Skip to comments.With what act does true religious Marriage begin?
Posted on 03/16/2012 11:30:32 AM PDT by Monorprise
All other things being equal where would religious marriage would begin: 1: First Sexual encounter (between parties).
2: First conception of a child (between parent parties).
3: First child birth (between parents parties).
4: Religious ceremony at the Church.
5: State Government Sanction.
6: Mutual personal commitment between the parties?
I realize Marriage involves all of theses things. But supposing that they could happen out of order which one would start the marriage in the eyes of God, science, and most of all your personal opinion?
When she says your favorite chair is gone...
#1- in the eyes of god
Is this serious? It I thought it weren’t I’d say “The first time in the bedroom when peanut butter, bananas and whip cream come into play”.
marriage is between one man and one woman, anything else is a sham marriage done to destroy marriage, the family and this country.
Oh and i wish I had a favorite chair in my house, I’m lucky if I get to sit down in one
Traditionally it’s at consummation (sex).
No sex, marriage isn’t valid. Even though the ceremony has been performed.
For me it was when I was told I couldnt go to my usual Friday Happy Hour after work.
so true,,, not only do women oddly hate recliners, but they insist on hogging the time normally used to sit in them,
Marriage is one man, one woman, one time. The practice of serial polygamy so prevalent in today's society (multiple spouses, one at a time) is a bigger sham than gay marriage because of the number of families and children adversely affected.
I made a vow to my wife, in the presence of my friends and a minister fifteen years ago, and have kept it. That is when my marriage began. Before that, I was a sinner and I still have sinful thoughts but, I'm happily and blessedly keeping my oath.
Are you saying that any marriage after a person’s first, then, is invalid? For whatever reason?
“The practice of serial polygamy so prevalent in today’s society (multiple spouses, one at a time) is a bigger sham than gay marriage because of the number of families and children adversely affected.”
NO way,, There is no freaking way that a divorce and remarriage is a bigger sham than two guys engaging in state sanctioned buggery. It’s surprising that you find divorcees remarrying (often with a newfound penetent attitude) as more offensive than two men,, unrepentedly sodomizing each other.
When your wife comes in and takes a dump while you’re brushing your teeth.
“Is this serious?”
Yes this is indeed a serous question about the very nature of Marrage in the eyes of God, “logic”/science, and yourself.
The answer to theses questions from all 3 perspectives should be the first & perhaps last step in resolving the true meaning of marriage.
I think science/logic should resolve that marriage begins with the birth of your first child. After all if the propose of marriage is children then the first child is the place where it becomes indispensable thus the logically high priority place where it must be gain. #3
My own Personal opinion on the matters is up in the air which is why I made this thread to help me resolve that question.
Without your parenthetical, a lot of “marriages” happen without benefit of ceremony or commitment.
Marriage is a Biblically defined institution, and thus it’s a good idea to use that for the answer. The relevant scripture is Genesis 2:24, which implies a sexual union, though you could look at the first portion of this verse (”Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife...”) and interpret this ‘coming together’ as the act of marriage... the sexual part is indicated in most translations as coming afterward.
The Bible distinguishes between fornication and adultery, so it makes sense that the sexual act does not - in and of itself - constitute a marriage... Catholic teachings and traditions notwithstanding.
Regarding ceremonies: clearly these have changed over time, particularly since the State has stuck its nose in where it doesn’t belong. Again, because marriage is a God-defined institution, state involvement is irrelevant... though probably necessary for this day and age. In my opinion, a public declaration is important for the sake of the oaths.
It would depend on what you mean by marriage.
In a sexual sense, it is when we put our "yes" on the table to agreeing to possess another outside the boundaries of marriage. But in the larger sense, adultery occurs any time we seek to fill any desire outside the boundaries of how God has dictated such desires are to be fulfilled. It's more than just "sex" or "lust" as is implied when God brings the charge of adultery against the nation of Israel for joining herself with idols.
Under this definition it is easy to see how we break God's law more than we realize.
Here is probably the best sermon I've heard on the subject by Dr. Voddie Baucham.
"What Is Adultery, by Dr. Voddie Baucham
“A govt. can like/sanction it or not, a church can like/sanction or not, you can like/sanction it or not, I can like/sanction it or not but a marriage begins and ends when the parties agree it does.”
I am aware of this common perspective, which is why I asked for your opinion on the matter as an example of a party and/or potential party.
A women* who get's divorced because her husband beats the crap put of her every weekend and leaves his* sorry a** is a sham in God's eye?
*= replace with "man" a and "her" if you wish. Don't want to male bash ere.
Well hey....as long as she doesn’t use the sink where you’re brushing your teeth.....
well, I guess it’s defined differently by different people. But in the eyes of the Traditional Church that was founded in the Bible by Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God; marriage is a sacrament of the Church and can only be annuled if it wasn’t entered in good faith even if it was “consummated.”
got that right, the misses does not want the leather recliner in the front room and wants to leave it in the family room where the kids go.
However when I spend time in the family room she sits on the recliner.
I also know people who have been married in a church, broke up through adultery or just stopped loving each other and are now divorced.
What arrangement does God favor? I really don't know in this case. Is he going to condemn the first couple because they don't have a certificate in their top drawer?
When the oaths have been given and accepted. God takes it serious when promises, oaths, or vows are made.
When the oath or vow is broken, the 9th commandment is broken. The 9th commandment is connected to the 3rd commandment, in that a vow between two people is never done outside the view of God, or the anointing of God, therefor God's name is involved, thus the warning to not take oaths lightly found in the Sermon on the Mount.
In the old testament Adultery was based entirely on the marriage status of the woman involved. Married men could carry on and would only be an adulterer if he carried on with another man’s wife.
As Dr. David Jeremiah pointed out: When Jesus was talking to the woman at the well, he told her that the man she was living with was not her husband. hmmm so much for common law marriage in the eyes of God.
While your history and scripture is extremely helpful, and your defense of their important quite agreeable. also agreeable is the important of anousement for the oath enforcement portion of marriage among many other perspectives you wisely brought to the table here.
I’m afraid however that your position and the position of the non-catholic faith is a bit unclear.
While it seems inferred that the catholic faith starts marriage at the first act of sex. As you illustrated that is not so clear in the bible as far as other christian faiths are concerned.
Because there are many possible answers in the ambquity I feel obliged to only ask you where you & your faith stand on this particular question, as I have asked of everyone else.
“In the old testament Adultery was based entirely on the marriage status of the woman involved. Married men could carry on and would only be an adulterer if he carried on with another mans wife.”
Anther most valid historic fact to be taken into consisteraing in determining what act most officaly begins & presumably binds marriage.
This is particular valid if #1 is the answer as the Catholics seem to believe. Because #1 is not possible if either of the parties are “already married”.
When she put the engagement ring on.
Because after that point, any guy who didn’t treat her as my betrothed would be meeting God, real soon :-)
If it was sex between the parties, the Bible wouldn’t have anything to say about heterosexual fornication; just adultery, bigamy (maybe) and deviancy. The first act of what we consider fornication (premarital nookie) would be a wedding.
Personally, I lean toward #6, a mutual commitment with God as the only necessary witness and ultimate officiant. Like Adam’s and Eve’s wedding.
“I know a couple, man and woman, who have been living together for 30+ years, not married. Super devoted to each other through thick and thin. True definition of soulmates to the core.
I also know people who have been married in a church, broke up through adultery or just stopped loving each other and are now divorced.
What arrangement does God favor? I really don’t know in this case. Is he going to condemn the first couple because they don’t have a certificate in their top drawer?”
This is a situation i am aware of.
I think I should tell you that historicaly that the devoted couple in your first case would have historically been regarded as married whether or not they had the official Government or Church Sanction or not. Government Sanctions are of course a recent invention(Last ~100 years or so) of the progressives. To be honest Church sanction in many parts is not a heck of a lot older.
Thus I cannot think it likely that God would much care that theses people did not get the official papers from either of the earthly institutions. I do however think it somewhat more likely that God would care about those who became divorced. It seems there to be a question of faith and faithfulness to ones wife or husband. That given with or without earthly institutional sanction is of little consequence to the real question which is of your faith, your choices, your commitment.
Scripturally, the obligation (hopefully, a light one happily borne) ends at death, and the survivor is at liberty to seek a second (or ninth, if he/she has been terribly unlucky).
It's the same with calling us His Bride. He feels about us like we should feel about our spouse. As we are born again, we should feel absolutely dedicated to our Lord as we can only experience with our own family. He talked of Israel as an "adulterous" nation because they experimented with other gods. He chose that word to try to emote the hurt He felt after all He has done for us. When Jesus told His followers that He must go and prepare a place for us, He was describing a Jewish wedding. The whole Song of Solomon is basically about Jesus calling to His lover to come out and walk with Him, but she is sleping and doesn't want to help Him. She later opens the door to find Him gone. Just as the foolish virgins went to where they buy and sell to get their oil, they came back too late to join the wedding party.
I'm afraid that if you don't love Jesus with all you have, you may never know how much He loved you. He gave up His throne to come and rescue us, yet we reject Him. He suffered unimaginable pain to buy us for Himself. Would you do that for your wife?
To know when you are first married in Gods eyes will be that day that you are willing to die for her, not just spend some money, or travel with her. If your devotion reaches that level, then you might know what marriage was designed for. Is she still beautiful when she is 60? Do you still desire only her company? That is where God is on marriage.
This is why marriage is so important to the church. It is an institution set up by God to show His love for us. It is an abomination to redefine it to a lie.
A prophet was told by God to marry the town whore. He didn't want to because he was a pious man, but God insisted, so he did. Sure enough, the first chance she got, she ran off with another man and the town looked at him like "What did you expect?" Then God ordered the prophet to go find her and bring her home again. That is how God is with us. He is faithful. Are we? Will we forgive and love others as God loves us? Not likely with the divorce records today.
One more thing,....When the Bible speaks of the woman submitting to the man,...be sure and read the part before that. The man MUST love her as Christ loved the church. Many women might do more submitting with a Godly husband.
"...She wouldn't eat her mushrooms."
“If it was sex between the parties, the Bible wouldnt have anything to say about heterosexual fornication; just adultery, bigamy (maybe) and deviancy. The first act of what we consider fornication (premarital nookie) would be a wedding.”
How does one have sex with a member of the same sex? This i do not believe to be possible, and therefore “marriage” between the two parties is equally not possible.
As for adultery and bigamy both could have been regarded as unfaithful and deceptive acts.
Marriage begins at th4e exchange of vows—the promise of faithfulness to one’s spouse, the promise of love and cherish, the commitment until death. It begins with a spiritual foundation, then proceeds to the physical.
It’s too bad—and shows the state of maturity in America—that a responsible discussion of this question has not been undertaken here.
What about when the "Until death do you part" clause is invoked?
“well, I guess its defined differently by different people. But in the eyes of the Traditional Church that was founded in the Bible by Jesus, the Second Person of the Triune God; marriage is a sacrament of the Church and can only be annuled if it wasnt entered in good faith even if it was consummated.”
This is a valid point in support of the assertion in support of positions #3, #4, #5, and #6.
Maybe that man had already been messing around with someone else.
One doesn’t. That would be one of the deviancies mentioned.
Forget science and personal opinion. This is the Truth of the matter.....take it or leave it:
"Exacly what is the sacrament of marriage? It "is an inseparable bond between a man and a woman, created by human contract and ratified by divine grace. The nature of the covenant requires that the two participants be one man and one woman" and "that they be free to marry." ... "it is consent that creates marriage. Consent consists in a human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other. Consent must be a free act of the will of the consenting parties, free of coercion or grave external error. If freedom is lacking, the consent is invalid." Interestingly, "it is the spouses who are understood to confer marriage on each other. The spouses, as ministers of grace, naturally confer upon each other the sacrament of matrimony."
Obviously, marriage is an organic synthesis -- especially as it transforms through time -- not a mechanical union. ... Marriage between man and woman is not an end in itself but a divinely ordained arrangement for the purposes of receiving the grace that will transform both parties. A dysfunctional marriage is one in which no spiritual transformation takes place -- it is spiritually "stillborn," so to speak, or "infertile" no matter how many children it produces -- like a Kennedy marriage.
This is why, strictly speaking, there can be no "secular" marriage. Or put it this way: to the extent that your marriage is only a secular affair, I do not see how or why it could transcend the state of essentially being -- as Glen Campbell sang -- "shackled by forgotten words and bonds and the ink stains that have dried upon some line." Anything short of spiritual union involves using the other person in one way or another. It merely creates the conditions for narcissism rather than its transcendence, which is surely one reason why there are so many divorces. Marriage can never do for you what it was never intended to do, which is to make you "happy" or "fulfilled" in the material sense, at least not for long. No mere earthling can do that.
"..As Upton explains, "the Sodomite is violent against nature because he denies relatedness to the Other; his erotic energy is turned inward." This is indeed the key point. Man cannot engage in mere animal sexuality without sinking beneath even the animals, who are innocent in their animality. ..."
I mention the Catholicism reference only because of the commonly-held cultural belief that consummation is required to ‘complete’ a marriage. Roman Catholics are also the only mainstream faith (I think that’s true) that permits the annulment of an un-consummated marriage. [I’m not sure of the Anglican/Episcopalian church... particularly since it was formed from a disagreement between Rome and the King of England over this point... and I’ll ignore the historical details on that story!].
As a Protestant (conservative/reformed Presbyterian, specifically) I do not personally hold to the Catholic view, as I don’t believe it is scriptural (discussed earlier). Frankly, though, it hardly ever comes up: we’re all pretty much married when the ‘you may kiss your bride’ line is uttered!
But if you want to know the distinctions, it’s pretty much this:
Catholicism: oaths and consummation (Marriage is also elevated as one of their 7 sacraments)
Protestants: oaths alone (Protestants believe there are only 2 sacraments: baptism and holy communion (the eucharist))
" Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, What did Moses command you? They said, Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY. But Jesus said to them, Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
"In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. - Mark 10:2-12
The essence of a marriage/wedding is the lifetime commitment of a man and woman to each other, for life, for the purpose of begetting and raising children. The lifetime commitment is, logically, primary, since some couples are unable to have children.
Unwillingness to have children, or the inability to perform the marital act, render a wedding/marriage null.
In Christian marriage, grace is conferred. But the priest or minister simply acts as the witness for the Church and the State.
Marriage has a public aspect, as well as a private aspect. Marriage should not be kept secret, for obvious reasons.
Additionally, society has a secondary role to play in the raising of children. It is therefore not unreasonable for the State to register marriages.
Finally, the State must adjudicate custody issues, so it must determine the civil validity of marriages.
I didn't say that there should be no divorces or separation. Only that there should be no remarriage.
She already had a husband, thus the man she was living with couldn’t be her husband.
I’ve heard the idea that originally God meant “marriage” to being the act of intercourse.
I just wonder where that leaves the young girl who might have been raped. Is she bound to her rapist (husband) in the Lord’s eyes?
I say maybe back in the biblical days but doesn’t God deal with us differently now wherein he looks at the heart of the matter as opposed to focusing on law and ritual