Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by menageriekeeper:
Wow. I’m late to the party menageriekeeper. Knowing sex is marriage, has anybody proposed yet a new way of “getting” around it?
Christian faith, ituttut </font>
Nonsense! Either you have not read or understood all the posts on this thread. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife (i.e. married) at least arguably nine (9) months before they had sexual relations (see Matt. 1:18,24-25).
</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for answering paidagogos. No, sorry to say I did not read all the posts. That is why I asked what I asked. I figured someone would like to tell me like it is.
What you say certainly looks like what the scripture says, but does that make it so? Lets go back to that “dispensation”, into that time of Jewish Marriage Custom. The Bible takes us there, and in His Word we see what marriage is, and their custom. This will meet the criteria you place on scripture, but place into the proper setting.
The Jewish man went to the home to establish the marriage “covenant”. He paid a price and that covenant became effective and was regarded from that moment on as “husband and wife. The “bride” was set apart, “sanctified for the “bridegroom”. The groom and the bride would then drink wine from a cup that had been prayed, and blessed over. The bridegroom then left to return to his father’s house, there remaining for days, and months. In words of assurance he would make a promise – “Let not your heart be troubled----I go to prepare a place for you -----and ----I will come again.”
When Jesus was on this earth, he being Jewish, communicated with those He came for in familiar terms they would understand, and assure them in familiarity of custom of which they had derived from Him long ago.
So I image Joseph did as others before him; build a bridal chamber in his father’s house, preparing for that day they would become one, making she “called wife” to be his “wife in oness”. The “bride wife” would make herself ready of her clothes and trousseau. She made herself ready early for she didn’t know the exact hour or day he would return. When he did return she would go out to meet him as he called her name. They would go into their bridal chamber shortly after arrival where the guests would be. When the “marriage of the two becoming one”, in their “blood covenant” the couple were husband and wife now linked together in their marriage now recognized by God, and not just man. Then the party and celebration began, after the marriage, just as we see when all were well drunken, and Jesus made the best wine ever, of which I am sure we will be able to enjoy with Him.
Also, can a paralyzed man, who is unable to perform sexually, be married?
Vows can be made, but can they become “one”. We can break our vows, but our marriage set out in scripture will stand. Only God can separate again, detaching the woman from the man. Death does this to us, for we are then free to marry by vow if that is our wishes, or what we have been dealt in life.
If sex is marriage, then you are trapped in many logical contradictions. For example, Bathsheba was still Uriah’s wife even after adultery with David. She did not become David’s wife until after the death of Uriah, her husband, and David took her for his wife. Otherwise, adultery by the wife becomes polyandry. Interestingly, you never find it portrayed as such in Scripture.
The reason it is not portrayed as such is that of impossibility. While her husband lived, she was the adulteress wife of Uriah, married to the adultery of David. Two of adultery does not a husband and wife make. A woman can only make one “blood” covenant, and the man many.
Marriage is based on a covenantal relationship, not sex.
I’ll buy half of that. Show the “blood” to buy the other half.
God not only made covenant with the nation he born, but “blood covenant”
showed He made them His Own.
This is the folly of insisting that a boy and girl, who have fallen into immorality, get married to legitimatize the relationship.
Yes, they should not be forced against their will. But we are not to minimize the importance of “blood” covenants? Their fornication is marriage, honorable marriage, if he makes her “wife”. If not, they live in married fornication, for they have become ‘One”. All is not lost, for they can be forgiven.
In no way does it legitimatize the relationship and erase the sin already committed.
Can we only complain of those we believe sin, when we ourselves were born in sin? Jesus is the only one I know that was not born in sin. Praise God that those immorals can be saved just as we were.
Such is specious reasoning and folly. The result is usually a horrible marriage and many times further sin by divorce and remarriage. The Biblical way of dealing with sin is confession repentance and forgiveness by God.
I believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. I confessed His name, finding my repentance in Him, for He forgave me of every sin I did, have, and will do. I am OSAS by the grace of God,
through the faith of Jesus Christ. Some are saved
byfaith
Probably the greatest argument is this: If marriage is sex, then how does that portray our marriage to Christ? The conclusion is unthinkable theologically. A careful reading of Ephesians 5:22-33 will show more about a covenantal relationship than a physical, sexual relation.
Ephesians 5:22-33 shows flesh and spirit blood covenant. We came by sinful earthly blood of the first son, Adam. The second Son, is God’s only begotten Son, and He came of spiritual blood. Spiritually we are presently in the Body of Christ, coming through His blood.
We are to be in the spirit, and not in the flesh. It leads to wrong conclusions in our fancies – Romans 8
Christian faith, ituttut
