Been having a major disagreement with boyfriend and needing some insight and/or advice.

[WIP]

Marriage is more than just consensual sexual relations between one man and one woman. There's also a personal relationship involved and one that is cooperative, open, honest and binding and not just until one gets bored or something.

He (Jesus) answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Matthew 19:4-6 NKJV

Scripture often equates the relationship between Israel and God's Church as a husband-wife relationship.

“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
Jeremiah 31:31-33 NKJV


Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?” And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them?"
Matthew 9:14-15 NKJV


Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, “Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, having the glory of God. Her light was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Revelation 21:9-11, 22-27 NKJV

 

[Questor]

I think everyone needs to back up a little, and consider the facts on the ground, and stop being emotionally involved as to what sexual congress between two unmarried parties equates to.

What Yeshua permitted or did not permit as viable grounds for divorce is not relevant in this particular case. What was considered marriage in Yeshua's time is.


Biblical marriage involves a contract that specifies details as to how the wife is to be treated by her husband. Primarily, this was to ensure her financial safety in the event of divorce, such as the return of dower property, and certain guarantees of maintainance while married (ie food and clothing); this contract is then validated publically by a marriage ceremony, involving public statements of the man taking the wife, and the woman consenting to be taken.

No contract was made (whether written or verbally before witnesses in their congregation), and no marital vows were taken, civilly, or within their congregation.


1) Both persons involved fornicated, they did not promise to marry, announce a betrothal, or give vows to one another.

2) Both parties lived in sin with one another. One party repented of the sin, and withdrew from the illicit relationship.

3) The other party is claiming marital rights that would not have been granted in Yeshua's time, and are not legal now.


Marriage is a covenant. There is no covenant here, as no promises have been made and witnessed.

If they are both committed believers in Yeshua, and wish to continue a relationship, they should get counseling on the practical realities of marriage OUTSIDE of their congregation, and not be pressured into formalizing what was obviously a major misstep in their lives. This is a problem that requires a practical solution, and not a religious one, as religion has obviously not been the prime mover in the previous cohabitation. Lust has been, and secular world views that we are all submerged in. Simply going to one's pastor or congregational leader for his viewpoint of how best to solve a situation involving blatant sexual sin under the guise of what is effectively a pre-marital counseling session (pre-cana conferance) is asking for trouble, because judgement will enter into to how not the man is judged, but the woman is, and what her duties are, as opposed to what the man's obligations are biblically.

The young woman is asking for advice on how to proceed, not to be told she has to marry a man who obviously does not value her.

Slapping a requirement on either party to continue a relationship that was begun in sin will not make it a workable reality.

 

[Who Me]

Just giving my Biblical understanding and not justifying anything.

Sorry but your biblical understanding of marriage is flawed.

 

[for_his_glory]

Sorry but your biblical understanding of marriage is flawed.

Please show me where this is flawed by using scripture about marriage like I did.

 

[NoahK]

There some truth in both sides.


If you love each other then get married.


Why not find a church and start going and begin to build your lives according to God?

Amen

 

[Who Me]

Please show me where this is flawed by using scripture about marriage like I did.

Adam and Eve, in Genesis. God said a man will leave his parents and join with his wife. this is not a casual shacking up but a permanent union.
This is seen in the many marriages through the bible. Jacob Leah and Rachel for whom there was a week of celebration for the marriage, Isaac and Rebekah.
In every case there was a formal request, and a bride price.
By Moses's day there was a need for a formal letter of divorce, this indicates that marriage was far more than just moving in together, society knew who was married to who and divorce was a serious matter.

Yes there was no marriage certificate, but there was a recognition by those arround that a marriage had taken place and been celebrated.

By Jesus's day it was an establish custom of having a celebration when two people got married.

 

[for_his_glory]

Adam and Eve, in Genesis. God said a man will leave his parents and join with his wife. this is not a casual shacking up but a permanent union.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

Men want sex its in our nature. Women want it too but they are modest in their approach. I would say learn to connect without sex. sexual activity is sexual immorality, but kissing is okay if you are not tempted, which is rare. Stay away from what you cannot handle. Just hug until you get married.

 

[gilliamjs]

A great online christian counselor is at selahbiblicalcounseling.com

 

[Tenchi]

So my boyfriend and I have been together for less than a year. We fell in to sexual sin and moved in together shortly thereafter. Essentially, we were just doing everything backwards and living like worldly couples do. It took me a couple of months to finally feel like we weren’t doing things according to God’s plan or design and so I moved out of his place in May and I’ve been abstaining from sex ever since then.

The thing is, he believes we’re married based off of some bible verses. He often likes to bring up the woman at the well where Jesus tells the woman she has 5 husbands. However, it seems like he’s not interested in acknowledging the end of those verses where Jesus tells her to "sin no more". Furthermore, because he believes we’re married he also brings up the verse that says married couples shouldn’t refuse sex from each other in 1 Corinthians. So now he’s pretty upset whenever he wants to have sex and I’m refusing saying that I’m going against God’s will and I’m sinning whenever I deny him sex.

We both feel like we’re right in our stance and are having a hard time seeing eye on eye on this and it’s just causing conflict. I know that if this a relationship I want to pursue, it might be wise to seek counseling from another believer who can help guide us through this.

So, first off, God makes it really clear in His word that marriage is His institution. He created the marriage union of man and woman so that, if He's not the Center and Bedrock of that marriage, it's never the awesome thing it could be. Mostly, marriages that rest on some other foundation don't last long, or they're only "good" in fits and starts, much of the time filled with argument, resentment and infidelity of emotion, and imagination, if not in body. The peace, joy, love and contentment of God never fills these marriages.

Second, neither of you sound like you've been taking God very seriously. But until you both do, marriage is going to be a REALLY bad idea - especially in the current western culture that's saturated with infidelity, hyper-sexuality, porn, perversion, etc. The culture is increasingly not merely stacked against good marriages but actively antagonistic to them. And so, if God isn't the Root of your marriage, it's very unlikely to endure, or, if it endures, to do so in a way that brings to you the joy, inner growth, wisdom and peace that it's supposed to.

I don't know what lies, exactly, you've managed to tell yourself about your boyfriend that permit you to remain with him, but as a guy, let me tell you that his actions so far mark him as VERY bad marriage material. I expect having given yourself to him has created illegitimate but nonetheless strong bonds to him that make the lies easier to swallow. In any case, whatever Scripture he throws at you, it's plain as day he doesn't have any real interest in it except as a tool to manipulate you into sin. There's another person who's been around for millennia tempting folk who uses the Bible this way....

You want to know if your boyfriend really loves you - and loves God? Here's a simple way to tell:

Love can't wait to give, but lust can't wait to get.

If your boyfriend really loves you, he'll be glad to wait on having sex with you, knowing that doing so is very important to you (as it ought to be to him, too). He'll put you before his sexual urges, as love would prompt him naturally to do. But if he's only in lust with you, which is to say, he's in love with himself and wants to use you to satisfy himself, well, he'll do just as he's doing, disrespecting your choice to do things God's way (and disrespecting God, too, at the same time) pressing you to return to sexual sin with him. Such a self-centered man is the very worst sort of man to marry!

Having sex doesn't marry you to each other. I know of young men whose first sexual encounter was with a prostitute. Are they married to her, then, in God's eyes? What of all the other fellows she's bedded? Is she wife to hundreds of men at once? Obviously not.

Consider the first marriage. What was it that married Adam to Eve? Sex? No. Adam was husband to Eve before they'd had sex. How? By God giving Eve to Adam as his wife.

The same was true with Isaac who was given Rebekah as his wife by her father (Genesis 24). When she arrived at Isaac's dwelling place, it was as his wife, given to him as such, and so they immediately had sexual relations, no ceremony, or signed papers, or whatever.

Exodus 22:16-17
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.

In ancient Israel, under the law of God given to Moses, a man who'd had sexual relations with an unbetrothed woman had to make her his wife (which, of course, clearly implied she wasn't his wife merely by the sexual act) because, if he didn't, no other man would marry her. She was "used goods" as a deflowered woman, a shame to her family also, and such women would often end up destitute if the man who'd taken her sexually didn't marry her. So, in ancient Israel, he was obliged to do so (or pay a dowry, at least), by law unable to "love 'em and leave 'em" with impunity, as happens now so freely.

Note, though, the second verse in the quotation above. It, too, clearly indicates that the "deflowered" gal wasn't married simply by having been seduced into sex. No, if her father wasn't willing to give his daughter to the man who'd taken her sexually as his wife, she remained unmarried.

So, refuse the twisting of Scripture your boyfriend is doing to get you back in the sack. He doesn't know God's word and obviously cares little for it (which should be a BIG red flag for you).

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Adam and Eve, in Genesis. God said a man will leave his parents and join with his wife. this is not a casual shacking up but a permanent union.
This is seen in the many marriages through the bible. Jacob Leah and Rachel for whom there was a week of celebration for the marriage, Isaac and Rebekah.
In every case there was a formal request, and a bride price.
By Moses's day there was a need for a formal letter of divorce, this indicates that marriage was far more than just moving in together, society knew who was married to who and divorce was a serious matter.

Yes there was no marriage certificate, but there was a recognition by those arround that a marriage had taken place and been celebrated.

By Jesus's day it was an establish custom of having a celebration when two people got married.

If you mean "shacking up" by intercourse, "casual" or not, it's recognized as the consummation of marriage - at least by Paul. Shacking up with a prostitute is neither a permanent union nor a marriage, nonetheless that makes the john one flesh union with her.

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (1 Cor. 6:16-17)

 

[Tenchi]

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

The apostle Paul had sexual immorality in view in the passage above, not marriage. He makes this plain by referring three times to sexual immorality (vs. 13, 17) but never once to marriage. Even when he refers to a man and a prostitute "becoming one flesh," Paul restricts his meaning of "becoming one" to the body, nothing more:

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?

Paul's focus is clearly on the physical body of the believer (he refers to it eight times) which belongs spiritually to Christ; the believer's body is a "temple of the Holy Spirit" (vs. 19-20) and should not be made the "members" of a prostitute (vs. 15) by sexual sin. The problem as Paul describes it above isn't that a man who has had sex with a prostitute has become her husband but that he has become guilty of using his body - the "temple" of God that's been bought with a price - for sexual sin.

It is precisely because the prostitute is not married to the man who uses her sexually that having sex with her is sinful. And so, if having sex with her married her to the Christian man, then he'd be obliged to acknowledge her as his wife and take her home with him, which Paul does not indicate he should do. In fact, there would be no sexual sin if having sex made one's sex-partner one's spouse; for there is no sin in sexual relations with one's spouse. The only sin in such an instance would be to not acknowledge one's marriage and thus forsake one's spouse. Instead, Paul's only command is that the Christian man leave prostitutes alone (not consider himself married to one) and live instead as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" that he is.

And so, in the passage above, Paul never refers to the Christian man who uses a prostitute sexually as the husband to the prostitute who, through the sex act, has now become his wife. No, Paul only refers to "a prostitute," with whom the man has been guilty of sexual immorality, not marriage.

 

[Dave...]

For what it's worth.

I believe that the physical part between a man and a women is the marriage. The wedding is just a public profession, like water baptism. Just for the record, most people, many of whom I respect greatly, disagree with me.

When the two become one. In my mind, these two are married. No harm done if they both recognize and acknowledge it. My two cents worth.

Dave

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”
17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

The apostle Paul had sexual immorality in view in the passage above, not marriage. He makes this plain by referring three times to sexual immorality (vs. 13, 17) but never once to marriage. Even when he refers to a man and a prostitute "becoming one flesh," Paul restricts his meaning of "becoming one" to the body, nothing more:

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?

Paul's focus is clearly on the physical body of the believer (he refers to it eight times) which belongs spiritually to Christ; the believer's body is a "temple of the Holy Spirit" (vs. 19-20) and should not be made the "members" of a prostitute (vs. 15) by sexual sin. The problem as Paul describes it above isn't that a man who has had sex with a prostitute has become her husband but that he has become guilty of using his body - the "temple" of God that's been bought with a price - for sexual sin.

It is precisely because the prostitute is not married to the man who uses her sexually that having sex with her is sinful. And so, if having sex with her married her to the Christian man, then he'd be obliged to acknowledge her as his wife and take her home with him, which Paul does not indicate he should do. In fact, there would be no sexual sin if having sex made one's sex-partner one's spouse; for there is no sin in sexual relations with one's spouse. The only sin in such an instance would be to not acknowledge one's marriage and thus forsake one's spouse. Instead, Paul's only command is that the Christian man leave prostitutes alone (not consider himself married to one) and live instead as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" that he is.

And so, in the passage above, Paul never refers to the Christian man who uses a prostitute sexually as the husband to the prostitute who, through the sex act, has now become his wife. No, Paul only refers to "a prostitute," with whom the man has been guilty of sexual immorality, not marriage.

Then what counts as a legitimate marriage? In both Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5 it only says man shall join his wife and the two become one flesh, no wedding ceremony, emotional connection, marriage certificate or even a bride price was mentioned, how is that different from Paul’s quote in 1 Cor. 6:16-17 - which refers to nothing but a sex act? I’m not arguing about the context of sexual immorality, but a simple truth, that marriage customs vary among different cultures, the only thing in common is the consummation of that marriage, which is the sex act, that’s how the two become one flesh.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

For what it's worth.

I believe that the physical part between a man and a women is the marriage. The wedding is just a public profession, like water baptism. Just for the record, most people, many of whom I respect greatly, disagree with me.

When the two become one. In my mind, these two are married. No harm done if they both recognize and acknowledge it. My two cents worth.

Dave

Yes, if there’s such a thing as biblical sexual morality, it’s be strict heterosexual monogamy. Pharisees tried to circumvent it with serial monogamy - frequent divorce and remarriage, which Jesus repudiated. You can argue that having sex with a prostitute is fornication, not marriage, but if you marry your girlfriend after having sex with one or more prostitutes, wouldn’t that be adultery? Of course only the latter is a legally and publicly recognized marriage, the former is not, but as you said, it’s only the physical part.

 

[Who Me]

If you mean "shacking up" by vaginal intercourse, "casual" or not, it's recognized as the consummation of marriage - at least by Paul. Shacking up with a prostitute is neither a permanent union nor a marriage, nonetheless that makes the john one flesh union with her.

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. (1 Cor. 6:16-17)

May I suggest that you re read my post.

 

[Tenchi]

Then what counts as a legitimate marriage? In both Gen. 2:24 and Matt. 19:5 it only says man shall join his wife and the two become one flesh, no wedding ceremony, emotional connection, marriage certificate or even a bride price was mentioned, how is that different from Paul’s quote in 1 Cor. 6:16-17 - which refers to nothing but a sex act?

You need to re-read my posts in this thread. I address your observations/questions here directly in them. I will point out - again - that God gave Eve to Adam, not as his girlfriend (whom Adam would make his wife by sexual relations) but as his wife. So, then, Eve was Adam's wife, in God's view, before they'd had sex, or, to put it another way, without sex. What, then, of this idea that sex makes a marriage, a marriage? This wasn't the case in the very first wedding of a man to a woman. And as I showed from other instances in God's word, it wasn't sex that made a man and woman, husband and wife, but the giving of a woman to a man (ideally by her father) to be his wife. So, then, sex isn't the means of marriage but merely its happy result.

 

[Dave...]

Yes, if there’s such a thing as biblical sexual morality, it’s be strict heterosexual monogamy. Pharisees tried to circumvent it with serial monogamy - frequent divorce and remarriage, which Jesus repudiated. You can argue that having sex with a prostitute is fornication, not marriage, but if you marry your girlfriend after having sex with one or more prostitutes, wouldn’t that be adultery? Of course only the latter is a legally and publicly recognized marriage, the former is not, but as you said, it’s only the physical part.

If you're not married young, chances are you're going to fail somewhere down the road. If you want a pure love, you'll want you and your spouse to be a pure as possible. The more it is shared, the more it is diluted. That's just my personal opinion.

Anyways what is the meaning of "consummated" if not binding legally with God and/or spiritually?

And, I always thought that the idea of us not even giving the impression that we are sinning was the only reason for the legal marriage, because most of the world thinks that IS the marriage. But now, are we legitimizing homosexual marriage in the minds of the world by using the same system for biblical marriage? Maybe the governments role should be revoked by Christians not using it? Anyways, don't want to derail the thread.

To the OP. I would say, it's not the end of the world, God will forgive you. But if you want to have the purest love that you're ever going to have in a relationship, based on what I've written above, you've limited your options to each other.

Dave

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And as I showed from other instances in God's word, it wasn't sex that made a man and woman, husband and wife, but the giving of a woman to a man (ideally by her father) to be his wife. So, then, sex isn't the means of marriage but merely its happy result.

We no longer lives in such an “ideal” world, marriage is not arranged, women are not traded like property by anybody’s authority, the only thing that “gives” her to a man is her own consent.

If you wanna stick to the Bible, then there was betrothal (Matt. 1:18), that’s the only result of “giving” of the woman. During this period the couple were NOT publicly acknowledged as husband and wife as they were NOT supposed to “come together” - until they were officially married. Likewise in Gen. 2, the “giving" of Eve to Adam by God was only a betrothal, which would only made her Adam's fiancee; Adam officially "made" Eve his wife through sexual relations. In God's word, two become one flesh by (physically) joining together, not by the "giving" of anybody; if the two do not join together, then they're not of one flesh. "One flesh union" is the result of "joining together", not the other way around.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

If you're not married young, chances are you're going to fail somewhere down the road. If you want a pure love, you'll want you and your spouse to be a pure as possible. The more it is shared, the more it is diluted. That's just my personal opinion.

I remember a sermon on this passage of 1 Cor. 6:12-20, in which the pastor preached a similar message on the negative consequence of "casual sex" especially for women. The more "casual" sex you've had, the more desensitized you are, and the harder it will be for you to develop a meaningful, intimate, committed relationship with a long term partner. It's like a tape adhered onto a surface, then ripped off and adhered onto another surface. No matter how carefully the tape is removed from the previous surface, it will be less cohesive; repeat this a couple of times, it'll be unable to stick on any surface.