The Marriage Vow

[lilitalienboi16]

Alex:

Neo,

Paul in 1 Cor 7 doesn't use "their sexual past to identify their marital status."

You're twisting that. Paul is saying that a married woman does not remain a virgin by status of being married. That is, when you are married, you have obligations to please your partner. That's why he says "there is a DIFFERENCE." He isn't saying that you get married by pleasing your partner or that sex makes marriage.

Listen:

1 Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Notice Paul says "THE WIFE" and also "THE HUSBAND." For Paul to be able to say "wife" and "husband," they have to be married. It is in being married that the power over the body is relinquished to the other partner. This then allows for lawful sex to occur; However, if as you state, that marriage is the "Sexual unity" or "sexual past," then Paul could never say what he said. Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful. That includes the sex you say is required to make a marriage legal ,or that makes a marriage a marriage. We would then have to conclude that unlawful sex leads to lawful marriage. I don't think so! That's called rape and or adultery. Both marriage and sex must be legal in God's eyes.

Without explicitly saying it, Paul has shown the order of things for us. First the marriage THEN the sex BUT sex is not required for the marriage! This is the pattern I believe agree's completely with the scriptures.

1 Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1 Cor 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Why does he care for how He may please his wife? FOR "The husband doesn't have power of his own body but the wife.."

1 Cor 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

The same thing applies for the woman. The things of the world are the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Sex involves two of those "things of the world." (1 John 2:16)

Let Paul's words speak for themselves. No verse becomes at all its own interpretation. You can't establish doctrine with one witness. You need two or three.

Alex,

Let's go back to your quote from Ray where he said, "marriage is more physical than spiritual...it is a carnal institution...it is not a spiritual union".

Ray is right.  Somewhere along the way, that truth got lost in the confusion  of how the marriage is established by God  (physically, primarily; covenantal, secondarily ).  If you are able to cleanse your mind of all pre-conceived ideas of the church and state, start over and read the scriptures "anew" from beginning to end, you will clearly see this.  That is in fact how Ray learned all of the truths he's presented here on this site.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7 verifies this.  In fact, if there is a "prescription" for marriage in the New Testament anywhere, this chapter is it. For a NT believer who knew nothing of the "cultural norms" of marriage, but wanted to know how the BIBLE explains it, defines it, regulates it, he could merely read 1 Cor 7, and understand it (well enough to be right with God, anyway).  It's all there...Read the whole chapter with your colored glasses off, and just let Paul's words speak for themselves. 

From beginning to end, it is about the physicality of marriage (he talks about the spiritual connotations in a different place, of course).  Because, as Ray (inadvertently?) explained in your quote, THAT is what marriage IS.

In the first half of the chapter, he is speaking to those who ARE married (sexual unity) or who are determined to BE married—"if they cannot contain".  In the second half (Versus 25 on), he instructs primarily those who have not yet married, or are undecided—those who are betrothed.   

It is important to understand that in those times (and long before), a man might be betrothed, that is PROMISED to a wife, at a very young age.  The woman, frankly, had no say in it at all.  These were "arranged marriages".  The man actually bought the wife from the father (with money, or with labor) and she was thus "promised" to him—thus a marriage by covenant, or vow (the vow was essentially the father's). The woman (usually still pre-pubescent) was then betrothed to the man.  I pointed out earlier that the status of betrothal was EQUAL to the status of (consummated) marriage, in that the penalties for breaking the covenant were the same (i.e., death for unfaithfulness).  The young man was in fact called a "husband" though they were not yet married. INTERESTINGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don't believe the woman was ever called "wife" UNTIL they were actually married!

So, with that in mind, Paul says to the young, betrothed man,

36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The stipulation being, she must be "post-pubescent" (flower of her age); if the man so desires, HE can TAKE her to be his WIFE, thus MARRYING her.  But, if he can contain himself, so to speak, he may KEEP his virgin...Yet, she is still HIS (betrothed).  Women had no say either way.

Hence, "There is a difference between a wife and a virgin"... No I'm not twisting his words.

This is getting long, so I will only deal with your NT concerns here.. But, let's look again at what you said:

Notice Paul says "THE WIFE" and also "THE HUSBAND." For Paul to be able to say "wife" and "husband," they have to be married. It is in being married that the power over the body is relinquished to the other partner. This then allows for lawful sex to occur; However, if as you state, that marriage is the "Sexual unity" or "sexual past," then Paul could never say what he said. Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful. That includes the sex you say is required to make a marriage legal ,or that makes a marriage a marriage. We would then have to conclude that unlawful sex leads to lawful marriage. I don't think so! That's called rape and or adultery. Both marriage and sex must be legal in God's eyes.

Paul is NOT actually regulating who is lawfully permitted to marry (have sex) in this text.  Why? It was understood already who was permitted to "take a wife"... He who had been betrothed to one.  A man who "had HIS virgin", bought and paid for, so to speak, had the lawful right to make her his wife, by sexually uniting with her (1Cor7:36).  Barring that, a woman who was not already spoken for, and a virgin (or widow) was "fair game" for a virgin (or widowed) man, but only in the Lord (they are both believers).  THOSE were the qualifications for "legal sex"...Paul had already covered that elsewhere. Therefore your concluding that "unlawful sex leads to a lawful marriage" is misguided.   

So again,

Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful

You got the cart before the horse. The HUSBAND (betrothed man) DOES have power to MAKE "his virgin" his WIFE.. the sex IS lawful in such a case, making the marriage "lawful" (again, 1Cor7:36).

The confusion in not understanding biblical descriptions of things like marriage stems from not comprehending/ (believing?) the clearly stated expectations and roles of men and women, merely because they do not mesh with our modern societal understanding of things.  Many things are stated plainly in the scriptures, but we don't see them because our eyes are veiled by OUR world view. 

Michael

Hi Michael,

I agree with ray but I don't agree with you. A marriage being a carnal institution does not mean that marriage and sex become one in the same. You are really twisting things to make it this way. I think you were given many good examples by all the members here about how these two cannot be the same. You completely dismissed the example of ruth which directly related to your quote of Genesis and raising up seed to a deceased member. Loc mentioned and showed you scripture with the certificates of divorce which Jesus even said must be given to a woman which would logically follow that a certificate of marriage existed as well.

Regardless though, you persist, so let me try one last time.

You say "INTERESTNGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don't believe the woman was ever called "wife" UNTIL they were actually married!"

Let me first point out that you are wrong about this:

2Sa 3:14  And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.

Espoused and Betrothed are the same word. You can look that up yourself. Here is a case where the betrothed is referred to as the wife.

Your next point about there being a difference between the wife and the virgin is wholly inaccurate. King David has not yet married her, she is his betrothed, but he refers to her as his wife. She is a VIRGIN WIFE.

Let me give you a second witness. In the new testatment, even though Joseph and Marry have not had sex, and are betrothed, joseph is still referred to her as the husband which would make her his wife, yet clearly marry is a virgin at this point. A VIRGIN WIFE.

Matthew 1:18-19 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

So now with this premise shown to be false, what you say about paul In Corinthians 7 as this pertaining to virgin versus wife is wrong.

I completely disagree with you that Paul is arguing that sex Is marriage. You are twisting that. I already pointed that out to you. No where in all of that chapter does Paul say "Sex is marriage" and he could have very easily said so. No, He is saying that those who cannot control themselves, instead of sinning by committing ADULTRY, UNLAWFUL SEX, that they MARRY, so they CAN have sex lawfully. This is NOT the same thing as saying that SEX IS MARRIAGE.

Lets read it together:

1 Corinthians 7 King James Version (KJV)

1 Cor7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

Do you read anywhere in there that marriage is "SEXUAL UNITY?" NO! This is about avoiding fornication, not committing sin. Why is it to avoid fornication? Because a MAN and a WOMAN having SEX is NOT MARRIAGE, ITS FORNICATION, ADULTRY! It doesn't read, "Nevertheless, to marry, let every man have his own wife." Nope.

Its the very same reason why the next verse has everything to do with the ORDER of things. First comes marriage, becoming husband and wife, and THEN the sex so as to avoid fornication, to NOT BURN, to avoid sinning.

1 Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

This absolutely has everything to do with the order of things.

1 Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1 Cor 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1 Cor 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

If you cannot control yourself, if you cannot "contain," then you have to marry. Why? Because sex is marriage? NO! "To avoid fornication... (ver 2)" Because the only LAWFUL form of SEX which prevents you from BURNING is IN MARRIAGE. This is not hard to understand.

Hebrews 13:4  Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Only in marriage is SEX lawful.

Listen! Carefully! The first time two people have sex outside of marriage, if as you say sex is what makes a marriage, the very first time would place that sexual act outside of marriage and they would still be committing adultery! The very first time they do it, they are not husband and wife, because it is after the sex, that according to you, they become husband and wife. This creates the problem of initiating lawful marriage in God's eyes through illicit sexual intercourse between two people. It also causes a whole hosts of other issues. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage does not involve the sexual act to make two people husband and wife. This allows the sex that follows for the first time to be pure and undefiled as it takes place between husband and wife. Your version of it has it all backwards and makes illegal sex necessary for legal marriage. This is wrong. This is a lie! You are twisting things. Have we not now come to the point of blasphemy, saying God requires us to break His commandments to abide by His commandments? Is this not a kingdom divided amongst itself?

Matthew 5:28   But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Did Jesus say, "everyone who look sat a woman with lustful intent has already MARRIED her in his heart?" NO! He says they have committed adultery, unlawful sex, because only in marriage is this lawful. You can lust after your WIFE its OKAY.

The rest of Corinthians follows this same pattern. Its all about marrying if you can't control yourself to prevent you from committing adultery, fornication, etc... which is highly stressed as something to avoid and flee in the new testatement.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:13  "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food"—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 6:18-20  Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Lastly, I will point out to you, that Jesus attended a MARRIAGE CEREMONY! So what happens between the betrothed, and the consummation of the marriage? THE CEREMONY, the exchanging of vows, the covenant, which officially pronounces a couple... "HUSBAND" and "WIFE." They now have lawful rights to each other's bodies.

John 2 1-2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

So again, with King David and Jospeh as two witnesses against you, a wife can be a virgin. Virgin and wife are not the contrast here. Married and not married are.

God be with you,
Alex

[lilitalienboi16]

Listen, this is a very complex subject apparently judging by how this whole discussion has gone. I agree with ray but we appear to have some objections on the issue from some. Now, that being said, let me just paint this picture for us if marriage is as Neo is clamining.

2 Cor: 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

So what does this do for our relationship with Christ?

Paul says he espoused us to Christ. The church is to be Christ's bride.

Ephesians 5:25-32

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

There is to be a marriage between the two.

Revelation 19:7-9 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Rev 19:9 (CLV) And he is saying to me, "Write: 'Happy are those invited to the wedding dinner of the Lambkin.' And he is saying to me, "These are the true sayings of God."

Rev 19:9 (GNB)  Then the angel said to me, "Write this: Happy are those who have been invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb." And the angel added, "These are the true words of God."


Rev 19:9 (MSG)  The Angel said to me, "Write this: 'Blessed are those invited to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb.'" He added, "These are the true words of God!"


John see's new Jerusalem descending out of heaven adorned as a BRIDE for her husband.

Revelation 21:1-2 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


What is the point of this marriage ceremony with God and His bride (that's us) if marriage comes through sexual intercourse? Why not talk about us having spiritual sex with Christ to become His wife instead of talking about a coming marriage ceremony?

Besides, isn't the term "Bride" used specifically in relations to a wedding ceremony? So clearly a wedding ceremony is very important in recognizing officially that two are now one, that two have become officially husband and wife?

I'm not trying to be dense here but these are seriously the questions that come to mind if marriage is sex.

God bless,
Alex

[dave]

I must admit the thoughts and questions on this subject never entered my mind. I read Ray's work on the subject seemed simple enough and accepted. Alex, you my friend have done a credible and valid job, thank you. In my opinion should there be argument against what you posted, the argument would only be for an argument. 

[John from Kentucky]

This thread is absolute proof of everlasting life.   

[lurquer]

Alex wrote:

I agree with ray but I don't agree with you. A marriage being a carnal institution does not mean that marriage and sex become one in the same. You are really twisting things to make it this way. I think you were given many good examples by all the members here about how these two cannot be the same. You completely dismissed the example of ruth which directly related to your quote of Genesis and raising up seed to a deceased member. Loc mentioned and showed you scripture with the certificates of divorce which Jesus even said must be given to a woman which would logically follow that a certificate of marriage existed as well.

Alex, your entire post is ridiculous.  A long re-hash of earlier posts,  overlaid with more spurious disputations and childish assertions ('I'm right, you're wrong! So there!').

I don't care who you agree with—you're being purely argumentative.  Let me just say that the reason I haven't addressed each and every detail of everyone's posts is because I haven't the time.  I said enough, and offered enough scripture to make my points, however.  What you choose to believe is of no personal concern of mine.  But others may have not thought much on these things before—perhaps now they will.  They may begin to seek out some of these things on their own.  There are indeed many more questions than I have answers...But one thing this discussion has proved to me is something Ray said:  "when a thing is true, the more you study it, the truer it becomes".  I am now more convinced than ever that the so-called "contract theory" of marriage is a farce, NOT taught in scripture, but just a bleed-over from the prevailing Babylonian and statist ideology.  If I had infinite time, I could prove that beyond anyone's doubt.. But that wouldn't change anyone's mind, now would it?  There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You say "INTERESTNGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don't believe the woman was ever called "wife" UNTIL they were actually married!"

Let me first point out that you are wrong about this:

2Sa 3:14  And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.

Espoused and Betrothed are the same word. You can look that up yourself. Here is a case where the betrothed is referred to as the wife. Your next point about there being a difference between the wife and the virgin is wholly inaccurate. King David has not yet married her, she is his betrothed, but he refers to her as his wife. She is a VIRGIN WIFE

Alex, I will concede this one point to you.  TAKE NOTE that I said I wasn't sure about that (it was merely something I noticed while going through the scriptures in this discussion).  Nevertheless, your zeal to be right! only wins you a hollow concession.. Because it doesn't matter. 

I obviously know what "espoused" and "betrothed" mean.  I DISCUSSED them both in detail in many posts.  Perhaps you failed to read them.  I explained how the scripture calls a man a "husband" when he was only espoused and NOT married. (Now we see that the word "wife" is also used to describe the same thing for an espoused woman). Why do you think this alters my position?  I used the very fact to make some very valid points.  Actually, you are arguing my position..

David had an espoused wife...Joseph had an espoused wife... Were they married? No.  When does the scripture show they were?  HOW does it show they were?  That is the point of this discussion.  Seems like you're being deliberately dense here.

I completely disagree with you that Paul is arguing that sex Is marriage. You are twisting that.

YOU are twisting that.  I never argued that sex IS marriage.  You cannot be more blind, if after SIX pages of discussion, you still assert this foolishness. 

One more time... An espoused couple becomes a married couple with their sexual union.  It is the ACT which CREATES the marriage.  This is what Paul says in Corinthians.  This is the pattern we see throughout the whole of scripture.  There is no scripture which shows otherwise.  Not one. 

Nearly all the rest of your post, you squander words repeating yourself and talking over me.  I won't waste any more time with it.  With regard to 1 Corinthians 7, if you or anyone else is still confused, they can go back and re-read what I wrote.  Better yet, study the text yourself. What you have said here in rebuttal is childish nonsense.

Listen! Carefully! The first time two people have sex outside of marriage, if as you say sex is what makes a marriage, the very first time would place that sexual act outside of marriage and they would still be committing adultery!

Utter nonsense.  Go back and read my last post.

Lastly, I will point out to you, that Jesus attended a MARRIAGE CEREMONY! So what happens between the betrothed, and the consummation of the marriage? THE CEREMONY, the exchanging of vows, the covenant, which officially pronounces a couple... "HUSBAND" and "WIFE." They now have lawful rights to each other's bodies.

No.  Jesus attended a marriage FEAST.  Just a wee twist of the scripture you did there, but it matters...  Other than that fact, you made the rest of that up out of whole cloth.

And this, in a nutshell, identifies the entire problem with the "marriage covenant" doctrine.  It's made up. You WANT it to be there, so you insert it.  When you can't make plain sense of the scriptures which describe the giving and taking of marriage, you must insert your own back-stories, innuendos, and scenarios to re-translate to fit your pagan, statist, Babylonian world view.

From the beginning of this thread, I asked just what exactly was this "covenant" or "vow" or "contract" that you allege God insists we enter into in order for a man to "take a wife".. that is, to "marry".   Not much to my surprise, no one has found anything in the scriptures even remotely prescribing such a thing.  The most telling response, though was in one member saying in essence, 'the vows just don't matter'..."they can be what ever you want them to be."

And so it is.  And here we are, half a book later in this thread, and no one is the wiser to this hustle.

[Kat]

I think that is a good final comment and before somebody decides to start it all back up again, well you know....