Marriage: When, exactly, does "what God has joined together" mean?

[RDKirk]

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- Mark 10

What does that mean exactly? When and how does God join a man and a woman together?

Is it through the act of sexual intercourse?

Is it through the covenant promises that they make specifically before God as believers in Him?

Does it require both the covenant and the sexual intercourse?

Does it matter if one or the other party was an unbeliever and the covenant was made to some other god?

Does it matter if one party had their fingers crossed behind their back and had no intention of carrying out the covenant? IOW, does God validate a lie?

 

[mkgal1]

Excellent question.

My husband and I were friends for a couple of years....began dating.....and then moved in together after dating for a year. We then bought a house together. The lender required a "relationship letter" since we weren't married. The lender basically wanted - in writing - whether we planned on getting married. He hadn't officially proposed....but we'd talked about "eventually" getting married.

At that time, neither of us were attending a church....but I had been raised in the church and attended a private Christian school. He wasn't raised with any religion. When we finally moved into our new home....I met new friends that invited me to Bible study. I began attending regularly....and we asked to get married at that church (a non-denominational mega church). They refused to marry us, because we were living together without being married (they even suggested that we live apart)....but isn't that a government recognition......and nothing to do with God (or even our level of commitment)? We ended up getting married at a Methodist church. By the way......we've been married 31 years now.....living together and committed for 35 years. I'm not sure what the answer is about when God joins together.

 

[com7fy8]

Does it matter if one party had their fingers crossed behind their back and had no intention of carrying out the covenant? IOW, does God validate a lie?

Joshua chapter nine > what I get is the Jewish leaders did not make sure with God, about if they should make a vow. So, they got stuck with it.

Deliberate deception in order to get married can be a capital offense, under Mosaic Law > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

If a person is capable of betraying you and you find him or her to be marital material, that person is not your main problem! We need to make sure with God.

 

[Sabertooth]

What does that mean exactly? When and how does God join a man and a woman together?

Does it require both the covenant and the sexual intercourse?

I believe that this is correct for otherwise eligible believers, but not necessarily a ceremonial declaration.
(I think that it parallels belief followed by baptism.)

Does it matter if one or the other party was an unbeliever and the covenant was made to some other god?

According to Paul, we are able to become "one flesh" with unbelievers through sexual intercourse. I consider this to be a lesser or incomplete covenant. (It is the basis for a common type of "soul-tie.")

It is incomplete because it wasn't initiated with God's blessing. It is invasive to legitimate marriage and its break-up is as injurious as any other divorce would be.

I believe that God is willing to forgive, but the consequential pain will be unavoidable.

 

[disciple Clint]

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- Mark 10

What does that mean exactly? When and how does God join a man and a woman together?

Is it through the act of sexual intercourse?

Is it through the covenant promises that they make specifically before God as believers in Him?

Does it require both the covenant and the sexual intercourse?

Does it matter if one or the other party was an unbeliever and the covenant was made to some other god?

Does it matter if one party had their fingers crossed behind their back and had no intention of carrying out the covenant? IOW, does God validate a lie?

I am going to go with the covenant promises option. If we look at the Catholic church who is a stickler on rules and laws they believe Mary was a perpetual virgin and yet they also believe that she was married to Joseph.

 

[AubreyM]

Mixing blood in my opinion.

Have been married a lot in life just never realized it.

People think it strange: When someone tells me they got a boyfriend, and my response is " Oh your husband " -> They look at me weird -> say no that is not my husband or whatever.

Same thing with Girlfriend-> "Oh your wife"

They just do not understand my perception of becoming one, as you mentioned RDKirk

 

[paul1149]

I would emphasize the covenant aspect. But it's more than a legal covenant, it's one-flesh, a joining of the two in profound intimacy. It's soul to soul, and the sex act is its epitome.

But while sex outside of marriage does set up a one-flesh relationship, it is not marriage, which is something more. That is why extramarital is sin; it is illegitimate.

 

[RDKirk]

Joshua chapter nine > what I get is the Jewish leaders did not make sure with God, about if they should make a vow. So, they got stuck with it.

In the case of Joshua 9, the Gebionites deceived the Israelites in their identity, but the Gibieonites did fulfill the covenant they made. That was the case with Leah's marriage to Jacob as well...she deceived Jacob as to her identity, but she faithfully carried out the requirements of her covenant.

I'm talking about someone who made covenant agreements without any intention of carrying them out, and in fact, not carrying them out. One biblical example might be a man who married and refused his wife's conjugal rights.

Deliberate deception in order to get married can be a capital offense, under Mosaic Law > Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

That doesn't apply to general deception, but to a very specific (and probably frequently charged) deception. An interesting point, though: It was the bride's parents who collected and preserved the bride's proof of innocence. Sometimes a virgin validly does not bleed after first intercourse, but I suspect there was never a case in which those bedclothes did not have a bloodstain.

 

[com7fy8]

One biblical example might be a man who married and refused his wife's conjugal rights.

I think of how Jacob did not love Leah. But God enforced that marriage.

Genesis 29:31

But I see that what mattered to God most of all was Jacob was not loving Leah.

In any case, Jesus wants us to love whoever we are involved with, no matter the past.

I now think of this > Jacob to me seems like he loved Rachel because of what she looked like, not because of real and deep love. So, he was prejudiced about loving . . . discriminating because of beauty . . . beauty discrimination. And the LORD wanted him to find out how to genuinely love > this was more important than if there was a vow and if there had been deception involved in bringing Jacob together with Leah.

There is the deception of beauty discrimination which brings various people together in their marriages. Many take vows and get divorces, after vowing to love one another. But their love is not the love which "never fails" (1 Corinthians 13)

I myself have been smitten, numerous times, because of what really was about toys for boys. The feelings were very convincing, but deception. I have been my own pathological liar, I guess we could say . . . not suitable for marriage; yet, a number of women have fooled themselves into wanting me.

But I have stayed with my lady friend, and I think being with her has meant a chance for me to find out how to love in a close relationship . . . and with this to grow more in how to love any and all other people, like Jesus wants us to do > Matthew 5:46.

 

[RDKirk]

I think of how Jacob did not love Leah. But God enforced that marriage.

Genesis 29:31

But I see that what mattered to God most of all was Jacob was not loving Leah.

Jacob did not deny conjugal rights to Leah, however, which was my comment. The OT provided only one situation in which a woman could initiate a divorce, which was when the man refused conjugal rights (that is, refused to allow her to have children).

So despite the fact that Jacob was not smitten by Leah's physical attributes, he did fulfill his covenant with her; she fulfilled her covenant with him despite having initially deceived him.

I think what the West considers "love" is really "hormonally induced emotional rush." Biblical love is depicted as a matter of consistent action, not fluctuating emotion: "The heart is deceitful."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Through marriage there is a sacramental icon of our union to Christ; when two people come together in promise and commitment to a life together, they are united together in life and purpose.

In the historic understanding of Christianity the sacramental character of marriage is distinct in that the ministers who administer it are those who are getting married, spouse to spouse.

The cultural context of how that marriage occurs differs wildly depending on time and location. The grand Victorian wedding that came to dominate the English speaking world, and, the rest of the world at large in the modern era is a product of the 19th century. Everyone wanted to be like the original trend-setting hipster queen herself, Queen Victoria. It's especially the reason why brides still wear white in modern western weddings today, because Victoria wore white on her wedding.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NomNomPizza]

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. -- Mark 10

What does that mean exactly? When and how does God join a man and a woman together?

Is it through the act of sexual intercourse?

Is it through the covenant promises that they make specifically before God as believers in Him?

Does it require both the covenant and the sexual intercourse?

Does it matter if one or the other party was an unbeliever and the covenant was made to some other god?

Does it matter if one party had their fingers crossed behind their back and had no intention of carrying out the covenant? IOW, does God validate a lie?

1) No , you can be seduced by woman or you can rape woman or you can have sex without your maid but then you ought to in all 3 instances marry her after so the act itself isnt.
2) Ye the purpose is to become one flesh so after u get married you have sex
3) No , you can marry unbelievers but you shouldn't
4) Finger cross what?... no if u make vows they stand not like u finger cross behind ur back and take mark of beast while bowing before the image of beast your fingers wont save you in this situation aswell lol

How exactly?
You ask her hand by asking her father , her brother if father is dead (1st born) or if she has nobody and is some sort of refugee you ask pastor as any of these men have authority over her if any of them say no then u don't marry her.

Then the man of authority walks the bride and passes her hand to the bridegroom's hand as witness to everybody , then both bridegroom and bride make vows to God and its done.

 

[com7fy8]

So despite the fact that Jacob was not smitten by Leah's physical attributes, he did fulfill his covenant with her

But doesn't a marital covenant include loving?

In our covenant with Jesus, in any case >

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

And even secular vows can include to love one another.

 

[RDKirk]

But doesn't a marital covenant include loving?

In our covenant with Jesus, in any case >

"Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them." (Colossians 3:19)

And even secular vows can include to love one another.

The Lord directs us to love our wives, but that love is still a matter of consistent actions, not an emotional rush. One author has written, "Love is when someone else's happiness is essential to your own."

Remember that when Paul was writing, virtually all marriages, Jewish, Greek, and Roman, were arranged. Typically wife and husband barely knew each other before marriage (if at all).

But I like how it comes to be expressed here:

 

[RDKirk]

1) No , you can be seduced by woman or you can rape woman or you can have sex without your maid but then you ought to in all 3 instances marry her after so the act itself isnt.
2) Ye the purpose is to become one flesh so after u get married you have sex
3) No , you can marry unbelievers but you shouldn't
4) Finger cross what?... no if u make vows they stand not like u finger cross behind ur back and take mark of beast while bowing before the image of beast your fingers wont save you in this situation aswell lol

How exactly?
You ask her hand by asking her father , her brother if father is dead (1st born) or if she has nobody and is some sort of refugee you ask pastor as any of these men have authority over her if any of them say no then u don't marry her.

Then the man of authority walks the bride and passes her hand to the bridegroom's hand as witness to everybody , then both bridegroom and bride make vows to God and its done.

Is your answer to the question that "God's joining" requires both a ceremony and sexual consummation?

 

[RDKirk]

Through marriage there is a sacramental icon of our union to Christ; when two people come together in promise and commitment to a life together, they are united together in life and purpose.

In the historic understanding of Christianity the sacramental character of marriage is distinct in that the ministers who administer it are those who are getting married, spouse to spouse.

The cultural context of how that marriage occurs differs wildly depending on time and location. The grand Victorian wedding that came to dominate the English speaking world, and, the rest of the world at large in the modern era is a product of the 19th century. Everyone wanted to be like the original trend-setting hipster queen herself, Queen Victoria. It's especially the reason why brides still wear white in modern western weddings today, because Victoria wore white on her wedding.

-CryptoLutheran

So what specifically constitutes "what God has joined together" versus what man has joined together?

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what specifically constitutes "what God has joined together" versus what man has joined together?

While I don't regard marriage to be a Sacrament in the proper sense, I think there is still a sacramental dimension to it. In that way the minister is not the one at work through the sacramental, but rather it is God. In the same way that it is not the pastor who gives us Christ in the Lord's Supper, it is Christ Himself who does this. So here, the ministers--the couple marrying each other--are ministers of this sacramental act, but it is God Himself who acts. It is God who, through marriage, brings these two together. Thus the joining together by God is through the coming together in matrimony.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[com7fy8]

The Lord directs us to love our wives, but that love is still a matter of consistent actions, not an emotional rush. One author has written, "Love is when someone else's happiness is essential to your own."

Our Apostle Paul says he loved the Philippians "with the affection of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:8)

So, there is affection, I would say.

Plus, Paul and Silvanus and Timothy related "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children" with the Thessalonians > chapter two, verse 7.

So, there is emotion and feeling, included.

And we are told be love by being "tenderhearted" with one another > Ephesians 4:31-32. How to be, I would say, includes how we are in our character so we always stay this way. So, it is not only at times choosing this or that, but being able to change.

And our Father is so pleased with His Son Jesus whom He loves do dearly. Being pleased is not only action.

And "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), and God has feelings of being pleased and ways of being jealous for His people.

I would say that there is more for us to discover, of how God means for us to love. What we already have from human experience would not be all we can still discover and learn with Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

Our Apostle Paul says he loved the Philippians "with the affection of Jesus Christ." (Philippians 1:8)

So, there is affection, I would say.

Plus, Paul and Silvanus and Timothy related "just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children" with the Thessalonians > chapter two, verse 7.

So, there is emotion and feeling, included.

And we are told be love by being "tenderhearted" with one another > Ephesians 4:31-32. How to be, I would say, includes how we are in our character so we always stay this way. So, it is not only at times choosing this or that, but being able to change.

And our Father is so pleased with His Son Jesus whom He loves do dearly. Being pleased is not only action.

And "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16), and God has feelings of being pleased and ways of being jealous for His people.

I would say that there is more for us to discover, of how God means for us to love. What we already have from human experience would not be all we can still discover and learn with Jesus.

None of that affects the validity of "what God has joined together"...which is what my OP is about. There is nothing in scripture to indicate that a lack of "affection" indicates a marriage is not "what God as joined together."

 

[Hazelelponi]

So what specifically constitutes "what God has joined together" versus what man has joined together?

Perhaps it's a covenant with someone under God's covenant with at least one of the parties is what changes it from man to God.