> General Discussions
The Marriage Vow
lurquer:
--- Quote from: Loc on February 15, 2015, 10:40:39 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?
--- End quote ---
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)
lurquer:
--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on February 16, 2015, 11:44:30 AM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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!
lilitalienboi16:
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
Kat:
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
lurquer:
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...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version