> General Discussions

The Marriage Vow

(1/22) > >>

lurquer:
Well, I for one am sorry the last thread on speculation of the Kingdom Age was shut down.  It got sidetracked by the (IMO) very carnal desire of one member to believe in the continuation of sex in the Age to come...albeit "outside of marriage".  This was winked at by others because of the cloak of "no two witnesses to specifically disprove it".  This cloak was used because the original cover of "it was just a joke" was exposed for what it was not...Too bad.

A silly thing to argue or debate anyway. Sophomoric speculation like that was not the point of the thread.

Anyway, the legitimate subject came up of what was the true nature of marriage (in this age and the next).  Some of Ray's words from his study on marriage were used to support one side.  I said I did not agree with them, and was called ignorant, and "a fox", unlearned in the scriptures, and one who obviously had no scripture myself to back up my beliefs. 

That was a false challenge, because we all know to bring up scripture which tends to refute something Ray may have said or believed is immediate grounds for dismissal.  Kat posted a snippet of Ray's ideas on marriage at the end (which I cannot directly comment on for the reasons explained).  But I'll bring up an excerpt:

"What is a wedding? The act of marrying, the ceremony of a marriage, the exchanging of vows, the covenant agreement. That’s what marriage is. Interesting, marry - to wed, to unite a man and woman in wedlock, it’s the uniting process, it’s not the going to bed process on the honeymoon. It’s the actual uniting, the wedding, the wedding feast, the nuptials, the contract, the oaths."

Because I find this subject as interesting as the one we were caused to leave aside, but obviously much more relevant (and important!) I thought I'd ask a question that I've asked before.  I never received an answer, but perhaps someone else here has...

If being "married", that is, the biblical definition of marriage, results solely from a ceremony, which is itself only the means for the stated end of "exchanging vows", taking an "oath", or speaking a "covenant or contract", then what is the vow?  What exactly is being "vowed"?  What does the contract need to say to be 'biblically legitimate'? In other words, if the true definition of marriage is a written or verbal formula--the magic words, if you will--shouldn't we know what they are?  Wouldn't that be all-important?  Because, that itself, according to Ray, "is what marriage is."   And IF a contract establishes a marriage, all contracts can be broken by one side not following through...What grounds then does the contract specify will void the contract? You see if the contract theory of marriage is true, these are utterly important matters.  (I am not being sarcastic or facetious).

Marriage is taking a vow..  Once you have taken the vow, then you have taken the vow, making you 'duly married'--a "vow-taker"...  I won't be the  one to suggest that's a tautology (I'll let another make that suggestion), but I will say it really reminds me of a video clip I once saw of a cop arresting a public defender--in court--who was attempting to tell her client he could remain silent...As the cuffs went on she asked what she was being arrested for, and he calmly said "you're under arrest for resisting arrest".  If I think about that statement too much, I fear my head will explode.

Anyway, anyone who knows the words, please clue me in.  If anyone has any suggestions for what they may be, I'd love to hear that as well. 

One other thing, if marriage truly is just saying an oath in a ceremony, then how is "gay marriage" illegitimate?  Sodomites know how to say oaths too.   Show me how I have the logic wrong on that as well.

octoberose:
HI Neo, we haven't 'met' yet.
   I think the thread  is something we should talk about.  Being a typical female myself,  love and marriage go together, however we know Jacob did not love Leah as he loved Rachel and never intended to marry her.  He was tricked into the marriage but still expected to hold up his end of the vow. And how does Genesis say Jacob and Rachel  married? "Jacob went into her" after Laban gave her to him.  However, when sex is impossible, are the couple still not married? And how does the symbolism of Christ and his church make itself known in the marriage covenant?  My thinking is, as I've learned here, that the physical is a manifestation  of the spiritual. It's a quandary no doubt. And one that I think we shall be called to account for because it's Important.
 Now, let's me nice to each other brothers.  We're called to account for how we treat each other also. ;0)

lurquer:
Hello Ms. Rose,

Very pleased to meet you.

The story of Jacob and Leah is a great starting point!  I think it speaks volumes as to what the scriptures say "marriage" is... or isn't.  For those who have ears to hear..

I'd love to consider the question you asked.  Perhaps together we can figure this riddle out!

(Sorry, no emoticons--John would not approve.. but I'm 'winking').

indianabob:
Thank you Neo for your careful exposition of that vow idea.
Thank you October Rose for the dove of peace idea.   :)

Let our words be palatable because we surely shall have to eat them.
There is a saying I was taught by my unbelieving mother many years ago...

"it is nice to be "important/correct", but it is more important to be nice"  8)

I-bob

John from Kentucky:
Sorry to break up the love fest.  But as Ray states in the article below all the huggie huggie kissie kissie stuff does leave one feeling a little ill in the midsection.

If some do not understand Ray's marriage study, then his study below probably cannot be understood either.

I better give a warning.  Ray does quote Scriptures in this attached study just like in his marriage study.
I know that quoting Scriptures is not as much fun as speculation and deducing answers from ones intellect, but that's old Ray for you.


"THE KISS OF DEATH"

[Is your love pure or fake?]

I hear a lot of "huggie huggie kissie kissie" pious platitudes from the mouths of today’s religious hobbyists. Personally, it makes me a little ill in my midsection. Most of it is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Could you be guilty of using this emotional charade to deceive those you wish to impress?

There is nothing wrong with hugs, as I am quite fond of them myself. And there is nothing wrong with proper kissing. Paul instructs the assemblies to greet each with "an holy kiss" four times, and Peter instructs its use once, as a "kiss of charity."

The Greek word used is "philema." A "holy" kiss is merely a pure, sacred, ceremonial kiss—a simple kiss. Men no longer kiss men as a form of greeting non-family members in most western cultures—I’m personally kinda glad of that!

People also engage in "hugs and kisses" in their speech and writing. And this too can be fine and acceptable depending upon how it is done. At sixty-five, I still put a few xxxx’s and oooo’s at the bottom of a birthday card to my wife.

However, there is another way that hugs and kisses are used and overdone in which it is a camouflaged front to mask the real person that is no more holy than was Judas.

Had the twelve other Apostles already received the Holy Spirit of God, they would not have had to ask Jesus "who" is was that was about to betray Him—they would have known. Thank God that it is not possible to "deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).

Like Satan’s ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:15), these deceivers are wolves, but they don’t come as wolves. These false teachers and deceivers:

    "…come to you in SHEEP’S clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15).

But you could spot one of these "wolves" a mile off, couldn’t you? Just look for the GIANT TEETH that Little Red Riding Hood encountered, right?

    "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched [Gk: ‘to fascinate by false representations] you…" (Gal. 3:1).

The "wolves" COME IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING! You don’t see their teeth. They don’t show their teeth. They only show you a huggie huggie kissie kissie pious religious smile. THAT my friends, that pious front, IS the "sheep’s clothing." Wolves BITE, and their bite can be deadly:

    "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15).

Now then, where are we to find these "wolves and sheep’s clothing" coming with hugs and kisses to deceive and devour? Well, wherever the SHEEP are found.

    "For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous [savage] wolves enter in among YOU, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men [and women] arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

Didn’t we all witness this ourselves in recent months? Are all the wolves gone now? Of course not—there will always be wolves wherever there are sheep.

I’m warning you: Wolves come in "sheep’s clothing," full of smiles, and hugs, and kisses. You will not see their teeth until it is too late.

Judas was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The apostles saw a sheep—Jesus saw a wolf. What was Judas’ ultimate sheep’s camouflage? Why, wasn’t it a simple, sincere, pure, godly "kiss?" Think again.

    "Now he that betrayed Him give them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He: hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed Him" (Matt. 26:48-49).

You have all seen this drama acted out many times in films—a simple little peck on Jesus’ cheek. Oh really?

The five Scriptures using the word "kiss" from Paul and Peter, always used the Greek word "philema" which means "kiss" and nothing else. In Luke 22:48 we read this:

    "But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betray you the Son of man with a kiss [Gk: a simple ‘philema’ kiss]?"

But in Matt. 26:48, we find something totally different. Judas told the elders and chief priest:

    "…whomsoever I shall [PHILEO—passionate fondness] kiss, that same is He…"

Judas did not have a "philema" kiss in mind at all. The "kiss" in Matt. 26:48 is a "phileo" kiss, and it means a fond, affectionate, passionate kiss, not a simple "philemo kiss." And the elders and high priest knew the different in these two words. One was a peck on the cheek, but Judas determined to use a more a passionate, huggie huggie kissie kissie display in his attempt to betray Jesus to the devouring and ravaging wolves.

This is really intriguing stuff. Now after Judas tells the priest and elders what kind of a kiss he will give Jesus [a phileo kiss] to betray Jesus, He actually delivers this kiss. And how does he do that? He does it with yet another Greek word for kiss, which is, "kataphileo" mean "to kiss EARNESTLY."

This "kataphileo kiss" is used three other times in Scriptures:

    Luke 7:45—"You gave me no kiss [no affectionate ‘phileo’ kiss, Jesus admonishes His disciples] but this woman since the time I came in has not ceased to kiss [‘kataphileo kisses’—earnestly] My feet."

    Luke 15:20—"And he [the prodigal son] arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him [earnestly and passionately with a ‘kataphileo kisses’]."

    Acts 20:37—"And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him [with ‘kataphileo kisses’ of great passion and earnest]."

Is it not abundantly clear that this super emotional use of hugs and kisses was used only on the most RARE occasions of deep and profound emotional circumstances? But this is not proper conduct for everyday behavior. See these over-pious charlatans for what they are. Be suspect of those who use super-pious and sanctimonious hugs and kisses every day of the week.

Now to the Judas Kiss of Death:

    "And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and KISSED HIM."

The Greek is "kisses"—multiple kisses, with ‘kataphilio kisses, just as we find in every single use of this word in Scriptures I showed above.

No, Judas did not betray Jesus with a peck on the cheek; he deceitfully delivered a "huggie huggie kissie kissie, fraudulent hugs and KISSES OF DEATH!

What must we learn from all this? Whenever we pretend to be Christ-like but it’s all a charade, we too are guilty of giving Christ a Judas kiss of death. What a disgusting display of the carnal mind and flesh, Judas has left us. Some have vengeance in their heart, others vanity, others bitterness and hatred, and yet others uncontrollable sins of the flesh, but they try to camouflage their evils with a plethora of hugs and kisses to all.

Don’t be afraid to hug; don’t be afraid to kiss, but beware of such phony displays of pious emotions, as they could be your "KISS OF DEATH."

A spiritual hug to you all, from my heart,

Ray

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page