bible-truths.com/forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Need Account Help?  Email bibletruths.forum@gmail.com   

Forgotten password reminders does not work. Contact the email above and state what you want your password changed to. (it must be at least 8 characters)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down

Author Topic: The Marriage Vow  (Read 41195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #80 on: February 16, 2015, 03:37:39 PM »

The simplest answer is what Ray pointed out over and over again, that marriage happens through a ceremony, a wedding, not sex. Your original question "what is the vow?" Who cares? The vows can be whatever you want them to be. As long as you have a wedding ceremony.

I thought Joel brought up a good point. How is it that the woman at the well wasn't married?

Well, first of all, Loc, it does matter what the vow is.  If the Lord intended a man and a woman to be married by way of a promise or a covenant, HE would have to specify what it was they were to be promising (to do or not to do).  IF that's what makes a marriage, then it is indeed all important. 

Interesting though that you said "the vows can be whatever they want them to be"... Because that is exactly as the world sees it.  Marriage, legally defined in this country (and most western societies), is based on a prescription written by the state, which binds a couple to the state legally, and their children.  The contract or license is legally defined by the state, not by GOD.  Therefore if they decide to recognize two men or two women or a man and his dog as a legally binding union, which they define as "marriage" they can. And do. I showed this earlier.. but I know it's legal gobbledy-gook and no one wants to hear that.

A man and a woman (qualified to be married) may say any vows they like, you're right.. and they may be sweet, and they may be honorable, and that's all well and good.  But it doesn't establish the union (else God would have TOLD us this in His Word), and more importantly, the vows do not govern how the marriage will be lived out...the laws, or terms of the marriage have already been spelled out in the New Testament, and THOSE prescriptions--and those alone--are what govern you and your spouse in your marital commitment, NOT your 'vows'.  God's 'contract' trumps yours...and the state's. That is why I say they are irrelevant.

But you do bring up a good point about the woman at the well (John4:16-18).  Here is a perfect example of how people's prejudices--their pre-conceived ideas of how a scripture is supposed to read, get in the way of what is plainly written.  Ray showed how this happens hundreds of times. 

I can't spend an hour explaining this (but maybe later if it's still an issue I will), but, yes, that is a text that the church is MUCH confused about.  Feel free to google it and see for yourself the myriad, multiple-contradicting expositions of it. Bottom line is, all of them must read into it their bias and add their presumptions about what marriage 'IS' in order for them to make any sense out of it at all... Because for a face-reading of it--no need to insert your favorite scenario--all you have to do is pay close attention to the words.

Okay?  Here is the text:  "Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.”

That the five husbands she'd had were 'immorally obtained' is obvious in that when she told the others about this Man she'd met, she said "and he told me all the things I had done" (and not the things that had innocently befallen me).  So Jesus links by the word "and" the "he" (husband) that she now has as being one of the same group (of illicit marriages). Furthermore, his words, "he whom you now HAVE" denote a possessive.. In that she wasn't merely shacking up with someone, she had him.  Another example from scripture of someone "having "someone else's (wife, in this case) is Herod's adultery with his brother's wife (Mark 6:17,18)  Go check it out. Look at the words.  They're the same. 

 Here's an easy way to see if your bias has colored your reading of this:  Let's change the word "husband" to "apple" and see if it makes sense...

"You have had five apples, and the one which you have now is not your apple."  SO, what does she have?  An apple!  But not hers..

Others (a tiny minority of believers who see marriage differently) have explained this better than me.  But here is truly a case of the simplest answer is the best!  (No contradictions, or imagined possibilities necessary)


   
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 04:07:08 PM by Neo »
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #81 on: February 16, 2015, 03:58:57 PM »



I like the idea of continuing to grow and not squelching the Spirit.

In the past, I attempted to follow up on Ray's teaching on the nature of God and the thoughts expressed in his creed.  But that discussion was stopped.  The nature of God is at the spear point, the cutting edge of where we are going because we are His children and we will be like Him.

But on this topic, we have some ignoring the Scriptures and giving us personal opinions about a topic well covered by Ray, from the Scriptures.

Kat, can you cite me one thing we have learned from this thread, from at least two Scriptures, that were not covered by Ray in his bible study on marriage?

I perceive one kind of spirit was squelched.  But not the One that truly matters.

Mercy, peace, and love to you too.

John, I'm not giving any "personal opinions" (not consciously anyway).  And I have nothing to teach. If no one has "learned anything" in this thread, then nothing has been taught!  What are you so upset about?

I myself am trying to fully understand, as I said earlier.  My views are based on what I read in scripture (or didn't read).  I've asked for others to show me what I lack.. Show me where I've "ignored the scriptures"? 

I've only asked questions which Ray did not answer.  I asked him personally for clarity (via email).  He did not respond.  Perhaps we could have had this discussion privately during that time and both of us may have come to different conclusions, I don't know.  But For me to ASK a question now and speak to people's responses doesn't change the nature of the message (that Ray espoused)... unless it does.  That's a matter of perception for those seeking truth.  Your mind, like Gina's, may be settled on this.  Mine was not.

For the record, I'd have loved to had a discussion about the nature of God... There is a subject about which I know precious little!
Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1870
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #82 on: February 16, 2015, 04:09:31 PM »

With all this talk about Marriage and legalism, how its tied to the state, etc.. just remember what Ray pointed out which should not be ignored:

"Although ordained of God, marriage is more physical than spiritual, from a scriptural point of view.  Boy I can see the stones coming for saying that, but it’s true. We’re talking about the definition of the word, what the word actually means. If marriage was a spiritual institution, instead of a carnal institution. Why do 50% of those getting married divorce? What is spiritual about that? If all the people got married into a spiritual relationship, there would hardly ever be a divorce. But it’s not. People go into marriage with a carnal mind, with physical expectations. Now most couples who get married do love each other, I’m not saying they don’t, I’m just saying it’s not a spiritual union.

Perhaps Neo, this is why, there is no direct specification as to what the "vow" should be when bringing two people together, because its meant to be a physical carnal institution.

Or perhaps, the vow is along the lines of ...

Do you Adam hereby take Eve to "... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " (Gen 1:28)

I do your Majesty! I do! ;)

God bless,
Alex
« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 04:17:04 PM by lilitalienboi16 »
Logged
1 Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Kat

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #83 on: February 16, 2015, 04:15:04 PM »


John just keep on holding your breath, I feel no obligation to answer your facetious question. We have mods here to deal with the teaching that may come in, but you think you know better than anybody...

mercy, peace and love
Kat
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #84 on: February 16, 2015, 04:15:14 PM »

Yea, no doubt the divorce rate among the "church" demonstrates how little they understand about marriage--or believe it.  Obviously, for those 50+% who wreck their marriages, their "vows" weren't worth the paper they weren't written on...
Logged

Gina

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2015, 04:36:46 PM »

Michael, you have such a double standard.  You say you believe that vows are unnecessary when it comes to marriage, but then you turn around and beg us to answer you just so that you can have visible, written proof that people are in agreement with you.  haha!  You are a funny man, Michael.

Come on, let's stop this nonsense and be glad for what we have.  A vow in marriage and a ceremony isn't some extreme heavy burden that people are under.  You wed your wife, voluntarily!  Nobody held a gun to your head, ha ha -- you WANTED to marry her, remember?  You would have done anything to marry her, remember?  So what's the big deal?

You're bringing this forum down to the dumps over something you say you're unclear on but then you finally let out your position, but still you have double standard. 

If I were in your shoes, I'd be really embarrassed.

Well, Gina, all I can say is you are wrong.  You're wrong about my position, you misunderstand my intentions, and you do err by fantasizing about my reasons for asking these things.  You also do err in not carefully studying the scriptures with regard to this subject, but instead deferring to what 'the church' has always taught, and how the state foists their doctrine upon usAll of the wedding vows/ceremonies/accoutrements are demonstrably pagan in nature and serve no purpose for God's people.  The "marriage covenant" THEORY proposed by most in Babylon is a pure, unscriptural fiction.

Do I have a double standard?  I've no idea.  The Lord knows.  I only want the truth and I despise error.  I honestly believe this matter of marriage is deeply misunderstood by God's people (especially in our Western society), and the error is propagating...and metastasizing. 

I am not 100% certain about my thoughts on this, which is why I bothered to ask the members here what their ideas were (I respect your opinions).  Frankly, I expected more searched-out and cognizant positions from them, so we could 'compare notes'.  But it seems I'm the only one who's really given this subject some serious, long term thought.  Most, instead only regurgitate what Ray said in one short study.. I love Ray and understand and accept almost everything he's taught (else I wouldn't be here).  But I think he totally missed it on this and it has brought confusion (to me, at least)  at a time when I was really seeking.  I asked about the vow because I didn't think it existed and I wanted to know if there was something I missed--OR--are most people just accepting a doctrine blindly. 

No one has the whole truth, Gina.  Ray did not write scripture.  We all could use some guidance.  This world God made is an unimaginably complicated place with realms inside of realms and the darkness of this Age shrouds almost everything.  But sometimes, God lifts the curtain--just a little bit...for those who want to see.

This discussion was not about me, or my personal life.  If it helps you, I have a happy marriage with my wife; we love each other and neither of us have any regrets. She doesn't see things the way I do (she is totally ambivalent about these Truths we've learned here, for instance), but that's ok.  No, I did not intend to "bring this forum down in the dumps"...Please, really?  If that is the consensus, let others say so and I'll just go away.  No harm, no foul.  And no, I'm not embarrassed; I have no reason to be.

Meanwhile, I'll try and answer a question that's posed about this subject.  My intention is to dispel confusion--others' and my own. If that offends you, my apologies... (In any case, you said your mind was already satisfied with your understanding, so why do you keep needling me??)

Those things are an option and everybody knows it.  No state in the United States requires people to do anything beyond going to a Justice of the Peace.  But people opt to do lavish things because, like you said, when they are "in love" they'll do anything, they'll sign anything just be married to their sweetheart.   

Now, if deep down in their heart of hearts, they really didn't want to do those things to begin with, but they did them to appease their wife or their wife's parents, then they were giving only to get.  And that's not good.  That's selfish giving. 

You said yourself that you would have said anything and signed anything in order to get what you wanted.  That's what you said.  That's clear enough to me. 

That shows me where your heart was at when you married your wife.  It doesn't sound like you were marrying her for HER benefit, so much as your own. 

You have admitted that you weren't using your head when you said your vows and signed the papers.  That's not the State's fault, Michael.  Nobody twisted your arm to recite any vows -- you said them voluntarily and eagerly.

I believe you think I'm needling you because you don't like the points that I'm making, because they are good points.  I gave you lots of scripture but of course they make no sense to you. 

I have also said many kind things here, but you either chose to ignore those too, or did you not understand what I was saying?  That's okay, you don't have to answer that!  Take your time, think it over before you answer.  I don't want you rushing into anything.........................



Logged

Gina

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2015, 04:49:24 PM »

With all this talk about Marriage and legalism, how its tied to the state, etc.. just remember what Ray pointed out which should not be ignored:

"Although ordained of God, marriage is more physical than spiritual, from a scriptural point of view.  Boy I can see the stones coming for saying that, but it’s true. We’re talking about the definition of the word, what the word actually means. If marriage was a spiritual institution, instead of a carnal institution. Why do 50% of those getting married divorce? What is spiritual about that? If all the people got married into a spiritual relationship, there would hardly ever be a divorce. But it’s not. People go into marriage with a carnal mind, with physical expectations. Now most couples who get married do love each other, I’m not saying they don’t, I’m just saying it’s not a spiritual union.

Perhaps Neo, this is why, there is no direct specification as to what the "vow" should be when bringing two people together, because its meant to be a physical carnal institution.

Or perhaps, the vow is along the lines of ...

Do you Adam hereby take Eve to "... Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. " (Gen 1:28)

I do your Majesty! I do! ;)

God bless,
Alex

Me likey. :)
Logged

wat

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #87 on: February 16, 2015, 06:23:54 PM »

Ok Neo, can you state your views explicitly for me? I say marriage is done through a wedding with witnesses. What do you say?

How is a marriage defined by God? Interesting explanation of the woman at the well. I don't know if it's true, I'll have to think about it some more. But you say the woman had illicit marriages, six to be exact, the five before and the one now. She was married, only illicitly, but still married. What makes a marriage illicit and what makes a marriage lawful? Are the people who get married today not actually married according to God? How do I get married the right way? I have a nephew born out of wedlock, or so I thought. His parents never had a wedding. They had sex of course. Are they married? If so, is it lawful or unlawful? I'll admit I'm having trouble understanding your view completely, so if you could spell it out for me, I think it would help this discussion.
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #88 on: February 16, 2015, 07:57:15 PM »


You said yourself that you would have said anything and signed anything in order to get what you wanted.  That's what you said.  That's clear enough to me. 

That shows me where your heart was at when you married your wife.  It doesn't sound like you were marrying her for HER benefit, so much as your own. 

Haha, Gina...if you only knew.  Anyway, as I said, this isn't about me. I am certainly not the example to follow, in any case. There's really no need in pursuing this angle so I won't.

Quote
I believe you think I'm needling you because you don't like the points that I'm making, because they are good points.  I gave you lots of scripture but of course they make no sense to you. 

I have also said many kind things here, but you either chose to ignore those too, or did you not understand what I was saying?  That's okay, you don't have to answer that! 

Sorry to dissappoint, but you made no good points to me.  I would have conceded them if you did.   I am also sorry I missed your kind words to me; perhaps I did not not understand them that way.  I do not think you are an unkind person, Gina.  I would just ignore you if I did. But you said you weren't interested in this discussion...yet you keep at it.  That's ok with me too.  It just felt like "needling" if you really didn't care about the subject.  Maybe you really do.
Logged

Dave in Tenn

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4311
    • FaceBook David Sanderson
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #89 on: February 16, 2015, 08:17:22 PM »

Ok.. I think I get it now.  Ray defined "marriage" in a way you don't agree with.

From the article:

"We’re talking about the definition of the word, what the word actually means."

Do you think he's wrong about how the word is used in the scripture?  Not asking a theological question--just looking for an understanding of sound language. 

I've got a boatload of other questions.  The first is:  Do we need to go to 14 pages to get one answered? 

You have your view.  You're welcome to it.  If you and Ray had shared more than a discussion of a biblical question and had, instead, jointly counseled a young couple considering getting married, would you have been in agreement with how they should proceed?  If not, what would you tell the young couple?

Do you think 'custom to whom custom is due, tribute to whom tribute is due' has any bearing on the subject?  Even if the 'customs-collector' is pagan?

I know a woman who married and divorced the same guy three times.  Then he died.  What does God think about this?  Were they ever married 'in the eyes of God'?  Did that change through three divorces and two more weddings?  Were they never divorced?  How would you counsel her to proceed? 

« Last Edit: February 16, 2015, 09:43:09 PM by Dave in Tenn »
Logged
Heb 10:32  But you must continue to remember those earlier days, how after you were enlightened you endured a hard and painful struggle.

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #90 on: February 16, 2015, 11:07:01 PM »

Ok Neo, can you state your views explicitly for me? I say marriage is done through a wedding with witnesses. What do you say?

How is a marriage defined by God? Interesting explanation of the woman at the well. I don't know if it's true, I'll have to think about it some more. But you say the woman had illicit marriages, six to be exact, the five before and the one now. She was married, only illicitly, but still married. What makes a marriage illicit and what makes a marriage lawful? Are the people who get married today not actually married according to God? How do I get married the right way? I have a nephew born out of wedlock, or so I thought. His parents never had a wedding. They had sex of course. Are they married? If so, is it lawful or unlawful? I'll admit I'm having trouble understanding your view completely, so if you could spell it out for me, I think it would help this discussion.

Hi Loc,

What I say about marriage is not the issue.  I’m a seeker, like you.  I don't define marriage, nor have I attempted to.  As I said before, it belongs to God; He invented it, let Him describe it.  “yea, let God be true, but every man a liar”

But, if you could have all your questions above answered, you would understand marriage indeed! (I don’t know if we can get there from here, but I’ll at least try and re-state what I have already said—hope it helps).

Does God say “a marriage is done by a wedding and witnesses?” If not, where did you get that?  I’ve searched, and not found any such thing in the scriptures.  The word “marriage” is like many other dictionary words, in that when you look them up, they have more than one meaning.  Right?  In the Bible, it is used to describe a sexual unity between a man and a woman (whether or not it is adultery/fornication or ‘legitimate’).  Whether a marriage is legitimate or not depends on the circumstances of your “joining”…in other words, were you “qualified” to be husband and wife?  I think we all understand the difference between being a virgin, and being a harlot (or an adulteress).  It is not lawful to marry your mother, or your sister, or someone else’s wife, ok?  Everyone here agrees with that, including Ray. As an example, if you "marry" your neighbor's wife, it is not legitamte (even if the state issues you a "license"--as they surely will, provided you pay the correct fees and fill out the proper paperwork). 

The word marriage is ALSO used to describe a “marriage by vow”, or an espousal.  In this marriage, the couple is treated as if they were married physically (ONE FLESH), even though they have not yet consummated it..  Like we saw before,  this was the case with Joseph and Mary during the time of her pregnancy with Jesus.  I don’t think either of these two principles is in dispute, so I’m not “teaching” anything here—only stating what we already know.

The scriptures clearly delineate these in Deut. 22: 22-24:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

See how the “married woman” is distinguished from the “virgin” who was betrothed… yet both had a “husband”.  The former was married by sexual union, the latter, married by “vow”.  Yet both were stoned for their unfaithfulness.

There are the two types of marriages, according to the Bible I read. And of the “marriage by joining" (union), we see that can be either “legitimate”, or “adulterous”.  We understand the difference there.

Paul said in 1 Cor 7,
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Clearly the “wife” who is married, is not the “virgin”, who is unmarried. Notice, please, that is PAUL’s distinction, not mine.  He has used their sexual past to identify their marital status. (Some have said here that “you don’t have to have sex to be married”…Paul explicitly disagrees.)

Read the rest of  the chapter…see how Paul tells the betrothed husband if he wants to “keep his virgin” (as a virgin), he “doeth better” than he who “marries” her!  Get it?

Starting from the beginning of scripture, over and again, you will see the same pattern of a man “going into a woman” and “marrying her”.. I pointed many of these out already (Jacob and Leah/Rachel,  Isaac and Rebekah, Abraham and Hagar).  Here’s another example:

Gen 8: 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Purely a sexual union…  Check it out: Onan was ok with the sex, but not with “raising up seed”, so God killed him too. 

We talked about the woman at the well, and the reference to King Herod “having his brother’s wife”.  John tells him (at the risk of being killed!), “it is not lawful to have thy brother’s wife!”  But the scripture says Herod “married” her!  So, he must have applied for the proper divorce permits and filled out the right paperwork and all that, I guess…to make it “legal”.  But then, how did John declare it was NOT legal?  What law was he referring to?  Seems to me, Herod skipped the ceremony on that one…maybe the “license” too.  Nevertheless, he was “married” to another man’s wife!  So says the text.

Well, that’s what I’ve seen in the scriptures defining the two types of marriage.  I saw nowhere in any of these passages (or any other) where a “marriage vow” or “marriage covenant” or “license” or any such thing was either required, or mentioned

And that’s where I get my views.  How about you? 
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #91 on: February 16, 2015, 11:44:15 PM »

Ok.. I think I get it now.  Ray defined "marriage" in a way you don't agree with.

From the article:

"We’re talking about the definition of the word, what the word actually means."

Do you think he's wrong about how the word is used in the scripture?  Not asking a theological question--just looking for an understanding of sound language.

I don't know, Dave.  I've offered tons of scripture here on this thread wherein the word was used. Do YOU think he used it wrong?   

Quote
I've got a boatload of other questions.  The first is:  Do we need to go to 14 pages to get one answered? 

You have your view.  You're welcome to it.  If you and Ray had shared more than a discussion of a biblical question and had, instead, jointly counseled a young couple considering getting married, would you have been in agreement with how they should proceed?  If not, what would you tell the young couple?

I'm not a marriage counselor.  Would never be one.  I've went to a few before...didn't like it. Solved nothing for me.

Quote
Do you think 'custom to whom custom is due, tribute to whom tribute is due' has any bearing on the subject?  Even if the 'customs-collector' is pagan?

No.

Quote
I know a woman who married and divorced the same guy three times.  Then he died.  What does God think about this?  Were they ever married 'in the eyes of God'?  Did that change through three divorces and two more weddings?  Were they never divorced?  How would you counsel her to proceed?

Not enough information.  Again, I'm not a counselor.  But here's what Jesus said:

Matt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.



If that applies, you have your answer.  I don't know how to help people like this, Dave. But I think all of the answers are in God's Word.  Neither the church nor the state will give us the clarity we seek.     
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #92 on: February 17, 2015, 12:02:25 AM »

Hmm, just noticed something..

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."

So, if you leave your wife and "marry" another woman, but don't have sex with her, do you still "commit adultery"?  Maybe there's a nice loophole there for a good Bible-believeing christian to take advantage of!   ;D
Logged

lilitalienboi16

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1870
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #93 on: February 17, 2015, 12:27:27 AM »


Does God say “a marriage is done by a wedding and witnesses?” If not, where did you get that?  I’ve searched, and not found any such thing in the scriptures.  The word “marriage” is like many other dictionary words, in that when you look them up, they have more than one meaning.  Right? In the Bible, it is used to describe a sexual unity between a man and a woman (whether or not it is adultery/fornication or ‘legitimate’).  Whether a marriage is legitimate or not depends on the circumstances of your “joining”…in other words, were you “qualified” to be husband and wife? I think we all understand the difference between being a virgin, and being a harlot (or an adulteress).  It is not lawful to marry your mother, or your sister, or someone else’s wife, ok?  Everyone here agrees with that, including Ray. As an example, if you "marry" your neighbor's wife, it is not legitamte (even if the state issues you a "license"--as they surely will, provided you pay the correct fees and fill out the proper paperwork). 

The word marriage is ALSO used to describe a “marriage by vow”, or an espousal.  In this marriage, the couple is treated as if they were married physically (ONE FLESH), even though they have not yet consummated it..  Like we saw before,  this was the case with Joseph and Mary during the time of her pregnancy with Jesus.  I don’t think either of these two principles is in dispute, so I’m not “teaching” anything here—only stating what we already know.

The scriptures clearly delineate these in Deut. 22: 22-24:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

See how the “married woman” is distinguished from the “virgin” who was betrothed… yet both had a “husband”.  The former was married by sexual union, the latter, married by “vow”.  Yet both were stoned for their unfaithfulness.

There are the two types of marriages, according to the Bible I read. And of the “marriage by joining" (union), we see that can be either “legitimate”, or “adulterous”.  We understand the difference there.

Paul said in 1 Cor 7,
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

Clearly the “wife” who is married, is not the “virgin”, who is unmarried. Notice, please, that is PAUL’s distinction, not mine.  He has used their sexual past to identify their marital status. (Some have said here that “you don’t have to have sex to be married”…Paul explicitly disagrees.)

Read the rest of  the chapter…see how Paul tells the betrothed husband if he wants to “keep his virgin” (as a virgin), he “doeth better” than he who “marries” her!  Get it?

Starting from the beginning of scripture, over and again, you will see the same pattern of a man “going into a woman” and “marrying her”.. I pointed many of these out already (Jacob and Leah/Rachel,  Isaac and Rebekah, Abraham and Hagar).  Here’s another example:

Gen 8: 6 And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Purely a sexual union…  Check it out: Onan was ok with the sex, but not with “raising up seed”, so God killed him too. 

We talked about the woman at the well, and the reference to King Herod “having his brother’s wife”.  John tells him (at the risk of being killed!), “it is not lawful to have thy brother’s wife!”  But the scripture says Herod “married” her!  So, he must have applied for the proper divorce permits and filled out the right paperwork and all that, I guess…to make it “legal”.  But then, how did John declare it was NOT legal?  What law was he referring to?  Seems to me, Herod skipped the ceremony on that one…maybe the “license” too.  Nevertheless, he was “married” to another man’s wife!  So says the text.

Well, that’s what I’ve seen in the scriptures defining the two types of marriage.  I saw nowhere in any of these passages (or any other) where a “marriage vow” or “marriage covenant” or “license” or any such thing was either required, or mentioned

And that’s where I get my views.  How about you?

Neo,

Paul in 1 Cor 7 doesn't use "their sexual past to identify their marital status."

You're twisting that. Paul is saying that a married woman does not remain a virgin by status of being married. That is, when you are married, you have obligations to please your partner. That's why he says "there is a DIFFERENCE." He isn't saying that you get married by pleasing your partner or that sex makes marriage.

Listen:

1 Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Notice Paul says "THE WIFE" and also "THE HUSBAND." For Paul to be able to say "wife" and "husband," they have to be married. It is in being married that the power over the body is relinquished to the other partner. This then allows for lawful sex to occur; However, if as you state, that marriage is the "Sexual unity" or "sexual past," then Paul could never say what he said. Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful. That includes the sex you say is required to make a marriage legal ,or that makes a marriage a marriage. We would then have to conclude that unlawful sex leads to lawful marriage. I don't think so! That's called rape and or adultery. Both marriage and sex must be legal in God's eyes.

Without explicitly saying it, Paul has shown the order of things for us. First the marriage THEN the sex BUT sex is not required for the marriage! This is the pattern I believe agree's completely with the scriptures.

1 Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1 Cor 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Why does he care for how He may please his wife? FOR "The husband doesn't have power of his own body but the wife.."

1 Cor 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

The same thing applies for the woman. The things of the world are the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Sex involves two of those "things of the world." (1 John 2:16)

Let Paul's words speak for themselves. No verse becomes at all its own interpretation. You can't establish doctrine with one witness. You need two or three.

While Genesis 38:8 is rather ambiguous in the order of events IN THE KJV, that is, "go in unto her" is followed by "and marry her," if you continue you the story, you later find, that Judah, also went into tamer, but she did not become his wife so sex cannot equate to marriage otherwise tamer would have been known afterwards as Judah's wife. She never is though.

Here is 38:8 in a few other translations:

(CLV) And saying is Judah to Onan, "Come to your brother's wife and wed her, your brother's widow, and raise seed for your brother.

(Rotherham)  Then said Judah to Onan, Go in unto thy brothers wife, and fulfil the duty of a brother-in-law unto her,—and raise up seed, to thy brother.

(RV)  And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

(ESV)  Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."

(ASV)  And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

As you can see, this ambiguity disappears in other translations which appear to be more consistent in that the word used as "marry" (Gen 38:8) should be one that relates specifically to the levitical duty of marrying and raising up seed for the deceased to carry on that name so it is not cut out from all of isreal. You see this corrected in other translations.

I found a good example of this concept of raising seed for a deceased in Ruth's final chapter:

Rth 4:8  Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
Rth 4:9  And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
Rth 4:10  Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
Rth 4:11  And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:
Rth 4:12  And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman.
Rth 4:13  So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.

Notice Ruth became his wife first. This is followed by an "and when," implying that, sometime afterwards, meaning later, WHEN, that's AFTER they were married. They had sex.

God bless,
Alex
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 03:55:14 AM by lilitalienboi16 »
Logged
1 Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Ian 155

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #94 on: February 17, 2015, 10:27:00 AM »

I understand what you are saying, Ian.  Thanks for (finally) making sense.  And I agree with this at least.  But I still do believe Adam and Eve were also literal human beings. If you have scripture to show otherwise, I'm all ears.


Well Neo I can only tell you that when one interprets the word literally one is still in the process of being converted,this is not implying that you are without Christ as we Know he is all in all... I get shown stuff that is pretty "whack" as opposed to what we have been traditionally taught throughout our lives in sunday school ,church etc.

I have proof though ...found in John 6v56 "The words that I speak they are spirit and they are life" as opposed to literal (carnal) understanding, being death, which is what Paul explains in Romans.

So in terms of Adam and eve, this union is a shadow of what Christ is to us.Now a Shadow is not the real deal I mean and ray does mention somewhere... would you rather have the shadow of a new sports car or the real thing ??

Adam loved Eve he was prepared to "Die" for her (he knew eating what eve offered would cause death, likewise, The Christ, for his bride ....thats You.

The word tells us to ask and we shall receive... so if its sight you need, do a Blind Bartimaeus on yourself.... "ask, as he did" Lord open mine eyes so I may see...

The Flesh (our understanding) counts for Nothing - it is the Spirit (the mind of Christ) that quickens.

Spiritual Eve is Us... MEN AND WOMEN (mankind) Spiritual ADAM.... IS CHRIST
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 11:07:00 AM by Ian 155 »
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #95 on: February 17, 2015, 11:45:05 AM »

Alex:
Quote
Neo,

Paul in 1 Cor 7 doesn't use "their sexual past to identify their marital status."

You're twisting that. Paul is saying that a married woman does not remain a virgin by status of being married. That is, when you are married, you have obligations to please your partner. That's why he says "there is a DIFFERENCE." He isn't saying that you get married by pleasing your partner or that sex makes marriage.

Listen:

1 Cor 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Notice Paul says "THE WIFE" and also "THE HUSBAND." For Paul to be able to say "wife" and "husband," they have to be married. It is in being married that the power over the body is relinquished to the other partner. This then allows for lawful sex to occur; However, if as you state, that marriage is the "Sexual unity" or "sexual past," then Paul could never say what he said. Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful. That includes the sex you say is required to make a marriage legal ,or that makes a marriage a marriage. We would then have to conclude that unlawful sex leads to lawful marriage. I don't think so! That's called rape and or adultery. Both marriage and sex must be legal in God's eyes.

Without explicitly saying it, Paul has shown the order of things for us. First the marriage THEN the sex BUT sex is not required for the marriage! This is the pattern I believe agree's completely with the scriptures.

1 Cor 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

1 Cor 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1 Cor 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Why does he care for how He may please his wife? FOR "The husband doesn't have power of his own body but the wife.."

1 Cor 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

The same thing applies for the woman. The things of the world are the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Sex involves two of those "things of the world." (1 John 2:16)

Let Paul's words speak for themselves. No verse becomes at all its own interpretation. You can't establish doctrine with one witness. You need two or three.


Alex,

Let’s go back to your quote from Ray where he said, “marriage is more physical than spiritual…it is a carnal institution…it is not a spiritual union”.

 Ray is right.  Somewhere along the way, that truth got lost in the confusion  of how the marriage is established by God  (physically, primarily; covenantal, secondarily ).  If you are able to cleanse your mind of all pre-conceived ideas of the church and state, start over and read the scriptures “anew” from beginning to end, you will clearly see this.  That is in fact how Ray learned all of the truths he’s presented here on this site.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7 verifies this.  In fact, if there is a “prescription” for marriage in the New Testament anywhere, this chapter is it. For a NT believer who knew nothing of the “cultural norms” of marriage, but wanted to know how the BIBLE explains it, defines it, regulates it, he could merely read 1 Cor 7, and understand it (well enough to be right with God, anyway).  It’s all there…Read the whole chapter with your colored glasses off, and just let Paul’s words speak for themselves. 

From beginning to end, it is about the physicality of marriage (he talks about the spiritual connotations in a different place, of course).  Because, as Ray (inadvertently?) explained in your quote, THAT is what marriage IS.

In the first half of the chapter, he is speaking to those who ARE married (sexual unity) or who are determined to BE married—“if they cannot contain”.  In the second half (Versus 25 on), he instructs primarily those who have not yet married, or are undecided—those who are betrothed.   

It is important to understand that in those times (and long before), a man might be betrothed, that is PROMISED to a wife, at a very young age.  The woman, frankly, had no say in it at all.  These were “arranged marriages”.  The man actually bought the wife from the father (with money, or with labor) and she was thus “promised” to him—thus a marriage by covenant, or vow (the vow was essentially the father’s). The woman (usually still pre-pubescent) was then betrothed to the man.  I pointed out earlier that the status of betrothal was EQUAL to the status of (consummated) marriage, in that the penalties for breaking the covenant were the same (i.e., death for unfaithfulness).  The young man was in fact called a “husband” though they were not yet married. INTERESTINGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don’t believe the woman was ever called “wife” UNTIL they were actually married!

So, with that in mind, Paul says to the young, betrothed man,

 36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

The stipulation being, she must be “post-pubescent” (flower of her age); if the man so desires, HE can TAKE her to be his WIFE, thus MARRYING her.  But, if he can contain himself, so to speak, he may KEEP his virgin…Yet, she is still HIS (betrothed).  Women had no say either way.

Hence, “There is a difference between a wife and a virgin”… No I’m not twisting his words.

This is getting long, so I will only deal with your NT concerns here.. But, let’s look again at what you said:

Quote
Notice Paul says "THE WIFE" and also "THE HUSBAND." For Paul to be able to say "wife" and "husband," they have to be married. It is in being married that the power over the body is relinquished to the other partner. This then allows for lawful sex to occur; However, if as you state, that marriage is the "Sexual unity" or "sexual past," then Paul could never say what he said. Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful. That includes the sex you say is required to make a marriage legal ,or that makes a marriage a marriage. We would then have to conclude that unlawful sex leads to lawful marriage. I don't think so! That's called rape and or adultery. Both marriage and sex must be legal in God's eyes.

Paul is NOT actually regulating who is lawfully permitted to marry (have sex) in this text.  Why? It was understood already who was permitted to “take a wife”… He who had been betrothed to one.  A man who “had HIS virgin”, bought and paid for, so to speak, had the lawful right to make her his wife, by sexually uniting with her (1Cor7:36).  Barring that, a woman who was not already spoken for, and a virgin (or widow) was “fair game” for a virgin (or widowed) man, but only in the Lord (they are both believers).  THOSE were the qualifications for “legal sex”…Paul had already covered that elsewhere. Therefore your concluding that “unlawful sex leads to a lawful marriage” is misguided.   

So again,
Quote
Two people who are not married do not have the power over the other's body (Because remember Paul said HUSBAND and WIFE) making any sex they have unlawful

You got the cart before the horse. The HUSBAND (betrothed man) DOES have power to MAKE “his virgin” his WIFE.. the sex IS lawful in such a case, making the marriage “lawful” (again, 1Cor7:36).

The confusion in not understanding biblical descriptions of things like marriage stems from not comprehending/ (believing?) the clearly stated expectations and roles of men and women, merely because they do not mesh with our modern societal understanding of things.  Many things are stated plainly in the scriptures, but we don’t see them because our eyes are veiled by OUR world view. 

Michael
Logged

lurquer

  • Guest
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #96 on: February 17, 2015, 11:48:50 AM »



Spiritual Eve is Us... MEN AND WOMEN (mankind) Spiritual ADAM.... IS CHRIST

I understand that, Ian  (and indeed I need to study more of the connotations of that!)... But does that necessarily preclude a literal Adam and a literal Eve?
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3328
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #97 on: February 17, 2015, 12:30:50 PM »

I cannot believe how some threads degenerate. Is someone actually suggesting Adam and Eve were not real people?

So they had pretend children? And their pretend children got married and had pretend decedents which are mentioned in the scriptures?

Gen 5:3  And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6  And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7  And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:8  And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Gen 5:9  And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
Gen 5:10  And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:11  And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Gen 5:12  And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:
Gen 5:13  And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:14  And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Gen 5:15  And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Gen 5:16  And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:17  And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

etc., etc...
Logged

indianabob

  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2144
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #98 on: February 17, 2015, 12:47:05 PM »

Thanks Dennis,

Once we begin to pick out which scriptures are literal and which spiritual only, we place ourselves in a challenging position. As you and as Ray have said, we need to read the words carefully and discern the intended meaning and seek much counsel along with prayer for understanding.

I appreciate all that the forum is providing and your part in keeping us together.
There is still a lot of work to do... :)

Indiana Bob
Logged

Dennis Vogel

  • Administrator
  • Bible-Truths Forum Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3328
Re: The Marriage Vow
« Reply #99 on: February 17, 2015, 01:01:13 PM »

Hmm, just noticed something..

"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.."

So, if you leave your wife and "marry" another woman, but don't have sex with her, do you still "commit adultery"?  Maybe there's a nice loophole there for a good Bible-believeing christian to take advantage of!   ;D

You were probably in a hurry and left off two words, "against her." Probably does not mean anything. Just a few words.

(KJV)  And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

(CLV) And He is saying to them, "Whosoever should be dismissing his wife and should be marrying another is committing adultery against her."

(Rotherham)  and he saith unto them—Whosoever shall divorce his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her;

(RYLT-NT)  and he said to them, 'Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, does commit adultery against her;

I'm getting ready to go to out of town on business for the week and do not have the time now and perhaps the insight to find out what "against her" means. But I know those words were added for a reason and do not necessarily mean physical adultery.

(CLV) Yet I am saying to you that every man looking at a woman to lust for her already commits adultery with her in his heart.

(KJV)  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

(Rotherham)  But, I, say unto you, that, Every one who looketh on a woman so as to covet her, already, hath committed adultery with her, in his heart.

(RYLT-NT)  but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.
 


Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 23 queries.