• 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.

Meat Living in Marriage/Covenant or Fornication? - Real world situation/problem

Maddog said:
Well, God never actually physically had sex with Israel. What He did was give them a covenant. The covenant is literal, the sex is a figurative illustration of that.
OK, what was the activity the God our Father did that was representative of sex or the "one flesh"?
Click to expand...
[Exo 24:7-8 KJV] 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Maddog said:
What was the new life created by the Father?
Click to expand...
[Eze 23:4 KJV] 4 And the names of them [were] Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus [were] their names; Samaria [is] Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

Maddog said:
We understand the covenant aspect, whether it is a big fancy wedding or a simple contractual agreement
Click to expand...
Contracts and covenants are inherently different although similar at face value.

As an aside there WAS a meal AFTER the blood covenant with Israel which is interesting on many levels...
[Exo 24:11 KJV] 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
Maddog said:
but I dont see the newborn baby produced by the wife(Israel).
Click to expand...

[Eze 23:4 KJV] 4 And the names of them [were] Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus [were] their names; Samaria [is] Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.

Maddog said:
Or, are we taking the analogy too far from it's mooring?
Click to expand...
Nope...

The Allegory of the marriage union is the foremost revelation throughout scripture. The scriptures start with marriage in Genesis and Ends with marriage in Revelation. The union between YAH and YAH-sa'ra-el is denoted as a marriage union, and the union between The MessiYAH and his ekklesia (church) is a marriage union. Both are denoted in allegorical terms, However the physical union between man and woman mirrors these unions perfectly with the harmonizing element being blood.

Hence the enemies direct attack on the order that YAH had instituted in the garden, from then until now, with the convoluted marriage customs instituted and enforced by ha-satan and the so called queen of heaven that many find it so hard to break free from today.
 
Maddog said:
That type of thing happens more often than not in my family. On the whim of a whisper we will do something and the blessing appears. (Sometimes even an agitation, Megan) I want to believe that it is God doing the whispering and that not of myself. I will give thanks to Him most definitely for His gifts. I have begun to recognise those events and make allowance in my schedule for it.
Click to expand...
Love that, I was literally speaking about this today...

[Psa 84:11] 11 For YAH* God [is] a sun and shield: YAH* will give grace and glory: no good [thing] will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.

Holiness Upright Righteous Living automatically unleashes / releases the good that YAH has for us.

Beautiful...
 
YAHites said:
[Exo 24:7-8 KJV] 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.


[Eze 23:4 KJV] 4 And the names of them [were] Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus [were] their names; Samaria [is] Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.


Contracts and covenants are inherently different although similar at face value.

As an aside there WAS a meal AFTER the blood covenant with Israel which is interesting on many levels...
[Exo 24:11 KJV] 11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.


[Eze 23:4 KJV] 4 And the names of them [were] Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus [were] their names; Samaria [is] Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.


Nope...

The Allegory of the marriage union is the foremost revelation throughout scripture. The scriptures start with marriage in Genesis and Ends with marriage in Revelation. The union between YAH and YAH-sa'ra-el is denoted as a marriage union, and the union between The MessiYAH and his ekklesia (church) is a marriage union. Both are denoted in allegorical terms, However the physical union between man and woman mirrors these unions perfectly with the harmonizing element being blood.

Hence the enemies direct attack on the order that YAH had instituted in the garden, from then until now, with the convoluted marriage customs instituted and enforced by ha-satan and the so called queen of heaven that many find it so hard to break free from today.
Click to expand...
We need more likes to give this.
 
There was a couple in our home fellowship with the exact same scenario. I didn't know her well enough to be privy to her situation. I called her by her man's last name and later she whispered that they weren't legally married. They had two children together and they carried the father's last name. He provided for them, though barely. I looked at her point blank and informed her that they were indeed "married", and that she had absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. That's as far as the conversation went and she gave me a big hug. It continued to bug her, and later her man out of the blue decided to legally marry her. She was so happy. Not long after (this past February), she was tragically killed in a car accident.
 
DustinM said:
What would having a state issued license change other than the opinions of others as to the legitimacy of their marriage, opinions that have no bearing on what God thinks of it?
Click to expand...
A: It subjects them to a 'jurisdiction' that is explicitly "foreign to our constitution and laws."

And He DOES in fact care, because you "cannot serve two masters."
 
rockfox said:
Why would you ask the state permission for something you already have the right to do regardless?
Click to expand...
For the benefits - real or imagined - offered by the 'other master':
From "social [ist] acceptance" - to a tax deduction - to subsidies for proper behavior.

It's the strings attached that are a problem.

And the fact that it shows "who is to be the real master."
 
HomesteadWife said:
Hello All,

I have been reading all of the discussion threads which relate to what constitutes a marriage that are currently happening. They are all blurring together a bit for me, so instead of this getting buried on a comments section I decided to create a new post.

I wanted to propose a real life situation example for everyone to address. Instead of just working in theoreticals, what advice would you give to a woman in the below scenario so she would not be living in sin. Answers should be based on your understanding of what marriage is or is not.

Note: This is NOT MY issue, (happily married here) but its someone I know.

Suppose a woman comes to you asking for counsel.
Here is her situation: “I became saved after already living in sin with the father of my now two children. We are still not married. Since becoming saved, I have seen and learned why God wants us to be married before having children and living together. My partner, however, is not a believer and doesn’t see the need to ‘rush into’ getting married even though I want to honor God and do so. How do I handle this? He is a great father and I don’t see leading him to Christ by breaking apart our family?”

Is this woman biblically married, or living in fornication?

For being biblically married/covenant:
Does the fact they had sex mean they are married?
Does the fact they have children together mean they are married?
Does the fact that the husband is supporting his family, raising his kids, and having and is sexually exclusive with this woman (as her only sexual partner) constitute a marriage/covenant?

Or if in Fornication:
Are they living in fornication due to the fact that the man does not consider them to be married?
Are they living in fornication because they don't have a recognized marriage by the church/state?
If they are living in fornication should the wife stay with the man or leave him as she would be living in a state of sin?

If they separated:
Would the children belong to the man or woman if they are not technically married?

I am sure there are other questions that can be addressed but I wanted to throw some out there.

And GO!
Click to expand...
I will go with fornication:
Q1: yes.
Q2: no, but because there is no covenant between them and God.
Q3:Stay, but abstain from any sexual intercourse until said committment takes place.
 
Yet many of us have bought the line in our past that you are married when you get the marriage license and say the vows and do the deed. (I did however like all the attention at my wedding while I sang to her- ;-) ) There are tax benefits to that govment officializing. Real monetary benefits to the govmnt getting in our business. Both my marriages were gov permitted and documented but now we realize how potentially bad it could be with their camel's nose inside our tent. -M
 
MeganC said:
@Daniel DeLuca

I love your response but I'd also add that marriage is between God, a husband, and his wife. Government is not a partner in a marriage no matter how much they try to be.
Click to expand...
Why people keep insisting on adding new people into existing marriage.

First state tries to push itself in. Now you keep pushing God in.

How about marriage is relationship between two people who can make a baby? I'm sorry, but baby making doesn't require threesome with neither state or God.
 
MemeFan said:
How about marriage is relationship between two people who can make a baby? I'm sorry, but baby making doesn't require threesome with neither state or God.
Click to expand...
That is very true. In our quest to make everything holy we Christians do try to make God a part of marriage - and completely forget that non-Christians, even complete atheists, also marry and we recognise those marriages as valid even though they make zero effort to involve God. Obviously we should run our marriages as God instructs - but that does not mean he is a party to it.

God does have a role of course, given that Jesus tells us that it is He who makes two people one flesh - nonetheless he made those two people one flesh, he didn't put himself into the mix.

The whole idea of God being an integral part of marriage is just so the "cord of three strands" proverb can be interpreted as monogamous, so people don't notice the obvious polygamous implication.
 
I just purchased a Ford F350 Super Duty turbo diesel. I paid for it cash, no finance company involved. Goldy is mine and I got the title. I anticipate that at some point I will need to check the owners manual to find the purpose of various switches. Now I could just engage that toggle and find what happens or mash the accelerator and enjoy the whine of the turbo. All that is usually not a prudent idea. Ford does not demand that I only own 1 truck but rather that each of them are treated according to the best operating instructions that THEY DESIGNED! Scripture is the owners manual with the basic operating instructions. It tells me to treat wifey dearest in a proper manner. Now, I COULD just ignore what the Bible (and God BTW) to my own peril (and hers too). Lots and Lots of cars are driven by owners with no manual. Lot of marriages are existing sans God. There are lots of broken down cars and marriages in the junk yard, each hoping for some sort of resurrection but the Crusher is ever hungry. Drive and marry recklessly at your own peril. -M
 
Bartato said:
This hypothetical reminds me of something that happened in a church we use to attend some years back.

A young woman in the church got pregnant by her non-Christian boyfriend. They loved each other and both wanted to marry. They didn't marry because of the whole "unequally yoked" thing. He was a solid, kind, and caring man who wanted to marry her. He just wasn't a Christian and had enough integrity to not pretend otherwise. She (probably taking advice from church leaders) refused to marry him.

They remained close friends, spent time together, and both participated in raising their son. I doubt that this woman really ever dated anyone else after the son was born.

Anyway, about twelve years later, she ends up pregnant again by the same man! He still wanted to marry her, and she still wouldn't because he wasn't a Christian. 😳

Even at the time, I knew that was absurd. It is better to not be unequally yoked, but dang! They were obviously already yoked.
Click to expand...
The thing is Paul was never talking about marriage in this context at all. Plus if he was why did he say have one believer can sanctify the unbeliever? The unequally yoked in its context was never talking about marriage. In fact especially if your a man and you decide to marry an unbelieving wife it's highly likely that she will become a believer too I think it's like 90% or something. Women tend to follow their man anyways 9/10. This idea that you can ONLY marry another believer is obsurd and not black and white and should be looked at on a case by case basis.
 
Deesee25 said:
The thing is Paul was never talking about marriage in this context at all. Plus if he was why did he say have one believer can sanctify the unbeliever? The unequally yoked in its context was never talking about marriage. In fact especially if you’re a man and you decide to marry an unbelieving wife it's highly likely that she will become a believer too I think it's like 90% or something. Women tend to follow their man anyways 9/10. This idea that you can ONLY marry another believer is obsurd and not black and white and should be looked at on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair analysis, and I agree, the passage gets applied to marriage almost exclusively and not the rest of human relationships that it is also applicable to.

It’s still a good idea to only marry a compatible believer though.
 
The Revolting Man said:
That’s a fair analysis, and I agree, the passage gets applied to marriage almost exclusively and not the rest of human relationships that it is also applicable to.

It’s still a good idea to only marry a compatible believer though.
Click to expand...
Yeah but like I said it depends on the context. Problem if you limit yourself to believers only you're probably gonna have VERY limited options. If your open to converting her to your views I think the door opens more. Main thing for me is find a female(s) who follow my lead. If they do that then I say the rest will fall into place but I think it should looked at on a case by case basis.

Most of my friendships and even gfs I have very little in common with but we got along great. And we came to find common interests later. It's more about the person and their character that's important to me. If they have that I can work with the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top