What makes a marriage?

Post by **_Rae** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:52 pm

I think I understand what you are saying now. You're not saying that in God's eyes people are married (in the way we think of marriage) just because they copulate. But that marry, in the New Testament and early church was used in a different manner at times. Is this correct?

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 1:35 pm

I think I understand what you are saying now. You're not saying that in God's eyes people are married (in the way we think of marriage) just because they copulate. But that marry, in the New Testament and early church was used in a different manner at times. Is this correct?

Pretty much.

In English too, there are words which, in their nounal form, sometimes mean differently from the same word in its verbal form.

For example, the verb "bend" means "to cause to assume a curved or angular shape." However, one of the meanings of the noun "bend" is "a knot which joins a rope to another rope or other object."

Post by **_Michelle** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:30 pm

Paidion wrote: I believe this to be the correct understanding of the state of being married. However, it is also important to understand that the verb "marry" both in the New Testament and in other early Christian writings sometimes means ONLY "having sexual intercourse."

Thanks, Rae and Paidion, for making that more clear; I was a little confused as well. Why is it important to understand that the verb "marry" carries this slightly different meaning?

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:35 pm

Why is it important to understand that the verb "marry" carries this slightly different meaning?

It appears that you are using "slightly" facetiously. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that the understanding of the Greek word "gameō" as meaning "sexual intercourse" is important in understanding our Lord's teaching.

Many think our Lord taught that if one divorces his spouse and marries another, he is committing adultery against his spouse. But would that be the case if his spouse is no longer married to him? They teach also that if one divorces his spouse, he is causing that person to commit adultery against him, and the one who marries a divorced person is committing adultery against her husband.

Even the translations support this position. For example:

And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." [Mark 10:11-12 RSV]

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. [Matthew 5:32 NKJV]

But how can a man who divorces his wife and marries another commit adultery against her? He is no longer married to her. How does a man who has divorced his wife cause her to commit adultery against him? She is no longer married to him. How does a man who marries a divorced woman commit adultery against her former husband? She is no longer married to him.

The apostle Paul, who was very familiar with this teaching of Christ, does not seem to have understood our Lord in this way. For he wrote:

Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27

Paul seemed to teach that one should remain in the state he is in.

I understand Paul's words about having been bound to a woman ["woman" and "wife" are the same word in Greek] as having made a mutual commitment with a woman for life. He should not seek to be loosed, which I understand as not seeking to be divorced from her. But is he has been divorced, he should not seek a wife.

But notice the next verse!

But even if you do marry, you have not sinned...

If he has been divorced from a woman, and marries someone else, he has not sinned! But if the translation of our Lord's words is correct, he has sinned! He has committed adultery against the woman with whom he had been married.

Again, Paul was well-acquainted with the teachings of Jesus. He would never have taught the negation of our Lord's words.

Let me translate the record of our Lord's words in what I believe to be the correct way:

]And he said to them, "Whoever sends away his wife and copulates with another, commits adultery against her; and if she sends away her husband and copulates with another, she commits adultery." [Mark 10:11-12 RSV]

If a man easily dismisses his wife [or as we would say today "separates from her"] and takes up with another woman, he commits adultery against his wife. He is still married to her.

Jesus said this in the context of having been asked further about His words:

"What therefore God has joined together, let no person separate."

And the other passage:

But I tell you that every one who sends away his wife, except on the ground of prostitution, makes her an adulteress; and whoever copulates with a dismissed woman commits adultery.

Again, Jesus is speaking about a person who easily dismisses his wife. He makes her an adulteress against him, if she takes up with another man.
Any man who copulates with a woman who has been dismissed by her husband commits adultery against that husband.

Post by **_Michelle** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:54 pm

Paidion wrote:
Why is it important to understand that the verb "marry" carries this slightly different meaning?
It appears that you are using "slightly" facetiously. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wasn't being facetious...I think I should go back into lurker mode for a little while. When I was being facetious, another poster went nutso; when I asked a sincere question I got accused of being facetious. I'm sorry I came across that way, Paidion, I actually really wanted to know what you were thinking. I used the phrase "slightly different meaning" because I didn't know how else to word it. It seems to me that the meaning of "married" carries with it the idea of copulation, so the idea of "married" as copulation is just slightly, not totally, different.

I think that the understanding of the Greek word "gameō" as meaning "sexual intercourse" is important in understanding our Lord's teaching.

Many think our Lord taught that if one divorces his spouse and marries another, he is committing adultery against his spouse. But would that be the case if his spouse is no longer married to him? They teach also that if one divorces his spouse, he is causing that person to commit adultery against him, and the one who marries a divorced person is committing adultery against her husband.

Even the translations support this position. For example:

And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." [Mark 10:11-12 RSV]

"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery. [Matthew 5:32 NKJV]

But how can a man who divorces his wife and marries another commit adultery against her? He is no longer married to her. How does a man who has divorced his wife cause her to commit adultery against him? She is no longer married to him. How does a man who marries a divorced woman commit adultery against her former husband? She is no longer married to him.

The apostle Paul, who was very familiar with this teaching of Christ, does not seem to have understood our Lord in this way. For he wrote:

Have you been bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Have you been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27

Paul seemed to teach that one should remain in the state he is in.

I understand Paul's words about having been bound to a woman ["woman" and "wife" are the same word in Greek] as having made a mutual commitment with a woman for life. He should not seek to be loosed, which I understand as not seeking to be divorced from her. But is he has been divorced, he should not seek a wife.

But notice the next verse!

But even if you do marry, you have not sinned...

If he has been divorced from a woman, and marries someone else, he has not sinned! But if the translation of our Lord's words is correct, he has sinned! He has committed adultery against the woman with whom he had been married.

Again, Paul was well-acquainted with the teachings of Jesus. He would never have taught the negation of our Lord's words.

Let me translate the record of our Lord's words in what I believe to be the correct way:

]And he said to them, "Whoever sends away his wife and copulates with another, commits adultery against her; and if she sends away her husband and copulates with another, she commits adultery." [Mark 10:11-12 RSV]

If a man easily dismisses his wife and takes up with another woman, he commits adultery against his wife. He is still married to her.

Jesus said this in the context of having been asked further about His words:

"What therefore God has joined together, let no person separate."

And the other passage:

But I tell you that every one who sends away his wife, except on the ground of prostitution, makes her an adulteress; and whoever copulates with a dismissed woman commits adultery.

Again, Jesus is speaking about a person who easily dismisses his wife. He makes her an adulteress against him, if she takes up with another man.
Any man who copulates with a woman who has been dismissed by her husband commits adultery against that husband.

Thanks for the explanation.

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 8:36 pm

I wasn't being facetious...I think I should go back into lurker mode for a little while. When I was being facetious, another poster went nutso; when I asked a sincere question I got accused of being facetious. I'm sorry I came across that way, Paidion, I actually really wanted to know what you were thinking. I used the phrase "slightly different meaning" because I didn't know how else to word it. It seems to me that the meaning of "married" carries with it the idea of copulation, so the idea of "married" as copulation is just slightly, not totally, different.

Oh, there's no problem with you "coming across that way". I just couldn't
believe you really meant that copulation was only "slightly" different from being in a state of being committed for life. So I thought you just trying to be funny. I didn't think you were trying to be "mean funny". Not at all.

I hope the explanation made sense to you. I came to these conclusions only after years of pondering and studying the verses in Greek.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:14 pm

I don't see anywhere in Scripture where God places marriage as a government institution. The governments of this world have no business regulating, restricting, changing or giving permission for marriage.

So we are to live peacably and obey the civil authorities and render unto Caeser what is Caeser's but on the other hand we should not accept marriage laws from a civil government? I think that may be unworkable and contrary o a peacable spirit. Certainly if the marriage laws violated God's law that's a different kettle of fish like the no fault divorce laws do.

Post by **_Rae** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:48 pm

But I tell you that every one who sends away his wife, except on the ground of prostitution, makes her an adulteress

Paidion, thank you so much for your explanation!

I see what you are saying, except in this one translation of this verse. I don't understand how "sending a wife away" would automatically make her an adulteress. Would this be the case only if he did not divorce her? Do you think that it is saying that if he actually divorced her and she hooked up with another man then she would not be an adulteress, but if he just sends her away and she hooks up with another man then she would be an adulteress?

Thanks!

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:17 pm

I see what you are saying, except in this one translation of this verse. I don't understand how "sending a wife away" would automatically make her an adulteress. Would this be the case only if he did not divorce her? Do you think that it is saying that if he actually divorced her and she hooked up with another man then she would not be an adulteress, but if he just sends her away and she hooks up with another man then she would be an adulteress?

Yes, I think that would be the case, Rachel. But I am not 100% certain. It is written that God hates divorce. It is possible that the other view is correct --- that God does not recognize divorce at all, and that all divorced people are committing adultery against the only spouse that God recognizes. However, if that is the case, then Paul seems to have been wrong too. For he said that if a man is loosed from his wife and marries, he has not sinned.

I have heard another explanation of Paul's statement, too ---- that Paul was speaking of a man being loosed from a betrothal arrangement with a woman to whom he was not actually married. Then, if he married another woman, he had not sinned.

Post by **_Michelle** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:36 am

Hi Paidion,

I was going to take a break from posting, but I couldn't stop thinking about this. (You have a way of making my think about things!) Anyway...

you wrote:If a man easily dismisses his wife [or as we would say today "separates from her"] and takes up with another woman, he commits adultery against his wife. He is still married to her.

I think I've been taught that "dismissing" a wife was the procedure for divorce back then. Perhaps I've been mis-informed? (Wouldn't be the first time)

It seems as if you are saying that the Lord was saying to make sure your divorce was all taken care of before you take up with the next woman. In my opinion, we have a lot of that today, even in the church. It is a mess, it destroys lives and families, and I don't think that's what the Lord was getting at.

Also, it seems blindingly obvious that if a man has sex with another woman while he is married, he is committing adultery. Why do you think Jesus might need to make this point, if that was all there was to it?

As always, I'm fascinated with your thinking.

Michelle