In regards to the thread on Sex/Marriage:
I must reiterate that no one really interacted with what either Tim or myself were trying to discuss. Tim was merely wanting to discuss the (as he clearly stated) flawed opinion of another as related to sex before marriage being "okay", and to also discuss the implications of sex as related to the marriage covenant.

With all that said, here is the point:

Sex is a sign and seal, the consummation, if you will, of marriage.

Sex does not equal marriage, and neither Tim or myself were trying to say this is the case (At least I was not, I will not speak for Tim). You have all wrongly jumped to conclusions, put words in our mouths, and made judgments and rebukes against something we were not arguing, without any patience or attempt at understanding prior to the fact.

So, if sex is the seal and consummation of the marriage covenant, and someone has sex outside of marriage, they are displaying the seal of the covenant of marriage with someone. Of course, this does not mean they are marrying that person. What it does mean, however (and this is why I related it to baptism before), that they are proclaiming, through having sex, that they are agreeing to the terms of the marriage covenant.

So, when they either have sex with someone else or get married to another person, they are, in a sense, "breaking covenant" with the person they willfully had sex with (rape doesn't count, that doesn't apply in this situation at all, neither does homosexual acts, as they are not real forms of intercourse).

I am also reminded of the fact that Adam and Eve never had a marriage ceremony, and no such ceremonies are mentioned for quite some time in the biblical record. What we do read about over and over is the act of sexual union.


With much love and respect as your equal and brother in Christ,
Gabe.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

~Edited for content by admin



[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]

No, I do not believe they are "breaking the covenant"...it is offending the covenant. Does God break his covenant with us when we waver? No. An offended marriage can be saved and the covenant continued.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

The covenant being being broken would be by divorcing AND marrying another.

No. Sex is not a sacrament. It is a duty and a blessing within the marriage covenant but not a sacrament. More appropriately, the sign of a marriage would be, in our culture, a ring. In others, it may be the dowry.

We've had plenty of patience with you.
They are not agreeing to anything but to have sex with one another out side of it's proper use. There is no covenant made. You must understand that a relationship does not mean covenant. A covenant is a contract which secures a special kind of relaionship.
There was no covenant to break. It was a relationship sure. But not a covenant. Covenants between people are contracts with witnesses garanteeing the mutual obligations with both parties.

You must interpret Scripture with Scripture. Adam and Eve did have a marriage ceremony. God officiated. He brought Eve to Adam to be his wife. This distinction is made by God every time he calls a woman someones "wife." Notice the woman at the well (John 4). She had 5 husbands. And the 6th men she only lived with. Jesus did not consider her present relationsip a marriage at all.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Patrick!

__________________
Adam Leavelle
Westminster OPC
Roaring Spring Pa.

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Gabriel,
You state:

Ultimately, this means that the man or woman are not truly married until the sexual act is complete.

However, in Gen 29, we see that Laban gave Rachel to Isaac long before he was ever united to her physically, yet Isaac see's her as his wife.

Gen 29:20 So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.
Gen 29:21 Then Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife that I may go in to her, for my time is completed."

The betrothal was official. Rachel was betrothed to Isaac long before he ever had sex w/ her; officially, in Gods eye's, she was his wife.

In Gen 2 God brings Adam his help meet.

Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

"one flesh" Clearly, Adam refers to the miraculous operation that God did with his rib:

Gen 2:23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

There is no mentioning here of a sexual discourse as a consummating factor.

In Matt, Mary and Joseph were husband and wife before they ever had relations:

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

Joseph even threatened to divorce her. One cannot get divorced unless one is already married. Apparently, the law of the day saw the marriage covenant, sans sexual relations as binding in Gods eyes.

These are a few thoughts on the matter. Phillip Way and Fred Greco added some fruitful examples as well in the previous thread.


[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Deu 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.

Betrothal is a mediate step between courtship and marriage. It's considered a "covenant to covenant" in marriage. Bethrothed or engaged are reckoned married except (1) headship still belongs to the father (2) responsibility for the womans wealfare still belongs to the father (3) sexual union is not yet enjoyed.

http://reformedpresbytery.org/books/...p/courtshp.htm

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Peter]

__________________
*Peter Gray* Elkins Park RPCNA

"Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. " Mk 9:24
"The greatest thing we can desire, next to the glory of God, is our own salvation; and the sweetest thing we can desire is the assurance of our salvation. In this life we cannot get higher than to be assured of that which in the next life is to be enjoyed. All saints shall enjoy a heaven when they leave this earth; some saints enjoy a heaven while they are here on earth." Joseph Caryl

If sex seals the marriage, an impotent man can never get married. That's kind of cruel (or a lucky break, depending on how you look at it! ).

__________________
"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Eccl 9:10

G.S.Harwood
Member, St.Paul's Presbyterian
student, University of Toronto (unfortunately)

I have to say, I'm realy frustrated here. I don't think any of you are listening to a word I am saying.. er, typing.

You are arguing against ideas I haven't put forth. I don't know where to start, really.

I'll just say a few things, I suppose.

What's the difference? If this is the case, then those who are part of the visible Church and then fall away are not "breaking the covenant" either, because they were just offending it and never really part of it.


You are wrong, Scott. Mary and Joseph were not married yet. According to Jewish tradition at the time, they were in the one-year engagement period prior to marriage. By all practical means they were "married", with the exception of living together and sexual union. This means that if someone had sexual relations during this time, a divorce could be filed, since they violated the agreement made between the two families that this couple was to be married. Having sex prior to consummating your own marriage was grounds for divorce, even though they weren't officially married yet.


What were Cain and Abel? Spores? The fact of the matter is, we never read of marriage ceremonies for quite some time throughout Scripture. What we do read about is two people "knowing" each other or coming together to produce offspring.


That doesn't make sense. You are saying that being one flesh means that woman is created from man, but the text here isn't saying that at all. What it IS saying, is that #1 The man leaves his father, #2 He holds fast to his wife, #3 They become one flesh

According to your interpretation of the passage, no one is "one flesh" with their wife unless we make them out of our ribs. What?


You are reading a LOT of information into this simple verse.

Gabe, I like your arguments, you've got a good point, especially about people "knowing" each other in the OT. But you do seem to be suggesting that marriage is only marriage if the couple has had sex. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just stating the impression I get. And again, I think that's a little mean to impotent people! Why would you deny them the pleasure of a help-meet?

I'm just saying that sexual union between two people is the seal and consummation of the marriage covenant. That is what it signifies. Even impotent people can have some form of physical, sexual union with their spouse, but speculation won't really get us anywhere. We could come up with 100 different off-the-wall examples of exceptions to the rule, but couldn't we do that for anything? It still doesn't make the facts ... unfactual.

And grounds for divorce in 1st Century Judaism was having sex with another person while you were betrothed/engaged/pledged to someone. Even without being 'officially' married through a ceremony.

Really? You will have to argue with the passage:

Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man.....


Cain and Able had not been born yet; they were but a twinkle in the eye of Adam and Eve.

Was Eve made from Adam. The both of them were made from one flesh? The one have become two? No, the two have become one. Adam and Eve are made from one flesh. This is a creationary idea. The premise is practical for us as we are offspring of Adam and Eve. There is no need any longer to have our ribs pulled. But in relation to marriage, the idea is there.

Henry writes:
Probably it was revealed to Adam in a vision, when he was asleep, that this lovely creature, now presented to him, was a piece of himself, and was to be his companion and the wife of his covenant.


I am?


[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]

puritansailor: Nearly everything you have said in regards to the nature of a covenant defeats paedobaptism or the possibility of someone breaking covenant with God. Seriously.

And you have to argue with Historical fact that helps us interpret this passage. The Bible wasn't written in America, and you know that very well. Let's be reasonable.

Here are some notes I have in regards to this, from a New Testament Survey class:

SECTION 5: Luke 1:26-38
I. Nazareth was a small town in Galilee, most people thought the Messiah would come from Judea (1:26)
II. Mary was pledged to be married (1:27)
A. Marriages were typically arranged
B. Brides were typically 12-13 years old; The groom would be about 2 years older
C. The couple would be engaged for about one year
D. They were considered married in every sense except for sexual union
1. They would set up a home, etc.; He would live in it and she would stay with her family
2. After the year, they would have a marriage ceremony
E. Before the marriage ceremony, if a couple wanted to break the relationship, they had to file for divorce



They were a product of eye twinkling?


Yes, was to be his companion and the wife of his covenant, not already so. Why? They had not consummated their covenant yet.


Okay, in my opinion.

How can one divorce someone whom they are not technically married to? Divorce is a legal agreement; it was biblical as well as civil. For Joseph to threaten divorce, he would have to be married.

I was speaking of fully married...not married/betrothed

This issue I (and maybe others here) are seeing is that you are saying that s*x makes the marriage or makes one married. That just isn't so. If that was the case then there would be no such thing as fornication, for those 2 ppl would be, by this faulty definition, married. I know ppl that believe this way and it is due to one of two things...off the wall theology or just an excuse not to legally marry.

Don't ask me, ask 1st Century Jews. It's a fact.

Again, wrong.

I am saying that since sex is something that acts as a seal or consummation of the marriage covenant, when it is done out of wedlock this creates a situation where someone has wrongfully entered into and broken the covenant of marriage if they then leave that person or have sex with another. Sex is not meant to be done outside of it's design as the seal of marriage. To do so brings upon judgment from God, just as participating in the CoG in an unlawful manner and to be found apostate brings upon judgment for God as a covenant BREAKER.

It IS still fornication, because they are going against the terms of the marriage covenant, wherein they be lawfully put together before sealing the covenant with sex.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

The 1st Century Jewish would have considered them MARRIED. Betrothal was a step IN the marriage. Thus the reason for divorce in this circumstance.

I think you are being hard headed and refusing to take scripture into consideration...let alone your idea of 1st Century Jewish culture is skewed