The Marriage Vow

[Gina]

Hi, Michael


Gen 25:22 So Laban gathered together all the people of the place and made a feast.

How do we know this isn't where the vows were exchanged and the wedding ceremony took place?  Maybe it was.

How do we know that simply because we don't see where there was a ceremony when a handmaid was given to a man that there was no ceremony?  We don't know that there was no ceremony.

Neo: 

If the feast/ceremony/vows/oaths had already occurred with Rachel the night before, then Jacob was already married to Rachel.  ALL OBLIGATIONS HAD BEEN MET.

How is it, then, that it turns out he had "legally married" Leah? 

Vs. 26 Laban said, "It is not so done in OUR country, to give the younger before the firstborn."

Michael, Laban's ways are a tad lower than God's ways.  That was how it was done by a very carnal-minded trickster in HIS country.  God was teaching Jacob a lesson for the trick he pulled on his father.



Neo: 

How is it, then, that it turns out he had "legally married" Leah? (And he certainly did, as the text says Leah was his "wife", during the next 7 years, for which he labored again to take his rightful wife, Rachel.)  Jacob had said no vows, and made no contracts with Leah. But one physical act, done ignorantly by him—he was deceived!—voided the agreement with Rachel, nullified the "marriage" and instead made Leah his wife.

There it is, right there in scripture.  Looks like Dennis is completely wrong, in that sex does make a marriage legal.  Because that unity, that bond is what a marriage is. 

I wouldn't take this to an extreme.  I wouldn't base my views on marriage by looking to very carnal-minded tricksters - men and women (obviously Leah was a bit of a trickster herself). 

Are you saying that a man is considered to be married to a woman simply by having sex with her?  Michael, and you'll tell that to the women (and sometimes men) and children (male and female) who are raped every year?

Everybody will have to give an account to God.  If they believe that they are legally married simply because they had sex with another person, then they will have to grapple with that.  It is between them and God.

As for me, I believe that we were bought with a very, very HIGH price by Jesus Christ who made a public display of his love for us and redeemed me with His blood in a very public way. 

I'm not married and I'm not perfect but I will never consider myself married to a man simply because he "entered my house," so to speak.  Thieves and robbers do that to women and children (boys and girls) every day!

I'd be very careful, Michael.  Jesus put himself on display to unite me back to my heavenly Father.  If I were going to be married, the least I could do is to sign a piece of paper and make a public statement that, yes, I have it on file at the courthouse that this is my husband and I am his wife and not go outside the bounds of marriage where sex is concerned.

People who say that a piece of paper from the "state / country " is not necessary to make a marriage legal are hypocrites because they won't hesitate to whip out the title deed to their house which has their signature on it to prove that they bought it and it belongs to them.  They don't mind that being on record or written down and kept secure in the event someone were to try and take their house from them.  They don't mind their children's birth certificates being on file at the courthouse.  They don't mind that.

There are people who say all the time, Well, it's just a piece of paper and that doesn't make a marriage.

Okay fine, but if it's "just a piece of paper," then sign the thing!  Jesus Christ shed His precious blood for you!  The least we could do, as people who claim that we are His children, is not look to carnal-minded people from the OT for how to conduct our private lives.  Sign the paper.  Have a ceremony and then you can have sex.

In this country, we have a marriage and then sex comes after.  it's a privilege to those who are married. 

Have a marriage the way it's done in YOUR country.  If it entails jumping over a broomstick in public with witnesses and that's considered legal in your country, then jump over it.

In this country, we have to go down to the courthouse and sign a piece of paper and then we're married by taking vows before someone who has the legal right to marry two people.

There's no end to where this could go, but basically, in these parts, we do these things according to the New Testament.  We don't "climb up some other way."  Even Jesus paid the temple tax though He legally was not obligated to.  He was not obligated to shed His blood, but he did it to show He loved us.

Many don't want to be bound by the laws of the state, probably because they have ulterior motives.  They want to be able to leave anytime they want to leave.  Okay, fine.  So like Ray said, if you don't want to be married then don't have sex.  That's the least you could do for the ones we love.  Don't use people for your own gratification.

It's as simple as that.

[Dave in Tenn]

amen and amen.

[dave]

Repent......and the preparation for the ceremony begins.

[indianabob]

Very well put Gina, thanks for your thoughts.

Indiana Bob

[Rhys 🕊]

Good stuff Gina. Thanks for sharing it

Rhys

[Dennis Vogel]

I have to admit I have not read everything in this thread. But I had another thought in case no one else brought this up.

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Mat 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So Mary and Joseph did not have sex.

And if sex finalized a marriage then Jesus would have to be born out of wedlock, a b-a-s-t-a-r-d (swear filter).

[lurquer]

Kat,
Per your last post to me, you seem to be hung up on the idea that sex=marriage because it means those who have fornicated with a harlot are married to them. And, also, by extension, that any male/female sexual relationship is therefore marriage in God's eyes.  This is a big pill to swallow, I know.  But, "marriage" is just a word.  Once properly defined, you stop worrying about it. (I did).  But then, it does tend to bring up other personal issues for some...Perhaps this is the stumbling stone, and the reason it appears so many here don't want to go there... I get that.

"sex=marriage" What? I certainly did Not intend to imply that, but the opposite, first marriage then sex. Anyway this is complicated and I do know what else to say.

mercy, peace and love
Kat

Kat,

I didn't mean to imply that *you* were saying "sex = marriage", but that I thought you had understood that *I* was concluding this, and that, perhaps that was the barrier we were having in communicating our positions.  I can see I was ambiguous in my wording.  I meant no disparaging of you and did not intend to put words into your mouth.

I have tried to clarify this in my next post. 

Michael

[lurquer]

As I went back through this thread, I see what I think is a misunderstanding of terms.  This is indeed a hard subject due to MUCH confusion sown by the church and their unholy connection with the state.  It really, truly is a "mystery" as Paul says.  But I think the primary communication breakdown here has been  in defining terms.

What I tried to say was, first,  "marriage" was a physical act between a man and a woman (possible because of the unique creation of their anatomy) which has lifelong, permanent consequences.  They become "one flesh".  Paul demonstrated how this could be done with a harlot.  This can't be undone.  BUT, the covenant of marriage, the 'institution' if you will (I hate that word), when legitimate,  is ALSO called "marriage".  Both of these are a mystery.  Both are initiated by a sexual union.  Leave that part out and we're not even talking about the same thing. I've long studied this subject and come to at least this conclusion:  To define a marriage so as to exclude the sexual nature of it truly eliminates any real meaning of marriage. It is a UNIQUE human relationship, instituted, and legitimized  by God (NOT the state), and that nature of it IS what makes it unique.  If you don't at least agree with that, then we just don't share the same logic circuitry, and there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

So let me try and unpack this...First I'm not arguing against vows or covenants..  I do in fact believe that (legitimate) marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. That is, those "whom God has joined together".  (When a man "joins" himself to a harlot, that is an unholy marriage, and un-covenanted .) 

If the man and the woman wish to have a ceremony, and say some words to the effect of  their commitment,  I think that's wonderful.  Whether or not they do, they certainly should understand in their minds that they ARE in fact covenanting with each other—for life.  God Himself is witness to this. But the ceremony, the spoken (or written) words are not the marriage.  The marriage is created by the physical act of unity, when they become "ONE FLESH".  The covenant merely defines the Godly purpose of that physical union.   I pointed this out by using the examples of scripture in the stories of Jacob and Rachel,  Issac and Rebekah.   Apparently, this went right over everyone's head.  I don't know why. 

Neo:

But let us assume there was some re-statement of the vows, or perhaps, as Kat postulates, "When the couple exchanges wedding vows they are making a moral, legal and spiritual commitment to each other. It's a promise to be faithful, reassurance that they will stick it out no matter what, "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health."

... Dennis posits:
"You can be legally married and never have sex. Sex does not make a marriage legal. The vow to God makes it legal to have sex. It's a contract."

WELL, HERE WE HAVE AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM WITH THIS THEORY:

23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?


If the feast/ceremony/vows/oaths had already occurred with Rachel the night before, then Jacob was already married to Rachel.  ALL OBLIGATIONS HAD BEEN MET.

Gina,  re-read that.  There seems to be a veil over everyone's mind...  I DID concede that vows may have taken place during the first night of the wedding feast.  In fact, I used that as evidence to prove that—according to the contract doctrine of marriage (per Ray)-- Jacob and Rachel WERE legally married, and NOT Jacob and Leah as it is inconceivable that he would publicly vow a vow to take Leah as his wife that night (what was he drunk and didn't know what he was saying?)..  Therefore, how did MERELY the sexual union with Leah that night cause a "legal marriage" with her?   Can you still not see what I am saying?

Gina:

Are you saying that a man is considered to be married to a woman simply by having sex with her?  Michael, and you'll tell that to the women (and sometimes men) and children (male and female) who are raped every year?

Everybody will have to give an account to God.  If they believe that they are legally married simply because they had sex with another person, then they will have to grapple with that.  It is between them and God.

As for me, I believe that we were bought with a very, very HIGH price by Jesus Christ who made a public display of his love for us and redeemed me with His blood in a very public way. 

I'm not married and I'm not perfect but I will never consider myself married to a man simply because he "entered my house," so to speak.  Thieves and robbers do that to women and children (boys and girls) every day!

I'm sorry for the confusion here, I thought it was understood we were talking about CONSENSUAL sex! No, rape is a criminal act of violence, and no victim of that is in any way in a marital relationship with the perpetrator!  Plenty of scripture available to clear that up...

I'd be very careful, Michael.  Jesus put himself on display to unite me back to my heavenly Father.  If I were going to be married, the least I could do is to sign a piece of paper and make a public statement that, yes, I have it on file at the courthouse that this is my husband and I am his wife and not go outside the bounds of marriage where sex is concerned.

Can a person be tricked into taking an oath, or signing a contract, Gina?  If you are, you should know  the contract is invalid.

Earlier, Loc suggested that Jacob may have been deceived into saying an oath that unwittingly bound him to Leah.  This is 100% speculation—not scripture.  But THIS brings us full circle to the Title Question in this thread... If the VOW is so important in "legalizing a marriage", then WE NEED TO KNOW THE VOW... Otherwise, we can be TRICKED into entering into a lifelong commitment with someone we did not intend to, OR, conversely, we can be tricked into THINKING we are married, when in fact, we are not!  Now this has almost come to parody.  I'm obviously being farcical...Because I clearly see that taking the 'contract theory of marriage' to its logical conclusion leads to much error.

Gina, you and Loc seem to share the same devotion to "legal documents", licenses, certificates, deeds, titles...all issued by the state.  For the record, I am married and have been for over 24 years.  I DO have such a "certificate of marriage" issued by the state!  I do not know what my vow was; it was spelled out for me by the state to recite.  I did not know what I was agreeing to, I just wanted to marry my beautiful 19 year old wife and I would have signed anything. 

I've since seen the error in that as well. 

If this contract with the state gave existence to my marriage, and was the THING that joined us together, then it was not GOD who joined us.  It is either or... I think this very statement is what launched me on my  odyssey of really trying to understand what marriage is!

This is a direct offshoot of this discussion that I didn't really mean to get into, but I think it should be mentioned here (for the benefit of those who truly believe in their hearts that the State is the Agent of God—for His people)

The state has usurped God's natural order and direction for the family.  The state has in fact, made themselves to BE God.  Everything they do is to that end.   If you do not accept this, study the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.  The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.  Knowing these malicious doctrines will bring clarity.

But I'll just leave you with this paraphrased snippet for your consideration:

First of all, the marriage license is a Secular Contract between the parties and the State.  The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract.  The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties.  The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.
My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions.  A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent.  Otherwise, technically there is no contract.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. This contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State.  Very few people realize this.

Furthermore, it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.



My point is, believers who are following this prescription for their "legitimate marriages" are just as deceived as Jacob was.  And perhaps will share in the same consequences.  That, Dave, is why it matters.

[Gina]

Swear filter - that's funny.    Good point, Dennis.  Jesus would have had to be  born illegitimately.  (The pharisees would have had a field day with that one! )  Joseph was a stand up guy.

Neo, I didn't read the whole thing you wrote.  I really am settled on this matter, but here's what I wrote while you were writing.  If it makes sense to you, great.  If it doesn't, that's okay with me too.

Should we ever equate sex with love or marriage? What is sex?  Is it desire, a hunger of some sort?  By itself, it is not a display of love and obviously can't make love grow.  Why else do some men seek out prostitutes?  It's not for a commitment, ha! (And you can be sure the prostitutes don't love their jons, far from it.) 

Heck, animals, birds, and bugs have sex all the time.  Are they married?  Some species in the lower kingdoms might appear to "play house." he he

Besides, people and animals can and do lose their appetite for sex every day across the globe, because I believe that that's all sex really amounts to ... an appetite, a desire, a hunger.  It definitely doesn't fit the category of a contract.  It's hardly a handshake!

Obviously, some people don't have an appetite for it  . . . to begin with.  If'n ya knowin' what I'm meanin'  ?    

(I'm glad you found my comments helpful, guys! )

[lurquer]

I have to admit I have not read everything in this thread. But I had another thought in case no one else brought this up.

Mat 1:18  Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:19  Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
Mat 1:20  But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Mat 1:23  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Mat 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So Mary and Joseph did not have sex.

And if sex finalized a marriage then Jesus would have to be born out of wedlock, a b-a-s-t-a-r-d (swear filter).

Dennis,

I did speak to the nature of Joseph and Mary being "husband and wife" before they had consummated the marriage earlier.  That they were "espoused" carried with it the same moral and legal connotations as being finally married.  Joseph, in fact, had the legal right to "divorce" Mary when he found she was pregnant!  In fact, she'd have been stoned for her "fornication", per Jewish law, but, "Joseph, being a just man, sought to put her away privately..."  He loved her, and did not want her stoned.  The Angel of the Lord clarified things for Joseph and he did then "take her (as) his wife"...Later consummating the marriage after the birth of Jesus. 

But I also think it quite probable that one of the indignities Jesus had to suffer (especially as a boy) was that he WAS called a b-a-s-t-a-r-d!  Another subject, I know... Jesus himself referred to having another "Father" even at the age of 12.  I am sure this sort of talk got him into all kinds of trouble.

[Dennis Vogel]

Swear filter - that's funny.

Here is the word ******* - The forum software will not allow that word so I had to type b-a-s-t-a-r-d to make my point.

I wish the forum software would not allow rudeness, inappropriate jokes, wolves in sheep's clothing, etc. 

[Gina]

Swear filter - that's funny.

Here is the word ******* - The forum software will not allow that word so I had to type b-a-s-t-a-r-d to make my point.

I wish the forum software would not allow rudeness, inappropriate jokes, wolves in sheep's clothing, etc. 

HA!  You are hysterical!

[lurquer]

Should we ever equate sex with love or marriage? What is sex?  Is it desire, a hunger of some sort?  By itself, it is not a display of love and obviously can't make love grow.  Why else do some men seek out prostitutes?  It's not for a commitment, ha! (And you can be sure the prostitutes don't love their jons, far from it.) 

Heck, animals, birds, and bugs have sex all the time.  Are they married?  Some species in the lower kingdoms might appear to "play house." he he

Besides, people and animals can and do lose their appetite for sex every day across the globe, because I believe that that's all sex really amounts to ... an appetite, a desire, a hunger.  It definitely doesn't fit the category of a contract.  It's hardly a handshake!

Obviously, some people don't have an appetite for it  . . . to begin with.  If'n ya knowin' what I'm meanin'  ?    

(I'm glad you found my comments helpful, guys! )

Gina, if you had read through all of what I was saying, you'd see I never spoke about sex within the marriage relationship...I didn't feel I needed to, as Paul had already covered that in his epistles.  Also, you'd have seen what actually began this discussion in the first place was another member here adamantly insisting that we "may still have sex in the Kingdom"... (even if it was "outside of marriage").  Something that was roundly refuted by all, myself included (ultimately).

Once married, sex is optional should both sides agree.  I think that's the crux of Paul's commands to married folk, anyway.  Indeed, not all have the appetite.  I don't think any of us will in the next Age.  That's fine with me..

[Gina]

Neo:

(When a man "joins" himself to a harlot, that is an unholy marriage, and un-covenanted .)

\

How could a marriage (a covenant) be UNcovenanted? 

Your circuitry is clearly wired wrong.  A sexual act with a prostitute does not a marriage/covenant make.  It is adultery.  Plain and simple.   That's what God and Paul and Jesus called adultery.

God said to COME OUT OF HER!  God did not say, DIVORCE HER!

Why?  Because they are NOT married!

[Gina]

Neo: 

Also, you'd have seen what actually began this discussion in the first place was another member here adamantly insisting that we "may still have sex in the Kingdom"... (even if it was "outside of marriage").

You're right, there will not be sex in that age and resurrection of the ELECT:

Luke 20:35-36

but THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED W-O-R-T-H-Y to attain to THAT AGE and to THE resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God [not b-a-s-t-a-r-d-s, they didn't climb up some other way, they have their "wedding garments," they are NOT like the foolish virgins who took their lamps and no oil with them], being sons of THE resurrection.

As for the resurrection of the others, who knows?  I don't!  I could care less!  The elect have their minds on the things of the spirit.  But, those who have their minds on the flesh, seek after those things pertaining to the flesh.  Is that clear enough?

[lurquer]

Neo:

(When a man "joins" himself to a harlot, that is an unholy marriage, and un-covenanted .)

\

How could a marriage (a covenant) be UNcovenanted? 

Your circuitry is clearly wired wrong.  A sexual act with a prostitute does not a marriage/covenant make.  It is adultery.  Plain and simple.   That's what God and Paul and Jesus called adultery.

God said to COME OUT OF HER!  God did not say, DIVORCE HER!

Why?  Because they are NOT married!

I think all of your questions could be answered if you'd only actually read what I wrote...and pay attention to all the words.

As for your next post, all of that was gone over in another thread, which was locked because "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest."  You, of course, are free to do the same, sister.

[wat]

What I tried to say was, first,  "marriage" was a physical act between a man and a woman (possible because of the unique creation of their anatomy) which has lifelong, permanent consequences.  They become "one flesh".  Paul demonstrated how this could be done with a harlot.  This can't be undone.  BUT, the covenant of marriage, the 'institution' if you will (I hate that word), when legitimate,  is ALSO called "marriage".  Both of these are a mystery.  Both are initiated by a sexual union.  Leave that part out and we're not even talking about the same thing. I've long studied this subject and come to at least this conclusion:  To define a marriage so as to exclude the sexual nature of it truly eliminates any real meaning of marriage. It is a UNIQUE human relationship, instituted, and legitimized  by God (NOT the state), and that nature of it IS what makes it unique.  If you don't at least agree with that, then we just don't share the same logic circuitry, and there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

Neo, you're view is very complicated. No wonder you keep saying if only everyone would actually read your posts they would understand. I think almost everybody has read your posts and they still don't understand. You speak of two marriages, both called marriage, that are initiated by sexual union. But only consensual sex. I think Occam's Razor can be applied here, the simplest answer is correct.

I agree with your last sentence in my quote. There's no point in continuing this conversation. Like Gina, I'm settled on this matter. Arguing for another 30 posts wouldn't change anyone's mind.

[Gina]

Neo:

(When a man "joins" himself to a harlot, that is an unholy marriage, and un-covenanted .)

\

How could a marriage (a covenant) be UNcovenanted? 

Your circuitry is clearly wired wrong.  A sexual act with a prostitute does not a marriage/covenant make.  It is adultery.  Plain and simple.   That's what God and Paul and Jesus called adultery.

God said to COME OUT OF HER!  God did not say, DIVORCE HER!

Why?  Because they are NOT married!

I think all of your questions could be answered if you'd only actually read what I wrote...and pay attention to all the words.

As for your next post, all of that was gone over in another thread, which was locked because "people believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest."  You, of course, are free to do the same, sister.

I don't have any questions.  I'm sorry but the desire to read all of what you wrote just isn't there for me personally since I'm quite satisfied with the wisdom I have from above.  It might not be the answers you're looking for, but that's not my problem.  Eve had everything she needed but a snake convinced her it wasn't enough.  You're trying to convince me that the wisdom I've received from above isn't enough.  I need more.  No, I don't, thank you very much.

Godliness with contentment is great gain. God has convinced me that I shall not want.  I am content to be betrothed to the One who is unlike the gentiles who love to lord it over others.



(I'm STARVING.  I have to go get breakie.)


Raisin, Rice and Rye... bye-bye!

[Mike Gagne]

Neo: 

Also, you'd have seen what actually began this discussion in the first place was another member here adamantly insisting that we "may still have sex in the Kingdom"... (even if it was "outside of marriage").

You're right, there will not be sex in that age and resurrection of the ELECT:

Luke 20:35-36

but THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERED W-O-R-T-H-Y to attain to THAT AGE and to THE resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God [not b-a-s-t-a-r-d-s, they didn't climb up some other way, they have their "wedding garments," they are NOT like the foolish virgins who took their lamps and no oil with them], being sons of THE resurrection.

As for the resurrection of the others, who knows?  I don't!  I could care less!  The elect have their minds on the things of the spirit.  But, those who have their minds on the flesh, seek after those things pertaining to the flesh.  Is that clear enoug

. Amen to that Gina

[Ricky]

I thought Adam and Eve were brought together by God spiritually, no vows, no wedding, no limo, and no Pagan stuff; Maybe we should be doing the same.   Ricky