Sex as the seal of the Marriage Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
f it was a case of adultery then he could put her away (by Jewish law, not God's) because of the hardness of their hearts. As a Christian and a covenant marriage, we should hold to that covenant and repair the relationship.
Click to expand...

So you also believe it is wrong to get a divorce as a married person when your spouse has an affair?
 
Most of my friends are D&R...they know where I stand on it. I accept their marriages. However. The Scriptures says definitively (except in certain translations that I don't accept) Fornication and Adultery. The first being reason for divorce...not the second. The Lord said on the second basically, go ahead you're gonna do it anyway (the hardness of their hearts).
 
I agree. It is the greatest act to forgive and reconcile.

Hos 3:1 And the LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins."
Hos 3:2 So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley.
Hos 3:3 And I said to her, "You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you."
Hos 3:4 For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or household gods.
Hos 3:5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.

The except for clause, is a last resort. We should always try and reconcile; that is Gods way; He hates divorce. The clause is not creationary. Jesus even says, "from the beginning, it was not so". So, the goal should be, reconcilliation.

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

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
This is an interesting contrast: Betrothed vs the term wife:

Deu 22:22 "If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.
Deu 22:23 "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her,
Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

The terms are closely interchangeable.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
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.
Click to expand...

Nice assertion. Please deal with the argument. We are discussing covenant between men. Not God's covenant with man. The nature of God's covenant has some different elements which don't apply to strictly human covenants.
 
Wow, almost every reply to Gabe here has failed to deal with what he is trying to say. I am curious if anyone has actually read gabes original post, or just read the first line and then made their own conclusions about what he believes.:candle:
 
Originally posted by jatkins_1
Wow, almost every reply to Gabe here has failed to deal with what he is trying to say. I am curious if anyone has actually read gabes original post, or just read the first line and then made their own conclusions about what he believes.:candle:
Click to expand...

Gabriel was quite clear:
Sex is a sign and seal, the consummation, if you will, of marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Scott, I was clear .. and I stand by that statement. Everyone I have questioned about this issue thus far (all Christians) have agreed with that definition. You are simply not reading far enough or attempting to understand the thrust of my point. My point is not that sex is the seal of marriage as a covenant, but that having sex out of wed-lock brings with it some consequences and it very closely resembles that of being baptized into the body of Christ and later being apostate.

I don't understand why everyone is so adamently against this, like it is heresy or something.

Sex is a seal of the marriage covenant.

To have sex out of wedlock is to profane the covenant of marriage. It is the same thing "technically" as getting a divorce, if you are to leave the person you first had sex with, as you are making the intentions of the covenant visible through sex; and, by leaving that person, you are, by all practical purposes, profaning the covenant of marriage.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Yes, Scott, I was clear .. and I stand by that statement. Everyone I have questioned about this issue thus far (all Christians) have agreed with that definition. You are simply not reading far enough or attempting to understand the thrust of my point. My point is not that sex is the seal of marriage as a covenant, but that having sex out of wed-lock brings with it some consequences and it very closely resembles that of being baptized into the body of Christ and later being apostate.

I don't understand why everyone is so adamently against this, like it is heresy or something.

Sex is a seal of the marriage covenant.

To have sex out of wedlock is to profane the covenant of marriage. It is the same thing "technically" getting a divorce, if you are to leave the person you first had sex with, as you are making the intentions of the covenant visible through sex; and, by leaving that person, you are, by all practical purposes, profaning the covenant of marriage.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
Click to expand...

It's quite simple Gabriel; The scriptures do not state that sex is the seal of the marriage covenant. You have been presented with a number of examples of people whom were married and had not consumated that relationship physically.
 
It's quite simple Gabriel; The scriptures do not state that sex is the seal of the marriage covenant. You have been presented with a number of examples of people whom were married and had not consumated that relationship physically.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is simple, but you are making it complicated. Just because they are married does not necessarily entail that there marriage has been sealed or consummated. Just because one is baptized, it does not necessarily entail that they are saved or forgiven of their sins; the seal of the Holy Spirit and regeneration is required before it is fully consummated.
 
I'm gonna quote Chris Blum; He is one of our moderators. He's 18 years old by the way.

"Also, to hold that sex is what definitively makes marriage, you would have to view it as completely biblically lawful for a Christian man to go through the full wedding ceremony with his fiance, but then before having sex with her, he meets a woman in the airport on the way to their honeymoon and decides he likes her better, so he goes and has sex with her and thus declares himself married to her, since after all, he wasn't quite married to the other woman. The implications are absurd. "
 
It's quite simple Gabriel; The scriptures do not state that sex is the seal of the marriage covenant. You have been presented with a number of examples of people whom were married and had not consumated that relationship physically.
 
:banghead:

Through necessary inference, Scripture teaches us that sex is the consummation of the marriage covenant. That's the bottom line. We read of nothing but the sexual union between two people for hundreds of pages in the Bible, when speaking of marriage. The actual details of the marriage, ceremonies, etc. are nowhere near as vast in being mentioned.

I'm done for now. :pilgrim:
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
:banghead:

Through necessary inference, Scripture teaches us that sex is the consummation of the marriage covenant. That's the bottom line. We read of nothing but the sexual union between two people for hundreds of pages in the Bible, when speaking of marriage. The actual details of the marriage, ceremonies, etc. are nowhere near as vast in being mentioned.

I'm done for now. :pilgrim:
Click to expand...

Gabriel,
If it is NI'd, please present some quotes from the realms of orthodox believers. Simple; Show us.

PS: I assume based upon your statement that you are ascribing to NI. If so, do you now recant of your position on 'filthy language'?

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
:banghead:

Through necessary inference, Scripture teaches us that sex is the consummation of the marriage covenant. That's the bottom line. We read of nothing but the sexual union between two people for hundreds of pages in the Bible, when speaking of marriage. The actual details of the marriage, ceremonies, etc. are nowhere near as vast in being mentioned.

I'm done for now. :pilgrim:
Click to expand...

Actually, it is completely unacceptable to just say that necessary inference requires this view; especially in light of the fact that the universal view of the Church is contrary to yours. Canon law from the Medieval Period takes the opposite view. The common law view (which is rooted in Christianity) takes the opposite view. The Confession takes the opposite view. Not one theologian has been produced who states this. You'll forgive me if I am unwilling to jettison 2000 years of Church history and the informed opinion of all Reformed divines that I know in favor of your expertise in Covenantal theology - which includes a switch to paedobaptism but a few weeks ago.

To do so would be foolish beyond all measure - your point about Timothy being completely beside the point, for Timothy was not to let others despise his youth because of the fact that he was a pastor and judged by the Church as apt teach, and not simply because he happened to be young.
 
If I am understanding you then a man and women are not married until they have sex. If they cannot have sex, for wahtever reason, then by your definition they are not married. This cannot be supported with Scripture (if it is what you are saying).

In fact, Gabe, please state for us in one sentence what it is you are trying to assert, since we are all not understanding you. And support what you are saying with the Scriptures please.

A man and his wife are married before they have sex. Having sex does not make them any more or less married than when the minister proclaimed "I now pronounce you husband and wife." Scripturally speaking, you cannot go through the wedding ceremony and then decide not to have sex and therefore declare yourself not married.

And the Bible is clear that Joseph and Mary were husband and wife before Jesus was born and before Joseph "knew" Mary.

They were already man and wife in Matthew 1:20.

20But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Phillip
 
Fred, you don't even understand my point, respectfully. Your attempt to be condescending towards me because of my relatively new acception of Covenant Theology is uncalled for.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Fred, you don't even understand my point, respectfully. Your attempt to be condescending towards me because of my relatively new acception of Covenant Theology is uncalled for.
Click to expand...

Gabriel,

I understand your point completely. In fact, I was discussing it with someone else earlier this week even before you raised it. I even have a good suspicion where you got it from, for there is only one "reformed scholar" who espouses this view.

What is condescending is your refusal to deal with plain texts like John 4, Matthew 1 and Church history. You simply keep saying over and over again that sex is a sign and seal of the "covenant of marriage" when we do not ever see that in Scripture, and you have given no texts for it. In fact, you have not even shown where there is a sign and seal of ANYTHING in Scripture beyond the sacraments.

So given that you are not a teacher of the Church, not experienced in covenant theology, nor even married - I think it is perfectly reasonable to require you to state Scriptures for an innovative doctrine that binds the conscience of believers.
 
If I am understanding you then a man and women are not married until they have sex. If they cannot have sex, for wahtever reason, then by your definition they are not married.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand. Again. I have stated clearly what I am saying, but for your sake I will do so again:

Sex is a visible, tangible sign and seal of marriage. It is the consummation of the marriage covenant. People can be married before having sex. However, their marriage is "consummated" through having sex; that is, they can be married without having had sex, but the act of sexual union is the seal of that covenantal bond they have proclaimed and agreed upon with one another. So then, when someone has sex outside of marriage, they are profaning the covenant of marriage, as sex is a seal meant to be applied within the terms of a marriage covenant alone, and there are consequences for profaning a covenant institued by God Himself, such as marriage.


And the Bible is clear that Joseph and Mary were husband and wife before Jesus was born and before Joseph "knew" Mary.

They were already man and wife in Matthew 1:20.

20But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

You are in error, sir. The angel is telling Joseph that it is okay for him to go ahead and take Mary as his wife, since they were betrothed and pledged to be married. They had not had a marriage celebration yet, nor had they consummated the marriage through sexual union. This is why it was such a controversial issue for her to be pregnant, as they were not lawfully married as of yet.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. (NASB)

But after he had considered these things, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because what has been conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit. (HCSB)

But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (NRSV)

While he was trying to figure a way out, he had a dream. God's angel spoke in the dream: "Joseph, son of David, don't hesitate to get married. Mary's pregnancy is Spirit-conceived. God's Holy Spirit has made her pregnant. (MSG)

Okay, the last one was a joke.. :bigsmile:
 
I even have a good suspicion where you got it from, for there is only one "reformed scholar" who espouses this view.
Click to expand...

Your suspicion would be wrong, as I have never read anything about this that would lead me to be attempting to discuss it with others on this board.
 
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.
 
First you say it breaks the covenant and then you say it just profanes it. There is a difference.

I also wonder if you have a different view of "apostacy"...please give yours.

Sex is a gift. A marriage can be physicall consumated (ie sexual union) but that has nothing to do with the covenant of marriage as many a marriage covenant has been made without the intent or physical activity of sexual union.
 
Betrothed does not equal marriage. You are still thinking in a modern context, and ignoring the historical method of betrothal and marriage in 1st century Israel. Yes, he was called her husband, but they had had no ceremony making the marriage official yet, they were not even living together yet, and they had not had sex because they had not been officially married. They were betrothed. If you left someone during this period in 1st century Israel, it was called divorce.
 
Sex has nothing to do with the marriage covenant??? Okay...

What's the difference between profaning a covenant and breaking it?

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pilgrim
  • Locked
Evangelical equivocation on same sex marriage
Replies
0
Views
2K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Me Died Blue
  • Locked
The Mosaic Covenant as a temporal republication of the Covenant of Works in light of Deuteronomy 9
Replies
9
Views
4K
MW
M
caoclan
  • Locked
The Ark of the Covenant
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
VilnaGaon
VilnaGaon
F
Fisher on Marriage Against the Book of Common Prayer
Replies
10
Views
789
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Martin Luther on the evil of forbidding marriage
Replies
0
Views
349
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Back
Top