Does MJism/Judaism differ from traditional views of sexual morality? There is one MJ author who wrote a book about "[cant remember full title]: sexual freedom of Torah" where he actually condones polygamy and sex before marriage IF the couple goes on to get married. .
It seems some of what was noted would be included in the category of common law marriages - and, from a certain perspective, shacking up/living together with others in full intimacy/sexual relations without marriage contract. What occurred with Joseph and Mary in the situation they were in seems to speak strongly on that point...
Matthew 2:18-24 , concerning the example of Mary and Joseph, is interesting when seeing how Joseph planned on Divorcing Mary in secret when realizing that she was pregnant. In our culture, divorce only happens once a couple gets married/has sex...but in that time period, one could be "married" and yet at the stage of a marriage where it was essentially an "engagement"...and yet, to fall into immorality during that time would have carried the same penalty of stoning that adultery within marriage did (Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Leviticus 21:7, Jeremiah 3:8, ).
Joseph stayed with Mary after the Lord spoke to him in a dream, and he did not have any consumation in the marriage until after Christ was born. Mary was Joseph's by contract... with him likely to have already paid a dowry for Mary to her parents. She was promised to him so that contract was made and she'd of been in waiting. Once married,. they'd normally consummated the marriage but in this case, that was skipped. They were nevertheless husband and wife and no longer promised or engaged as folks like calling it today.
For them, their marriage contract had not been completed even when it was considered a "done" deal from one perspective. .
As
one organization said best:
Several Biblical passages refer to the negotiations requisite for the arranging of a marriage (Gen. xxiv.; Song of Songs viii. 8; Judges xiv. 2-7), which were conducted by members of the two families involved, or their deputies, and required usually the consent of the prospective bride (if of age); but when the agreement had been entered into, it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation.
The root ("to betroth"), from which the Talmudic abstract ("betrothal") is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of thepassages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as "wife" (II Sam. iii. 14, "my wife whom I have betrothed" ("erasti"), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as "the wife of his neighbor"). In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
Betrothal and Home-Taking.
After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking ("nissu'in," "liḳḳuḥin"). In case the bride was a widow or the groom a widower, this interval was reduced to thirty days (Ket. v. 2; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 56). After the dispersal of the Jews had brought them into contact with the Western peoples, this arrangement was felt to be inconvenient and out of harmony with the prevailing views. It therefore becamecustomary to perform the entire marriage ceremony, betrothal and home-taking ("erusin" and "nissu'in"), at one time; and an affiancing or engagement similar to that prevailing among non-Jews was introduced. This was not an entire innovation, as its roots already existed in the custom of "shiddukin" or consent to marry, which existed in the days of the Talmud and probably also in the Biblical age.
It was considered indispensable by the rabbis that a man should gain the good-will and consent of his prospective bride before entering upon a contract of marriage. Rab, the Babylonian amora, was accustomed to punish severely any one who married without first having persuaded and gained the consent of his wife (Ḳid. 13a; Yeb. 52a et al.).
It seems to be the same case with our relationship with Christ, as we're called His Bride multiple times throughout scripture (Ephesians 5:21-33)---and yet, the time of Consumation has not necessarily occurred when the Bride is presented SPOTLESS and the Feast has occurred. In the meantime, the Bride is still considered "married" to the groom and we wait patiently, keeping ourselves prepared for the Great Wedding Day ( Matthew 25:1-3, Luke 5:33-35 , John 3:28-30 , Jude 1:17-24, Revelation 18:22-24 , Revelation 19:6-8, Revelation 21:1-3, etc )....and as Ephesians 4:30 and II Peter 1:3-11 make clear, the Spirit has been given to us as a Seal---a Guarantee that we belong to God (Ephesians 1:13-14), while we also have the CHOICE to participate in the SPirit so we can grow more in perfection before Christ comes to COMPLETE the marriage.
Depending on one's view of salvation, you may get differing responses from here...from many say that Christ being married to us means that we're already Done, whereas others say that the Marriage is in process...with us still having to walk it out less we disqualify ourselves and end up divorced from Christ when it comes to renouncing Him/making a marriage null and void. Some are for a middle-of-the-road approach in saying that Christ is outside of time----and as He is in Eternity, he can speak on an issue as if its done since he's there, while we are still here having to walk it out/confirm it. Hebrews 10:13-14 comes to mind when it concerns how His sacrifice has made "perfect" those who are being made Holy progressively....and later, in Hebrews 12:14-17, there is a stern call given to SEEK Holiness since no one will ever see God without it. I Peter 1:13-25 seems to echo this theme of how things are never DONE Fully when we choose Christ and partake of His Spirit.
Some of this gets intriguing when considering how many people HAD the Holy Spirit/walked in the Faith---and yet, they either shipwrecked or turned away as Christ said even followers of Him were capable of (Hebrews 10:19-32, I Timothy 1:18-20, II Timothy 2:3-26, Hebrews 3-4, Galatians 1:6-10, Galatians 3-4, James 4:1-12, I Corinthians 10, John 15, etc). Marriage takes work----and just because a price HAS been paid for Christ to buy us as His Bride...just as Joseph bought Mary with a Dowry.....that doesn't mean that the Marriage is going to end in celebration
Can we talk and are we allowed to discuss these things a bit? I'm looking for perspectives from both MJs and Jews
I would think so. I think what has to be remembered is the fruit of what happens when such things happen - as anyone studying the Torah will quickly see that there was an early context to the issue of polygamy. It was not God's original intention - as seen in Matthew 19 and Genesis 1...and yet he still worked through it/set rules on it. In the New Covenant/early body of belivers, the issue of polygamy was one that had strict boundaries attached to it. Others in polygamous marriages were not allowed to be deacons or elders - but that didn't necessarily mean that they were not allowed to share truth/edify others.