Yeah, the Muslims took the last 72 of them!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
Eligibility issues can be worked out surprisingly easily. I'm still interested to know what does form a marriage in scripture then.
Me too... Although so far I’m leaning towards covenant. I also see a lot of truth in what fh2 said early in this thread... I’m still studying it.
Covenant is an interesting option. I haven't seen it used or described or even encouraged but I like the idea. I covenanted with windblown.
Yes so far my view is that covenant is the essential piece.
It makes sense in the Christ and the church view as well. I can not imagine Christ coming back to his wedding feast without a covenant. So I have a hard time believing you can have a marriage without a covenant.
I am sure there are many different variations of the marriage covenant, but so far I dont see how a marriage exists without a covenant.
Okay, here is a question.
Can you have a marriage without any form of covenant, no matter how informal?
Just agreeing to be married is a form of covenant.
Amos 3:3 (KJV)
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
It would seem that you would have to agree on something beyond “We just had sex”.
Can you have a marriage without any form of covenant, no matter how informal?
Just agreeing to be married is a form of covenant.
Amos 3:3 (KJV)
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
It would seem that you would have to agree on something beyond “We just had sex”.
I'm all for it. We just need a few verses that connect the idea to marriage so we can teach it as a doctrine. I'm so glad we got this resolved. Who has the verses?
Ezekiel 16:8
At it's heart, marriage is a passing of the authority over the woman from the father to the husband; usually for money. You see this authority of the father in 1 Cor 7 to deny marriage and in the various commands on marriage in Ex and Deut. You also see this in the adjectives used to describe forming marriage ('take', 'buy' etc). You also see in Deut 22:23-24 how a virgin women betrothed (i.e. he's paid the dowry for her but not yet taken possession) to a man is called his wife and sex with her by another carries the same penalty as with a wife. You see this in Deut 22:29 in that the man upon having sex with an un-betrothed virgin is required to pay the father dowry (if father approves) and 'she shall be his wife'.
Because money changes hands via dowry, it's not surprising a contract (or covenant) becomes involved. I'm not aware of any scriptural documentation of this occurring; but it was a cultural practice of the Semites going back to before Abraham. Ez 16:8 could buttress that but we're dealing with mixed metaphors there so it's not an open and shut case. Likely though, the presence/absence contract was the difference between marriage and concubinage. But in both cases they were possessed by the man; his women.
You also have Gen 2:24, 'leave and cleave'. Which isn't much different than the way we traditionally did marriage under English law before statutory law added government licenses. You were marriage if you lived together and held yourselves out as husband and wife. Additionally our traditional ceremony required the father to give the daughter to the man.
If you stop and think about this all, it's quite practical. It isn't necessary to over spiritualize this, create marriages where no one thinks they exist, nor heap burdensome requirements on top of something that is in every essence marriage.
Because money changes hands via dowry, it's not surprising a contract (or covenant) becomes involved. I'm not aware of any scriptural documentation of this occurring; but it was a cultural practice of the Semites going back to before Abraham. Ez 16:8 could buttress that but we're dealing with mixed metaphors there so it's not an open and shut case. Likely though, the presence/absence contract was the difference between marriage and concubinage. But in both cases they were possessed by the man; his women.
You also have Gen 2:24, 'leave and cleave'. Which isn't much different than the way we traditionally did marriage under English law before statutory law added government licenses. You were marriage if you lived together and held yourselves out as husband and wife. Additionally our traditional ceremony required the father to give the daughter to the man.
If you stop and think about this all, it's quite practical. It isn't necessary to over spiritualize this, create marriages where no one thinks they exist, nor heap burdensome requirements on top of something that is in every essence marriage.
Ezekiel 16:8 is more on my side. Spreading His cloak over her and covering her nakedness are euphemisms for sex.
@rockfox interesting points. All of it points to covenant as I see it. Some of the covenants are expressed through performance (ie holding yourselfs out as husband and wife, living together...) and some are pronounced in front of witnesses or memorialized on paper.
I agree that it doesnt need to be confusing or hyper spiritual either.
I agree that it doesnt need to be confusing or hyper spiritual either.
Perhaps it’s support for the “both” position as an oath and a covenant are also involved...
I would submit that sex is the covenant but that's a little harder to support. What we do know is that sex results in a major status change and seems to be the deciding factor in a number of things that God takes very seriously.
So we know that God acknowledges 2 wives in Jeremiah, but when did he “covenant” with them to be his wives?
My money (if I gambled) would be at Sinai. Oh! Wait! I think there was a very well known covenant written there, and then Moses shattered them. So God had him prepare another written covenant with all of the where’s and why’s and do’s and don’ts.
The same thing happened with Joshua at the rock when they’d entered the Promised land.
During the Alaskan gold rush there were people who were buying "mines" sight unseen from thousands of miles away. Those people would be ashamed to speculate as much as you just did. I've seen some pretty big assumptions but we might have to capitalize that one. If we added a little musical score we could combine it with all the tap dancing you did to get there and we could put on a show: Assumption! The Musical!
The Israelites were God's chosen people long before Sinai.