificate of marriage--in any case I found this article which was really interesting about Ancient Jewish Marriages--this is an excerpt from it:
"the Book of Deuteronomy specifically states that if a man dislikes his wife, “he writes her a bill of divorcement and gives it in her hand” (24: 3). Modern critics of the Bible have agreed that on the whole, the Deuteronomic law is a product of the century preceding the Babylonian exile. If a written document was employed at that period in dissolving a marriage, we have to assume that it was also employed in contracting a marriage."
"At the beginning of the 20th century, an actual Jewish marriage record during the period of the return from the Babylonian exile was discovered — the oldest marriage contract in Jewish history. The marriage did not take place in Palestine or among the exiles in Babylon, but among the Jews of Elephantine and Aswan, at the southern border of Egypt.
The marriage contract of Mibtachiah [the bride] and As-Hor [the groom] began with a declaration of marriage by As-Hor to Mibtachiah’s father. “I came to thy house for thee to give me thy daughter, Mibtachiah, to wife; she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever.”"
Betrothal and the Wedding
Until late in the Middle Ages, marriage consisted of two ceremonies that were marked by celebrations at two separate times, with an interval between. First came the betrothal [erusin]; and later, the wedding [nissuin]. At the betrothal the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding meant only that the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was consummated.
This division of marriage into two separate events originated in very ancient times when marriage was a purchase, both in its outward form and in its inner meaning. Woman was not recognized as a person but was bought in marriage, like chattel.
Marriage, as with any type of purchase, consisted of two acts. First the price was paid and an agreement reached on the conditions of sale. Sometime later the purchaser took possession of the object. In marriage, the mohar was paid and a detailed agreement reached between the families of the bride and groom. This betrothal was followed by the wedding, when the bride was brought into the home of the groom, who took actual possession of her.
In those days the betrothal was the more important of these two events and maintained its importance as long as marriage was actually based upon a purchase. But as women assumed more importance as individuals, and marriage ceased to be a purchase, attaining moral significance, the actual wedding became more important than the betrothal.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/
I found this article comparing Jacob's servant meeting Rebecca at the well to Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at the well--I'm not sure about the water analogy, or the 'double-entendre' regarding intimacy, but the rest was interesting as I had never seen this correlation before.
Excerpt:
The topic of marriage is not a change in subject. Jesus conversation with the Samaritan woman is all about marriage. Here are four things most interpreters miss or simply don’t want to talk about.
Jesus is a Bridegroom
Jesus encounter with the woman by the well comes immediately after John the Baptist calls Jesus the “bridegroom.” Read John 3:28-30:
Marriage Happens When Men Meet Women by Wells
This isn’t the first time in scripture a man goes to a foreign land, sits down by a well of water, meets a girl and asks for a drink. In fact it happens quite a few times in the Old Testament with the same surprising result.
Genesis 24, Genesis 29 and Exodus 2:15-22 also recount the story of a man meeting a woman at a well. And in each it leads to the two getting married. In Genesis 24 Abraham’s servant finds a bride for Isaac, in Genesis 29 Jacob finds his future wife Rachel and Moses, in Exodus 2, meets his future wife Zaphora.
John 4 parallels these stories on several points. Here’s how Lyle Eslinger breaks it down in his article “The Wooing of the Woman by the Well.”
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....l-the-samaritan-woman-to-go-call-your-husband
Excerpt:
The topic of marriage is not a change in subject. Jesus conversation with the Samaritan woman is all about marriage. Here are four things most interpreters miss or simply don’t want to talk about.
Jesus is a Bridegroom
Jesus encounter with the woman by the well comes immediately after John the Baptist calls Jesus the “bridegroom.” Read John 3:28-30:
You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.’ The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.
And this isn’t the first time in John that Jesus has been described as the groom. A chapter earlier, Jesus miraculous supply of wine at the wedding leads the headwaiter to tell the bridegroom that HE has supplied the best wine. There’s nothing wrong with that assumption. The groom was indeed responsible for the supply of wine. So Jesus in supplying the wine has acted as the bridegroom!Marriage Happens When Men Meet Women by Wells
This isn’t the first time in scripture a man goes to a foreign land, sits down by a well of water, meets a girl and asks for a drink. In fact it happens quite a few times in the Old Testament with the same surprising result.
Genesis 24, Genesis 29 and Exodus 2:15-22 also recount the story of a man meeting a woman at a well. And in each it leads to the two getting married. In Genesis 24 Abraham’s servant finds a bride for Isaac, in Genesis 29 Jacob finds his future wife Rachel and Moses, in Exodus 2, meets his future wife Zaphora.
John 4 parallels these stories on several points. Here’s how Lyle Eslinger breaks it down in his article “The Wooing of the Woman by the Well.”
- The future bridegroom (or surrogate) journeys to a foreign land (vv. 1-6)
- There he meets a girl at a well (vv. 6-7)
- Someone, the man or maiden, draws water from the well (vv. 7-15)
- The maiden rushes home to bring news of the stranger (vv. 28-30, 39-42)
- a betrothal is arranged, usually after the prospective groom has been invited to a betrothal meal (vv. 31-38).
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange....l-the-samaritan-woman-to-go-call-your-husband