bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: lurquer on February 11, 2015, 10:12:46 PM
-
Well, I for one am sorry the last thread on speculation of the Kingdom Age was shut down. It got sidetracked by the (IMO) very carnal desire of one member to believe in the continuation of sex in the Age to come...albeit "outside of marriage". This was winked at by others because of the cloak of "no two witnesses to specifically disprove it". This cloak was used because the original cover of "it was just a joke" was exposed for what it was not...Too bad.
A silly thing to argue or debate anyway. Sophomoric speculation like that was not the point of the thread.
Anyway, the legitimate subject came up of what was the true nature of marriage (in this age and the next). Some of Ray's words from his study on marriage were used to support one side. I said I did not agree with them, and was called ignorant, and "a fox", unlearned in the scriptures, and one who obviously had no scripture myself to back up my beliefs.
That was a false challenge, because we all know to bring up scripture which tends to refute something Ray may have said or believed is immediate grounds for dismissal. Kat posted a snippet of Ray's ideas on marriage at the end (which I cannot directly comment on for the reasons explained). But I'll bring up an excerpt:
"What is a wedding? The act of marrying, the ceremony of a marriage, the exchanging of vows, the covenant agreement. That’s what marriage is. Interesting, marry - to wed, to unite a man and woman in wedlock, it’s the uniting process, it’s not the going to bed process on the honeymoon. It’s the actual uniting, the wedding, the wedding feast, the nuptials, the contract, the oaths."
Because I find this subject as interesting as the one we were caused to leave aside, but obviously much more relevant (and important!) I thought I'd ask a question that I've asked before. I never received an answer, but perhaps someone else here has...
If being "married", that is, the biblical definition of marriage, results solely from a ceremony, which is itself only the means for the stated end of "exchanging vows", taking an "oath", or speaking a "covenant or contract", then what is the vow? What exactly is being "vowed"? What does the contract need to say to be 'biblically legitimate'? In other words, if the true definition of marriage is a written or verbal formula--the magic words, if you will--shouldn't we know what they are? Wouldn't that be all-important? Because, that itself, according to Ray, "is what marriage is." And IF a contract establishes a marriage, all contracts can be broken by one side not following through...What grounds then does the contract specify will void the contract? You see if the contract theory of marriage is true, these are utterly important matters. (I am not being sarcastic or facetious).
Marriage is taking a vow.. Once you have taken the vow, then you have taken the vow, making you 'duly married'--a "vow-taker"... I won't be the one to suggest that's a tautology (I'll let another make that suggestion), but I will say it really reminds me of a video clip I once saw of a cop arresting a public defender--in court--who was attempting to tell her client he could remain silent...As the cuffs went on she asked what she was being arrested for, and he calmly said "you're under arrest for resisting arrest". If I think about that statement too much, I fear my head will explode.
Anyway, anyone who knows the words, please clue me in. If anyone has any suggestions for what they may be, I'd love to hear that as well.
One other thing, if marriage truly is just saying an oath in a ceremony, then how is "gay marriage" illegitimate? Sodomites know how to say oaths too. Show me how I have the logic wrong on that as well.
-
HI Neo, we haven't 'met' yet.
I think the thread is something we should talk about. Being a typical female myself, love and marriage go together, however we know Jacob did not love Leah as he loved Rachel and never intended to marry her. He was tricked into the marriage but still expected to hold up his end of the vow. And how does Genesis say Jacob and Rachel married? "Jacob went into her" after Laban gave her to him. However, when sex is impossible, are the couple still not married? And how does the symbolism of Christ and his church make itself known in the marriage covenant? My thinking is, as I've learned here, that the physical is a manifestation of the spiritual. It's a quandary no doubt. And one that I think we shall be called to account for because it's Important.
Now, let's me nice to each other brothers. We're called to account for how we treat each other also. ;0)
-
Hello Ms. Rose,
Very pleased to meet you.
The story of Jacob and Leah is a great starting point! I think it speaks volumes as to what the scriptures say "marriage" is... or isn't. For those who have ears to hear..
I'd love to consider the question you asked. Perhaps together we can figure this riddle out!
(Sorry, no emoticons--John would not approve.. but I'm 'winking').
-
Thank you Neo for your careful exposition of that vow idea.
Thank you October Rose for the dove of peace idea. :)
Let our words be palatable because we surely shall have to eat them.
There is a saying I was taught by my unbelieving mother many years ago...
"it is nice to be "important/correct", but it is more important to be nice" 8)
I-bob
-
Sorry to break up the love fest. But as Ray states in the article below all the huggie huggie kissie kissie stuff does leave one feeling a little ill in the midsection.
If some do not understand Ray's marriage study, then his study below probably cannot be understood either.
I better give a warning. Ray does quote Scriptures in this attached study just like in his marriage study.
I know that quoting Scriptures is not as much fun as speculation and deducing answers from ones intellect, but that's old Ray for you.
"THE KISS OF DEATH"
[Is your love pure or fake?]
I hear a lot of "huggie huggie kissie kissie" pious platitudes from the mouths of today’s religious hobbyists. Personally, it makes me a little ill in my midsection. Most of it is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Could you be guilty of using this emotional charade to deceive those you wish to impress?
There is nothing wrong with hugs, as I am quite fond of them myself. And there is nothing wrong with proper kissing. Paul instructs the assemblies to greet each with "an holy kiss" four times, and Peter instructs its use once, as a "kiss of charity."
The Greek word used is "philema." A "holy" kiss is merely a pure, sacred, ceremonial kiss—a simple kiss. Men no longer kiss men as a form of greeting non-family members in most western cultures—I’m personally kinda glad of that!
People also engage in "hugs and kisses" in their speech and writing. And this too can be fine and acceptable depending upon how it is done. At sixty-five, I still put a few xxxx’s and oooo’s at the bottom of a birthday card to my wife.
However, there is another way that hugs and kisses are used and overdone in which it is a camouflaged front to mask the real person that is no more holy than was Judas.
Had the twelve other Apostles already received the Holy Spirit of God, they would not have had to ask Jesus "who" is was that was about to betray Him—they would have known. Thank God that it is not possible to "deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24).
Like Satan’s ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:15), these deceivers are wolves, but they don’t come as wolves. These false teachers and deceivers:
"…come to you in SHEEP’S clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. 7:15).
But you could spot one of these "wolves" a mile off, couldn’t you? Just look for the GIANT TEETH that Little Red Riding Hood encountered, right?
"O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched [Gk: ‘to fascinate by false representations] you…" (Gal. 3:1).
The "wolves" COME IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING! You don’t see their teeth. They don’t show their teeth. They only show you a huggie huggie kissie kissie pious religious smile. THAT my friends, that pious front, IS the "sheep’s clothing." Wolves BITE, and their bite can be deadly:
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you be not consumed one of another" (Gal. 5:15).
Now then, where are we to find these "wolves and sheep’s clothing" coming with hugs and kisses to deceive and devour? Well, wherever the SHEEP are found.
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous [savage] wolves enter in among YOU, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men [and women] arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).
Didn’t we all witness this ourselves in recent months? Are all the wolves gone now? Of course not—there will always be wolves wherever there are sheep.
I’m warning you: Wolves come in "sheep’s clothing," full of smiles, and hugs, and kisses. You will not see their teeth until it is too late.
Judas was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The apostles saw a sheep—Jesus saw a wolf. What was Judas’ ultimate sheep’s camouflage? Why, wasn’t it a simple, sincere, pure, godly "kiss?" Think again.
"Now he that betrayed Him give them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is He: hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed Him" (Matt. 26:48-49).
You have all seen this drama acted out many times in films—a simple little peck on Jesus’ cheek. Oh really?
The five Scriptures using the word "kiss" from Paul and Peter, always used the Greek word "philema" which means "kiss" and nothing else. In Luke 22:48 we read this:
"But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betray you the Son of man with a kiss [Gk: a simple ‘philema’ kiss]?"
But in Matt. 26:48, we find something totally different. Judas told the elders and chief priest:
"…whomsoever I shall [PHILEO—passionate fondness] kiss, that same is He…"
Judas did not have a "philema" kiss in mind at all. The "kiss" in Matt. 26:48 is a "phileo" kiss, and it means a fond, affectionate, passionate kiss, not a simple "philemo kiss." And the elders and high priest knew the different in these two words. One was a peck on the cheek, but Judas determined to use a more a passionate, huggie huggie kissie kissie display in his attempt to betray Jesus to the devouring and ravaging wolves.
This is really intriguing stuff. Now after Judas tells the priest and elders what kind of a kiss he will give Jesus [a phileo kiss] to betray Jesus, He actually delivers this kiss. And how does he do that? He does it with yet another Greek word for kiss, which is, "kataphileo" mean "to kiss EARNESTLY."
This "kataphileo kiss" is used three other times in Scriptures:
Luke 7:45—"You gave me no kiss [no affectionate ‘phileo’ kiss, Jesus admonishes His disciples] but this woman since the time I came in has not ceased to kiss [‘kataphileo kisses’—earnestly] My feet."
Luke 15:20—"And he [the prodigal son] arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him [earnestly and passionately with a ‘kataphileo kisses’]."
Acts 20:37—"And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck, and kissed him [with ‘kataphileo kisses’ of great passion and earnest]."
Is it not abundantly clear that this super emotional use of hugs and kisses was used only on the most RARE occasions of deep and profound emotional circumstances? But this is not proper conduct for everyday behavior. See these over-pious charlatans for what they are. Be suspect of those who use super-pious and sanctimonious hugs and kisses every day of the week.
Now to the Judas Kiss of Death:
"And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and KISSED HIM."
The Greek is "kisses"—multiple kisses, with ‘kataphilio kisses, just as we find in every single use of this word in Scriptures I showed above.
No, Judas did not betray Jesus with a peck on the cheek; he deceitfully delivered a "huggie huggie kissie kissie, fraudulent hugs and KISSES OF DEATH!
What must we learn from all this? Whenever we pretend to be Christ-like but it’s all a charade, we too are guilty of giving Christ a Judas kiss of death. What a disgusting display of the carnal mind and flesh, Judas has left us. Some have vengeance in their heart, others vanity, others bitterness and hatred, and yet others uncontrollable sins of the flesh, but they try to camouflage their evils with a plethora of hugs and kisses to all.
Don’t be afraid to hug; don’t be afraid to kiss, but beware of such phony displays of pious emotions, as they could be your "KISS OF DEATH."
A spiritual hug to you all, from my heart,
Ray
-
Actually, there will be sex in the coming age............
but those who are in Jesus in this age.................no more!
Luke 20:27
Isaiah 65:20-23
The "wolves" COME IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING! You don’t see their teeth. They don’t show their teeth. They only show you a huggie huggie kissie kissie pious religious smile. THAT my friends, that pious front, IS the "sheep’s clothing." Wolves BITE, and their bite can be deadly:
santgem
-
Hi Michael,
I would like to bring up a point in what is being discussed from Ray 'Marriage" article and that is he is only speaking of the 'definition' of what constitutes a 'marriage' and not what is involved in the actual state of being married. Here are excerpts that show this.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5675.0.html -------
I’m going to talk about what constitutes marriage, not the marriage state of how to have a happy marriage, that’s a subject for another Bible study.
v
It is not what most people think and people will be dumb founded when they find out what the Bible has to say about marriage. I’m going to give you a little secret, the marriage state, that is the institution of two people being married together, sharing their lives together, living in a home producing children, so on and so forth, of that the Bible has virtually nothing to say. Yet the word marriage or marry is in there over and over and over and over… but not the things I just said.
v
(5) We are espoused or betrothed to Christ. 2 Cor. 11:2 “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” This is talking about the betrothal, the espousal even before the wedding ceremony.
Why does He call us espoused to Christ? Because we are not married yet to Christ. When are we to be married to Christ? When does the scripture say? In the resurrection, right. What is that marriage? What does it say in Rev. 19:7 that we are going to have? “…For the marriage of the Lamb has come…” It’s a wedding ceremony! It uses the word marriage twice there, in chapter 19. It says marriage, but that’s the contract or the covenant.
Then in verse 9 it adds a word to marriage, “the marriage supper.” This is all part of the festivities of a marriage ceremony, not marriage itself.
(6) Numerous times God likens His spiritual union with His Elect saints to that of the physical espousal, physical wedding ceremony and physical wedding supper or feast, with little mention of the conditions of the later marriage itself.
Isa 62:5 For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over you.
So when we read ‘marriage’ in the Bible, especially in the New Test. You are going to have to readjust your thinking. It is not talking about the marriage state, it’s talking about the getting married. Always, getting married, the ceremony.
(7) Jesus likewise likens His spiritual union with the Elect, with virgins waiting for Christ the Bridegroom to return for a wedding (Matt. 25:10). A wedding - the ceremony and wedding feast/supper of a marriage.
He’s called the Bridegroom. You know what a Bridegroom is, that is somebody who is not yet exchanged the vows or oath to become the husband. That's why He is the Bridegroom. It all has to do with before marriage and during the ceremony and the supper and the festivities connected with it, almost every place you read it in the Bible.
What this person says in the email is not true, it is totally off base.
(08) Sex outside of marriage is adultery and whoredom, by definition. Of course most people are guilty of that, yours truly included. But that is the fact, it is called adultery and whoredom.
Heb 13:4 Marriage (matrimony) is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Marriage would probably been better translated matrimony, that is actually the marriage state, when a couple are married and living together as husband and wife. That institution there, matrimony. But notice what He contrasts it with… matrimony is honorable, what is matrimony? It’s somebody who went through a wedding with exchanging of vows and forming a covenant.
v
Notice what He contrast it with… matrimony. The marriage institution is honorable and the bed undefiled - having sex together as a husband and wife. The word undefiled, that’s kind of a semi-negative to me, the word is pure. Why put undefiled? The word is pure. The marriage bed between a husband and wife is pure in God’s eyes. It’s pure to have sex with your wife or your mate, that’s pure.
But notice what the opposite is, if it’s not marriage, “…but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” If you are not in matrimony in your wedding bed, what does God consider you? A whoremonger and a adulterer. Now do I need to read Rev. 21:8, “All whoremongers will find their place in the Lake of fire.” Is that not clear enough there? People don’t put these things together. If you are not married, but you live together, you are a whoremonger and adulterer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
This is my understanding.
As I have said in many posts before The tree of Life has 2 names, Good And Evil
First up to lay a foundation ...the biggest miracle which happened to me thru Rays writings, taught me ...To hear and understand the word Carnally is BAD (our own interpretation /understanding is DEATH)many of us walk in this state.
The good part of tree in the garden is Spirit and Life the Evil part of the tree is Death or carnality.
When Jesus was confronted by the "churchy folk" regarding whose wife is the woman after 7 husbands died...he said
Mat 22:29, "You are deceived, not being acquainted with the scriptures, nor yet with the power of God."
Mat 22:30 for in the resurrection neither are they marrying nor taking in marriage, but are as messengers of God in heaven."
To reiterate what Ray said, Heaven is not a geographical location heaven is IN you.... so heaven is a state of mind and, as far as I can see from the word, a 3rd state /level of heaven (spiritual understanding) is attainable.
In order to enter heaven one MUST be born a new/born again/be resurrected.
With this in mind
Eph 5:31 For this "a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh."
Eph 5:32 this secret is great: yet I am saying this as to Christ and as to the ecclesia.
Eph 5:33 Moreover, you also individually, each be loving his own wife thus, as himself, yet that the wife may be fearing the husband." Note - we are to fear God
So to a higher level of understanding
Jesus is the groom I am the Bride, once I am at a level of spiritual maturity(remember we are as new born babes and we grow) I live as though I am not physically married to a woman
1Co 7:29 Now this I am averring, brethren, the era is limited; that, furthermore, those also having wives may be as not having them,
so if Jesus is becoming my all, he is in me and I am in him (we become one). Physically the 2 become 1 flesh; spiritually I and Christ become 1 in spirit.
We then, also have spiritual offspring
So the “50 shades of Grey” stuff is not applicable when walking in the spirit or in the spiritual understanding of what marriage is.
One can as does get involved in spiritual adultery, that is walking with a carnal mind and “hopping” over to the mind of Christ - as Paul states “starting off in the spirit and ending up in the flesh”. I believe this is necessary part of our becoming 1 in the spirit.
David pleads with God Not to take his Holy Spirit from him, I believe when we walk according to the flesh we are committing adultery against Christ.
But, fear not, he always brings us back.
Ian
-
This is my understanding.
As I have said in many posts before The tree of Life has 2 names, Good And Evil
First up to lay a foundation ...the biggest miracle which happened to me thru Rays writings, taught me ...To hear and understand the word Carnally is BAD (our own interpretation /understanding is DEATH)many of us walk in this state.
The good part of tree in the garden is Spirit and Life the Evil part of the tree is Death or carnality.
Ian, there were 2 trees represented in the garden.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The "Tree of Life" represents Christ and the Holy Spirit and there is absolutely no evil in that what so ever.
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represents our partaking of this physical/carnal life, the good and the evil of it.
so if Jesus is becoming my all, he is in me and I am in him (we become one). Physically the 2 become 1 flesh; spiritually I and Christ become 1 in spirit.
The elect have not physical or spiritual join and become one with Christ yet, not until the first resurrection. Yes there is the begettal/earnest/promise now with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but this is not born/joined/one with Christ now in this life, that is yet to come.
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born (begotten CLV) again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
v. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
v. 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
1Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
v. 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
v. 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1Cor 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
Here is a couple places where Ray spoke about this.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4472.0.html ----------
You got to be careful, when Christ said, “except you be born again” we are not born again. But we are begotten anew, from on high. Some of these words are left out of the KJ. It should be “we are begotten anew, from on high.” You are begotten once in the flesh from our parents. Now we are begotten anew, a new begettal from on high. When we are born into the kingdom of God, then we are made where our flesh and blood is turned into spiritual bodies. We will be like God, brother of Christ, like God. So which of the of the sons did He ever say that? Well He said that to His Son, but He never said it to the angels.
http://bible-truths.com/lake16-D5.htm ------------------------
"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. 6:4).
But we are not literally resurrected to immortality as Jesus was, when we are raised from the dead after being baptized into JESUS, are we? No, not literally, that is why Paul says we are to, "reckon you also yourselves to be dead."
"Likewise r-e-c-k-o-n you also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:11).
The Greek word for "reckon" means "to estimate, conclude, impute, reason, reckon, suppose, think." It is not necessary to "reckon" something that is literally a present reality. In the future we will literally be free from all sin and literally have immortality in resurrection, but for now we can just "reckon" it.
This death is not a literal, physical death, but it is a REAL death, and it is most important:
"Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him" (Rom. 6:08).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Hi Kat,
I appreciate what you said regarding Ray's study, "that is he is only speaking of the 'definition' of what constitutes a 'marriage' and not what is involved in the actual state of being married."
I understood that. He wasn't giving advice on how to be happily married, or an exposition of Paul's commands to husbands and wives on how they should treat each other.. He was only speaking of the definition of marriage.. that is, who can rightly claim to be married. Regardless of what they've done (or not done) to each other in the married state. In other words, the relationship is irrelevant.
But I'm not talking about that either. If I claim to be married (per Ray's understanding), I must produce evidence of a vow. What was the vow, and where is it now?
These questions naturally lead to other questions (see my first post). I think they need to be discussed, as they are important issues that can easily lead believers (especially young ones) to make lifelong errors if they are incorrectly understood. In fact, this subject naturally dovetails into the next, which is the nature of sexual sin, and why it is fundamentally different than any other sin. Very few have a good handle on why that is so (myself included), but it is intriguing.
So who has some answers for me!
-
Neo, I think Kat accurately answered the question you raised in the first post--assuming I got what the question was.
As to the rest, Paul said this to those "still carnal" Corinthians which goes into 'detail' above and beyond the simple commandment for these yet immature believers:
1Co 6:13-20 Food is for the belly; and the belly is for food; but God will bring them both to naught. But the body is not for whoredom, but for our Lord; and our Lord for the body. And God hath raised up our Lord; and he will raise us up, by his power.
Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of the Messiah? Shall one take a member of the Messiah, and make it the member of a harlot? Far be it. Or know ye not, that whoever joineth himself to a harlot, is one body [with her]? For it is said, They twain shall be one body. But he that joineth himself to our Lord, is with him one spirit.
Flee whoredom. For every [other] sin which a man committeth, is external to his body; but he that committeth whoredom, sinneth against his own body. Or know ye not, that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who abideth in you, whom ye have received from God? And ye are not your own. For ye are bought with a price. Therefore, glorify ye God, with your body, and with your spirit, which are God's.
I can add this, I think, with some confidence. Unlawful "fornication" may also require the participation of another who ALSO is sinning against his/her own body. That's NOT the law of Love.
Look at what Paul says here. Read ALL the words. This isn't 'code' for 'whoredom is OK'.
--------
You said, "I must produce evidence of a vow. What was the vow, and where is it now?"
I reckon if I were married, I'd know already what vow I had taken.
-
I want to add to what Dave said. Instead of trying to regurgitate what was said to me, I will share a message from a dear brother that I think is relevant here:
I quote:
"I also agree with JFK that it's good to remember that some of the circumstances of the Corinthian church may not apply to us. Paul wrote of a "present distress" (1 Cor. 7:26) which led him to believe it was better to not marry. But he also conceded he had "no commandment from the Lord" concerning the subject (7:25). The same Paul who advised the Corinthians not to marry also condemned those who "forbid to marry" (1 Tim. 4:3). This was written several years after 1 Corinthians. Maybe circumstances had changed (this letter was written to Timothy, not the Corinthian church), or maybe Paul changed his mind about the matter. Possibly in 1 Corinthians Paul thought Christ's return was imminent, but later on he realized it wasn't. Who knows?"
Here are those actual verses as mentioned above:
1 Cor 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
1 Cor 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Then later to Timothy he writes:
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Hope this helps.
God bless,
Alex
-
Kat
Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 2:17 Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.
this is A tree but represents 2 things i believe carnal and spiritual the Lust,lust and the pride is carnal or interpreted by our senses the Good Is the interpretation by the spirit and so is the war today carnal vs spiritual (this is what I am seeing ) I may not be fully enlightened on this yet
The tree of life is representative of Christ I believe I was referring to the tree in the midst
Paul was in Heaven.... full stop,
Marriage is spiritual as per Paul's writings on the "mystery"
do you know who are elect and who are not ?if so how
here is some of my language
As I am so are you...
You are a new creation the OLD has passed
As new born babes desire solid food ...dump the milk
When something is new what does that mean
Begotten a new, Resurrected, reborn,born again are one and the same... I believe
Did Paul walk in heaven ? because FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT.
yet he was living when he told us of a story 14 years earlier .
I am pointing out that one does not have to physically die to be resurrected and to walk in that power
I believe The Marriage is between Us and Christ in my mind that is the end of the story any other interpretation is carnal and does not profit anyone
Would you want to deny these young ones of their place seated with him above why would you prevent them believing that resurrection is for now, change is available now,A New creation a Royal priesthood... yea in the twinkling of an eye.
You are above not beneath,the head not the tail
NOW is the time ,now is the hour is not complicated?
Dont you want to know Him and the POWER of his resurrection?
Do you not see that to die to Lust of Flesh and lust of eye and Pride of life is for now?
Have you been scorned,mocked ,slapped,spat on?have you screamed why OH GOD have you forsaken me?have you been betrayed?do you have a broken heart?is your heart contrite?are you numb that you cover your mouth as did Job and don't know it all ?
then my word says If you have suffered with him You will reign with him,where does it say oh there's a catch... not now ,in some future non existent time where I cannot find the scripture.Who determines what the word "Will"' timeframe is ?
These are questions out of frustration ...either you walk in the spirit or I do
This is what you teach....
The elect have not physical or spiritual join and become one with Christ yet, not until the first resurrection. Yes there is the begettal/earnest/promise now with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but this is not born/joined/one with Christ now in this life, that is yet to come.
comment: not physically or spiritually Joined .... is he not the vine ? are we not the branches ? can we be cut off ?
2nd part
provide scripture and verse on the phrase "not born joined now in this life it is yet to come" 1 john 4 v17 disputes this,so do a few more
the below Scriptures you posted to me do not justify your teaching nor do they in anyway state yet or future time or anything like that. however let me say this may be because I am not as enlightened as you
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born (begotten CLV) again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Well was Paul born again ??
John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Did Paul Go to the 3rd heaven ?
v. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
v. 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
This does certainly not indicate we are wind ? what about... the spirit moves us(just like wind moves us) we know not why, or where it will take us ? not even Christ went where he wished, he went where God sent him.
1Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again[/u] to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, read this again and again
v. 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, where is your heaven?
v. 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Any Idea when this last time Is
1John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. once again we know not how we will turn out no time given but neither is time given to when christ shows up in us/to us,can we be like him now ?
1Cor 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known; Do you know when the THEN is ?
Ian
-
Back at Alex. "Is is good for a man not to marry" EXCEPT...
Except when it IS good. Better to marry than to burn. Better to remain in whatever state (married or unmarried) you were in when you were called. Bad is bad. Worse is worse. Good is good. Better is better.
---------
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Ian, you are out of your league and out of line.
tick tick tick tick.
Here's fair warning...I will remove any post in this thread that departs from the OP.
-
Back at Alex. "Is is good for a man not to marry" EXCEPT...
Except when it IS good. Better to marry than to burn. Better to remain in whatever state (married or unmarried) you were in when you were called. Bad is bad. Worse is worse. Good is good. Better is better.
---------
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Ian, you are out of your league and out of line.
tick tick tick tick.
Here's fair warning...I will remove any post in this thread that departs from the OP.
Yes Dave,
I agree, Paul was not expressly forbidding marriage in his writtings to the corinthians. He condemns those who do forbid it though. So ye, there is harmony in his writtings and I see that.
Just thought I'd add that there is wisdom in acknowledging Paul wrote of a "PRESENT distress" that was very specific to the corinthians though what he wrote was preserved for our admonishment too so of course we should read closely and understand.
God bless,
Alex
-
If being "married", that is, the biblical definition of marriage, results solely from a ceremony, which is itself only the means for the stated end of "exchanging vows", taking an "oath", or speaking a "covenant or contract", then what is the vow? What exactly is being "vowed"? What does the contract need to say to be 'biblically legitimate'? In other words, if the true definition of marriage is a written or verbal formula--the magic words, if you will--shouldn't we know what they are? Wouldn't that be all-important? Because, that itself, according to Ray, "is what marriage is." And IF a contract establishes a marriage, all contracts can be broken by one side not following through...What grounds then does the contract specify will void the contract? You see if the contract theory of marriage is true, these are utterly important matters. (I am not being sarcastic or facetious).
Michael, well there is this Scripture.
Mal 2:13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.
v. 14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
v. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
Of course God is serious about the wedding vows we say, this actually forms a spiritual covenants with Him. Legally the vows form a verbal contract that the couple are joined and share property and debt, and all responsibilities of the marriage. God says He witnesses these vows, they are made before Him and it unites the 2 to become 1. The vows form a legal commitment and then sexual intercourse 'consummates' the marriage. In most states a marriage that is not consummated with intercourse can be annulled, if that is desirable. Whereas divorce dissolves a marriage, getting an annulment voids the marriage completely, as if it never happened. Marriage being a signed legal contact, means a couple must go through the court system to divorce.
Jesus reinforces this scarceness of the marriage covenant when asked about divorce by the Pharisees.
Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
v. 5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
v. 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
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."
The marriage commitment is so important, that God instituted it at the very beginning with the first recorded history of mankind, Adam and Eve.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Hope this is helpful.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Kat, I very much appreciate the time and thought you put into your posts. I do read them carefully. I somehow feel like many others here do not make the same effort...careful reading is important.
You do understand what I am asking, I see. You offered an interesting scripture in Malachi which mentions a "covenant". But the problem is we do not know what the covenant is. Let me just say this: Some marriages begin by covenant indeed, this is what an "espousal" actually is...a "promise"...to be married. When a man had espoused a woman to be his wife (or more likely covenanted with the father of the woman to take his daughter to wife) he was considered 'as good as married'. We see this played out in the story of Joseph and Mary--in that he is called "her husband" even though they had not yet 'had a ceremony' (or none is recorded), nor had they yet "consummated" the marriage. BUT, he had a legal right (in Jewish law) to "put her away privately" when he found she was pregnant (it was obviously not his).
Let's stop just a second.. Let's even say they actually had a 'ceremony and the exchange of vows' prior to her becoming pregnant. Whatever the case, at that point, the scriptures say he was "her husband" (Matt1:19) Ok?
Now, therefore the angel of the Lord had to personally tell Joseph what was going on and to "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife..." (vs. 20). She was not his wife yet. He had not taken her to wife. But how can that be, if they'd already covenanted with each other?? Because the covenant is not the THING...It is the PROMISE of the thing. Once the thing occurs, the covenant is no longer necessary. It has been fulfilled. Surely we all understand this concept, as New Testament believers.
This is the covenant Malachi is speaking of. We ourselves have been given the same covenant by Christ in that we are now espoused to Him. We are not yet married, but we reckon ourselves as though we are (Paul speaks much on this as you know). The Marriage has not been consummated.
So again, there may be a vow, but we have just seen that the vow is not the thing. This, I know, is contrary to what Ray said. He said 'it was the thing itself'.
But do all marriages begin with a vow? If a marriage is a "union between a man and a woman, wherein they become joined as one flesh" (you quote Genesis 2:24 to verify this) then those who have become one flesh are married. Have I made a logic error here? I hope not.
Dave, I appreciate what you wrote, and your warning was helpful. You posted in part, this quote from 1Cor 6:
"Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of the Messiah? Shall one take a member of the Messiah, and make it the member of a harlot? Far be it. Or know ye not, that whoever joineth himself to a harlot, is one body [with her]? For it is said, They twain shall be one body."
This is very interesting. We just defined marriage as a "union between a man and a woman, wherein they become joined as one flesh" (we got this from Genesis). Why was Paul warning those to flee from fornication? Because "the twain shall be one". You have married yourself to a harlot. Where is the vow in that marriage? What oath was taken between the two? I'd reckon none, except a promise to pay a certain sum. (Some harlots give it away for free though!). And who were the witnesses to that transaction? I'd venture none. Yet they became married, according to Paul.
Yet there was a Witness. There is always a witness to every marriage, legitimate or not. The same Who witnessed the union of Adam and Eve.
None of that was to say which marriages are "legal" or not; I'm not speaking of that...the "vows and legal commitments" that you mentioned, Kat, are a state conception, and it is irrelevant to God. That is why a "legal marriage" between two men is NOT a marriage to God. Man's laws are irrelevant; God invented marriage and His definition will always trump man's.
Finally, you said,
"The vows form a legal commitment and it is sexual intercourse that 'consummates' the marriage. In most states a marriage that is not consummated with intercourse can be annulled. Whereas divorce dissolves a marriage, getting an annulment voids the marriage completely, as if it never happened."
Well, is that what Ray teaches? Is not the vow, the legal commitment, the thing itself? But if it is, then how does a "legal annulment" for an "unconsummated marriage" undo the vow? It can't; that's called 'having your cake and eating it too'.
Unless...the vow was to consummate the marriage. Therefore, sex has everything to do with marriage.
I hope you can see how badly woven this whole yarn is that the CHURCH has foisted on us via the STATE. Ray once said something along the lines of "the Church has gotten nothing right, not one thing..." Well they got this wrong too. But it seems somehow Ray got tangled up in it.
Hopefully we can get into Octoberose's excellent observations soon. Thanks for paying attention to all the words!
-
Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 2:17 Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.
this is A tree but represents 2 things i believe carnal and spiritual the Lust,lust and the pride is carnal or interpreted by our senses the Good Is the interpretation by the spirit and so is the war today carnal vs spiritual (this is what I am seeing ) I may not be fully enlightened on this yet
The tree of life is representative of Christ I believe I was referring to the tree in the midst
Eve partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a parable that represents this life, everybody that lives is given this spirit/breath of life, the "good and evil." That is just living this life, it's not all bad, there is some good, but there is always evil that comes with it.
There is no spiritual war/struggle going on with the vast majority of mankind right now. The Holy Spirit is only given to a very few that God has chosen and draws to Christ and only these few are struggling to die to self/carnality, putting on the new man.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
All those Scripture that speaks of the "war of carnal vs spiritual" is speaking to believers that have been given of that Holy Spirit now. But that only began to be given at Pentecost after Jesus Christ was sacrificed and became the Redeemer.
John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
v. 38 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
v. 39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
So as you can see the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not give the Holy Spirit, that can only come from Christ Jesus, the Tree of life.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
The "vow" is the oath, pledge, promise, bond, covenant, commitment, avowal, profession, affirmation, attestation, assurance, guarantee and your word to uphold the marriage contract. (Yes I looked these up).
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.
Some people cannot have sex for physical reasons but are legally married just the same.
So what you are saying is if there is never any sex the marriage is void and either person can walk out even after 20 years of living under a contract. No strings attached. No obligations. No nothing. Just leave and let the other person fend for themselves because there was never any sex.
the vow was to consummate the marriage
Show me a verse that says this. Not conjecture, but a verse.
-
In case anyone is being confused by the idea that Ian put forth that there is only one tree in the garden, let me put an end to that confusion with this:
Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Two tree's here. If that isn't enough. After Adam ate the apple
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
God decides to prevent them from ALSO eating from the tree of life:
Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
So God banishes them from the garden.
Now listen, if these two tree's are the same tree then when adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he would have also eaten of the tree of life. Yet after he eats of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God can still prevent him from eating from the tree of life. That can only be possible if they are two different trees! Gen 3:22 doesn't read "Les now he put forth his hand and take also of the fruit of life." No, this wasn't one tree with two different fruits on it. Fruits of knowledge of good and evil and fruits of life, no. This is two different trees, each bearing fruit after their own kind.
The second point I will make to end this is that the tree of life gives Aionion life. It says it right there in Gen 3:22. Humanity does not possess Aionion life, that only comes through Christ. Only those that overcome are given Aionion life to reign with Christ. That is not ALL of humanity.
Joh_20:31 Yet these are written that you should be believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life eonian in His name
Rom_6:23 For the wages of Sin is death, yet the gracious gift of God is life eonian, in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
-
Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 2:17 Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.
this is A tree but represents 2 things i believe carnal and spiritual the Lust,lust and the pride is carnal or interpreted by our senses the Good Is the interpretation by the spirit and so is the war today carnal vs spiritual (this is what I am seeing ) I may not be fully enlightened on this yet
The tree of life is representative of Christ I believe I was referring to the tree in the midst
Eve partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a parable that represents this life, everybody that lives is given this spirit/breath of life, the "good and evil." That is just living this life, it's not all bad, there is some good, but there is always evil that comes with it.
I believe this is a parable however one needs to use /mention the persons named in order to explain it I mean I dont believe this is a literal tree
There is no spiritual war/struggle going on with the vast majority of mankind right now. The Holy Spirit is only given to a very few that God has chosen and draws to Christ and only these few are struggling to die to self/carnality, putting on the new man.
Well Kat I do believe there is constant war in our minds or in the area of understanding ...this war is about the truth or the lie I believe it is the Holy Spirit who enables us in the discernment process I mean even kids get so oppressed so I dont know really in terms of what you are say re majority, I really don't know this stuff I mean Jesus rebuked the disciple for questioning the "judas"outcome
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. This is true, all will though
All those Scripture that speaks of the "war of carnal vs spiritual" is speaking to believers that have been given of that Holy Spirit now. But that only began to be given at Pentecost after Jesus Christ was sacrificed and became the Redeemer. Kat do you /could one say pentecost is not a particular day I mean my pentecost could be different from yours ?
John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
v. 38 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
v. 39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
So as you can see the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not give the Holy Spirit, that can only come from Christ Jesus, the Tree of life.
Well i venture to suggest it facilitates the process which seems is, 1st partake,then "death",and once we die and are reborn well it comes into play one must die... according to sovereign design, If we examine Saul he was struck down to the dust,he was raised Paul, I mean he had to be a pharisee 1st in order to be a son
What I was trying to say is we need the bad to notice good and vice versa Ray would say, hot is needed in order to know cold.
Anyway this is way off the initial post I made re Marriage
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Kat, I very much appreciate the time and thought you put into your posts. I do read them carefully. I somehow feel like many others here do not make the same effort...careful reading is important.
You do understand what I am asking, I see. You offered an interesting scripture in Malachi which mentions a "covenant". But the problem is we do not know what the covenant is. Let me just say this: Some marriages begin by covenant indeed, this is what an "espousal" actually is...a "promise"...to be married. When a man had espoused a woman to be his wife (or more likely covenanted with the father of the woman to take his daughter to wife) he was considered 'as good as married'. We see this played out in the story of Joseph and Mary--in that he is called "her husband" even though they had not yet 'had a ceremony' (or none is recorded), nor had they yet "consummated" the marriage. BUT, he had a legal right (in Jewish law) to "put her away privately" when he found she was pregnant (it was obviously not his).
Let's stop just a second.. Let's even say they actually had a 'ceremony and the exchange of vows' prior to her becoming pregnant. Whatever the case, at that point, the scriptures say he was "her husband" (Matt1:19) Ok?
Now, therefore the angel of the Lord had to personally tell Joseph what was going on and to "fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife..." (vs. 20). She was not his wife yet. He had not taken her to wife. But how can that be, if they'd already covenanted with each other?? Because the covenant is not the THING...It is the PROMISE of the thing. Once the thing occurs, the covenant is no longer necessary. It has been fulfilled. Surely we all understand this concept, as New Testament believers.
This is the covenant Malachi is speaking of. We ourselves have been given the same covenant by Christ in that we are now espoused to Him. We are not yet married, but we reckon ourselves as though we are (Paul speaks much on this as you know). The Marriage has not been consummated.
So again, there may be a vow, but we have just seen that the vow is not the thing. This, I know, is contrary to what Ray said. He said 'it was the thing itself'.
But do all marriages begin with a vow? If a marriage is a "union between a man and a woman, wherein they become joined as one flesh" (you quote Genesis 2:24 to verify this) then those who have become one flesh are married. Have I made a logic error here? I hope not.
Dave, I appreciate what you wrote, and your warning was helpful. You posted in part, this quote from 1Cor 6:
"Know ye not, that your bodies are the members of the Messiah? Shall one take a member of the Messiah, and make it the member of a harlot? Far be it. Or know ye not, that whoever joineth himself to a harlot, is one body [with her]? For it is said, They twain shall be one body."
This is very interesting. We just defined marriage as a "union between a man and a woman, wherein they become joined as one flesh" (we got this from Genesis). Why was Paul warning those to flee from fornication? Because "the twain shall be one". You have married yourself to a harlot. Where is the vow in that marriage? What oath was taken between the two? I'd reckon none, except a promise to pay a certain sum. (Some harlots give it away for free though!). And who were the witnesses to that transaction? I'd venture none. Yet they became married, according to Paul.
Yet there was a Witness. There is always a witness to every marriage, legitimate or not. The same Who witnessed the union of Adam and Eve.
None of that was to say which marriages are "legal" or not; I'm not speaking of that...the "vows and legal commitments" that you mentioned, Kat, are a state conception, and it is irrelevant to God. That is why a "legal marriage" between two men is NOT a marriage to God. Man's laws are irrelevant; God invented marriage and His definition will always trump man's.
Finally, you said,
"The vows form a legal commitment and it is sexual intercourse that 'consummates' the marriage. In most states a marriage that is not consummated with intercourse can be annulled. Whereas divorce dissolves a marriage, getting an annulment voids the marriage completely, as if it never happened."
Well, is that what Ray teaches? Is not the vow, the legal commitment, the thing itself? But if it is, then how does a "legal annulment" for an "unconsummated marriage" undo the vow? It can't; that's called 'having your cake and eating it too'.
Unless...the vow was to consummate the marriage. Therefore, sex has everything to do with marriage.
I hope you can see how badly woven this whole yarn is that the CHURCH has foisted on us via the STATE. Ray once said something along the lines of "the Church has gotten nothing right, not one thing..." Well they got this wrong too. But it seems somehow Ray got tangled up in it.
Hopefully we can get into Octoberose's excellent observations soon. Thanks for paying attention to all the words!
But do all marriages begin with a vow? If a marriage is a "union between a man and a woman, wherein they become joined as one flesh" (you quote Genesis 2:24 to verify this) then those who have become one flesh are married. Have I made a logic error here? I hope not.
In this comment I do have a different view on this union between Adam and Eve. There is only a very brief description of what happened there, but did they just have sex creating a marriage? I don't think so, look at this verse.
Gen 2:22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
God brought her to Adam, I believe this not only could have, but did represented the wedding and also the vows, as even to this day the Father of the bride 'gives' the bride to the man. It was also the verse that first says, "a man shall leave his father and mother," obviously a woman has to do the same thing. But that is stated first because that comes first, that in ancient time that (the procession of the man and the woman leaving their home) it was a much greater part of the wedding ceremony. So after that happens then "they shall become one flesh."
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Why was Paul warning those to flee from fornication? Because "the twain shall be one". You have married yourself to a harlot. Where is the vow in that marriage? What oath was taken between the two? I'd reckon none, except a promise to pay a certain sum. (Some harlots give it away for free though!). And who were the witnesses to that transaction? I'd venture none. Yet they became married, according to Paul.
Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
What Paul does say also is that "a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife," as I already said this comes first, and I believe this represents the wedding.
Now Paul did say that somebody that joins - has sex with a prostitute becomes one body with her, and this is true that is exactly what happens during sex.
1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."
But Paul is not saying they are married, that is a far stretch assume to make, maybe in some cultures, but not what God instituted or what Paul is saying... just saying, that cannot be accurate as I see it.
The ceremony and the vows is what God instituted to come first, it is a commitment to each other before God and brings a blessing from God, then the marriage begins, sex included.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
In case anyone is being confused by the idea that Ian put forth that there is only one tree in the garden, let me put an end to that confusion with this:
Sunshine..... I did not say there is only one tree I said humankind did "Eve" referred to one tree when speaking with the "serpent"
quote Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 3:2 And saying is the woman to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we are eating,
Gen 3:3 yet from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, the Elohim says, `Not eat of it shall you, and not touch it shall you, lest you be dying..
-
Kat do you /could one say pentecost is not a particular day I mean my pentecost could be different from yours ?
John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
v. 38 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
v. 39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Ian, I gave you this outright statement of Scripture from Christ Jesus and you ignored it and that's how you are going to explain that the Holy Spirit wasn't only given after His resurrection... by saying Pentecost is not on a particular day? What?
You can believe whatever you so desire, but your continuing in bringing these obscured ideas here is a big problem...
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Kat do you /could one say pentecost is not a particular day I mean my pentecost could be different from yours ?
John 7:37 On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.
v. 38 Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"
v. 39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Ian, I gave you this outright statement of Scripture from Christ Jesus and you ignored it and that's how you are going to explain that the Holy Spirit was only given after His resurrection... by saying Pentecost is not on a particular day? What? HUH
You can believe whatever you so desire, but your continuing in bringing these obscured ideas here is a big problem...
mercy, peace and love
Kat
Once again.... It was a question Do YOU...COULD IT BE ???
Your frustration may be due to your not providing/being able to provide relevant scripture... Is the last day of the feast a literal day? what does it symbolise ?what does Great day /greatest day, symbolise ?
You say you gave me an outright statement - pertaining to what ?
-
In case anyone is being confused by the idea that Ian put forth that there is only one tree in the garden, let me put an end to that confusion with this:
Sunshine..... I did not say there is only one tree I said humankind did "Eve" referred to one tree when speaking with the "serpent"
quote Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 3:2 And saying is the woman to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we are eating,
Gen 3:3 yet from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, the Elohim says, `Not eat of it shall you, and not touch it shall you, lest you be dying..
Here Ian, Let's add some of your context to this discussion, I quote you from the previous page.
As I have said in many posts before The tree of Life has 2 names, Good And Evil
The above is clearly false. The tree of life does not have the name "The tree of good and evil." The tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL is ANOTHER tree.
Then you proceed to tell Kat:
The good part of tree in the garden is Spirit and Life the Evil part of the tree is Death or carnality.
No, the tree of LIFE does not bring DEATH. The tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL brings forth fruit that is death. "In the day you eat of it, dying (They were already dying) you SHALL SURELY DIE. (Gen 2:17)"
Kat responds:
Ian, there were 2 trees represented in the garden.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The "Tree of Life" represents Christ and the Holy Spirit and there is absolutely no evil in that what so ever.
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represents our partaking of this physical/carnal life, the good and the evil of it.
Your responce to her telling you that these two tree's are not one tree was:
Kat
Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 2:17 Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.
this is A tree but represents 2 things i believe carnal and spiritual the Lust,lust and the pride is carnal or interpreted by our senses the Good Is the interpretation by the spirit and so is the war today carnal vs spiritual (this is what I am seeing ) I may not be fully enlightened on this yet
So,
You start off saying there is one tree by two names. Kat responds by telling you there are actually two trees, to which you respond: "Eve speaks of one tree."
Nice try Ian, but i'm not going to let you out of this one.
In Christ,
Alex
-
Your frustration may be due to your not providing/being able to provide relevant scripture... Is the last day of the feast a literal day? what does it symbolise ?what does Great day /greatest day, symbolise ?
You say you gave me an outright statement - pertaining to what ?
John 7:39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
This statement from Jesus said that the Holy Spirit had not come yet, not before He is resurrected and glorified. And I brought that to your attention because of these comment you made below.
As I am so are you...
You are a new creation the OLD has passed
As new born babes desire solid food ...dump the milk
When something is new what does that mean
Begotten a new, Resurrected, reborn,born again are one and the same... I believe
Did Paul walk in heaven ? because FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT.
yet he was living when he told us of a story 14 years earlier .
I am pointing out that one does not have to physically die to be resurrected and to walk in that power
This is where I see your error stems, from this comment.
Begotten a new, Resurrected, reborn,born again are one and the same...
All these words do NOT mean the same thing and I have shown you with many Scripture. We are not yet born/resurrected into the kingdom... begotten yes, but not yet born into the kingdom with glorified spiritual bodies. That is what John is talking about when he says "what we will be has not yet appeared."
1John 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.
The Apostle John was certainly begotten anew, he certainly had been given the earnest/promise/guarantee of the Spirit, as Paul says.
2Co 1:22 and who has also put His seal on us and given us His Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
John was saying "we are God's children NOW," and he is only talking to the "beloved," those few believers there, not to the world. But that comment must be taken with the rest of the verse... it is only when Christ "appears" and that will be at His return to rule and reign over the whole world. Then and not before "we shall be like Him," then we will be born into the kingdom, into glory, "like" He is.
I have shown you numerous others Scripture on this, but you resist every attempt where I have tried to show you this...
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Ian,
Could you start your own thread, please? Whatever it is you are talking about has nothing to do with this thread. Why are you intentionally making this discussion so weird?
Wait.. Did John put you up to this?
-
It was I who said I'd remove any post that didn't relate to the OP. But I'll tell you what I'm going to do instead. I',m just going to let it go wherever "the spirit" wants it to go. Then we'll see what "spirit" is blowing in it. I'm pretty sure I already know.
By the way...nobody called Ian 'weird'--only that it was making this discussion weird. YES...IT IS! That's why I'd like it to stop and focus on how it began. Don't tell me "the spirit" is not operating in that desire!
But I'll cave in. Do what you want with it.
-
Your right Dave I was wrong and removed my last post. Ian I wasn't laughing at you but at the weird remark, either way I was wrong...Ephesians 4:29 (KJV)
[29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers....Colossians 3:8 (KJV)
[8] But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth....1 Corinthians 15:33 (KJV)
[33] Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
-
In case anyone is being confused by the idea that Ian put forth that there is only one tree in the garden, let me put an end to that confusion with this:
Sunshine..... I did not say there is only one tree I said humankind did "Eve" referred to one tree when speaking with the "serpent"
quote Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 3:2 And saying is the woman to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we are eating,
Gen 3:3 yet from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, the Elohim says, `Not eat of it shall you, and not touch it shall you, lest you be dying..
Here Ian, Let's add some of your context to this discussion, I quote you from the previous page.
As I have said in many posts before The tree of Life has 2 names, Good And Evil
The above is clearly false. The tree of life does not have the name "The tree of good and evil." The tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL is ANOTHER tree.
Then you proceed to tell Kat:
The good part of tree in the garden is Spirit and Life the Evil part of the tree is Death or carnality.
No, the tree of LIFE does not bring DEATH. The tree of KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL brings forth fruit that is death. "In the day you eat of it, dying (They were already dying) you SHALL SURELY DIE. (Gen 2:17)"
Kat responds:
Ian, there were 2 trees represented in the garden.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The "Tree of Life" represents Christ and the Holy Spirit and there is absolutely no evil in that what so ever.
The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" represents our partaking of this physical/carnal life, the good and the evil of it.
Your responce to her telling you that these two tree's are not one tree was:
Kat
Eve speaks of one tree Singular....
Gen 2:17 Yet from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you are not to be eating from it, for in the day you eat from it, to die shall you be dying.
this is A tree but represents 2 things i believe carnal and spiritual the Lust,lust and the pride is carnal or interpreted by our senses the Good Is the interpretation by the spirit and so is the war today carnal vs spiritual (this is what I am seeing ) I may not be fully enlightened on this yet
So,
You start off saying there is one tree by two names. Kat responds by telling you there are actually two trees, to which you respond: "Eve speaks of one tree."
Nice try Ian, but i'm not going to let you out of this one.
In Christ,
Alex
Eve does speak of/refer too one tree, ....Actually there were lots of trees in the garden however in the midst were 2 spoken of .... so Life or death your "choice " Chief Inspector Clouseau
-
Ian,
Could you start your own thread, please? Whatever it is you are talking about has nothing to do with this thread. Why are you intentionally making this discussion so weird?
Wait.. Did John put you up to this?
No, I started my thoughts on marriage from Adam and Eve (the beginning) this was the intention, as it turned out this was clearly wrong .....Apologies
-
Your right Dave I was wrong and removed my last post. Ian I wasn't laughing at you but at the weird remark, either way I was wrong...Ephesians 4:29 (KJV)
[29] Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers....Colossians 3:8 (KJV)
[8] But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth....1 Corinthians 15:33 (KJV)
[33] Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
I Did not see it
-
Your frustration may be due to your not providing/being able to provide relevant scripture... Is the last day of the feast a literal day? what does it symbolise ?what does Great day /greatest day, symbolise ?
You say you gave me an outright statement - pertaining to what ?
John 7:39 Now this He said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Ok Kat I have shown you many scriptures too --- with no answer ,I will look at this and answer on a new topic
This statement from Jesus said that the Holy Spirit had not come yet, not before He is resurrected and glorified. And I brought that to your attention because of these comment you made below.
As I am so are you...
You are a new creation the OLD has passed
As new born babes desire solid food ...dump the milk
When something is new what does that mean
Begotten a new, Resurrected, reborn,born again are one and the same... I believe
Did Paul walk in heaven ? because FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT.
yet he was living when he told us of a story 14 years earlier .
I am pointing out that one does not have to physically die to be resurrected and to walk in that power
This is where I see your error stems, from this comment.
Begotten a new, Resurrected, reborn,born again are one and the same...
All these words do NOT mean the same thing and I have shown you with many Scripture. We are not yet born/resurrected into the kingdom... begotten yes, but not yet born into the kingdom with glorified spiritual bodies. That is what John is talking about when he says "what we will be has not yet appeared."
1John 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him as He is.
The Apostle John was certainly begotten anew, he certainly had been given the earnest/promise/guarantee of the Spirit, as Paul says.
2Co 1:22 and who has also put His seal on us and given us His Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
John was saying "we are God's children NOW," and he is only talking to the "beloved," those few believers there, not to the world. But that comment must be taken with the rest of the verse... it is only when Christ "appears" and that will be at His return to rule and reign over the whole world. Then and not before "we shall be like Him," then we will be born into the kingdom, into glory, "like" He is.
I have shown you numerous others Scripture on this, but you resist every attempt where I have tried to show you this...
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
When I got married years ago, we repeated "vows" from what the minister of our church gave us i.e. to honour, obey, .....till death do us part..
Now people getting married write their own "vows"; so as Neo says: "what are the vows?" as anyone can make vows as to what they think or want in a marriage. Is it just a promise or an oath to become one flesh? and that's it? Do we need to have vows? Can we not just have God's minister say I now pronounce you one flesh in God's sight? Is that the vow/covenant?
Diane
-
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.
But let us go back to what Ocoberose initally posted:
“I think the thread is something we should talk about. Being a typical female myself, love and marriage go together, however we know Jacob did not love Leah as he loved Rachel and never intended to marry her. He was tricked into the marriage but still expected to hold up his end of the vow. And how does Genesis say Jacob and Rachel married? "Jacob went into her" after Laban gave her to him. However, when sex is impossible, are the couple still not married?”
These are important questions. They are the keys to this riddle.
Let’s just start with the obvious by reciting what actually is recorded:
The contract:
Gen29:18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.
Both parties agree:
19 And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.
Contract fulfilled:
20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.
21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.
Here is where Ray would say the “vows” occurred. I contend that the “vow” or oath, or contract or covenant occurred 7 years prior when Jacob “vowed” to wed Rachel…that was the espousal. That was the PROMISE. Not the THING. Clearly, the marriage had not yet occurred. On that, we can all agree. But what of the feast? This was a traditional wedding feast, I am certain, but what it entailed, we cannot know. 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."
And again: “The ceremony and the vows is what God instituted to come first, it is a commitment to each other before God and brings a blessing from God, then the marriage begins, sex included.”
And lets not forget what 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.
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.
We have a companion scripture immediately following these passages; in the next chapter we see that Rachel was barren, and she requests of Jacob to “go in unto her handmaid, and bare children”…
Gen 30:4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.
We see again the method in which Jacob is given, and takes a wife. Here, no vows, no ceremony. Just clear scripture on what occurs naturally (which was obvious to most all peoples throughout ancient times, needing no further explanation—until we get to our modern church/state society where confusion now abounds).
For this precedent was set well before with Jacob’s father, Isaac, when he took to wife, Rebekah. It would behoove anyone reading, to go back now and re-familiarize yourself with this story in Genesis 24.
Long story short, Rebekah is sought out from another country by Abraham’s servant, she is “given” to him as a wife for Issac (which she explicitly agrees to), she then journeys back with the servant; she arrives, dismounts the camel, beholds Isaac in a field,
“And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. 67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife;..” (Gen 24:66,67)
Finally, Dennis said, “Some people cannot have sex for physical reasons but are legally married just the same.”
Octoberose asked the same question in her initial post: “However, when sex is impossible, are the couple still not married?”
To that, as is plainly shown above, if they had a sexual union, then they are already married (whether they ever do again or not). If they never did, they were never married in the first place. Later I’ll explain how obvious this is (and how important!).
the vow was to consummate the marriage
Show me a verse that says this. Not conjecture, but a verse.
Well, Dennis, with all due respect, show me a verse that says it doesn't.
-
Quote
the vow was to consummate the marriage
Show me a verse that says this. Not conjecture, but a verse.
Well, Dennis, with all due respect, show me a verse that says it doesn't.
You cannot prove a negative: "appeals to ignorance ... sometimes used to shift the burden of proof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)
It's like saying "prove to me in the bible that little green men do not live on the moon." Nonsense.
If your position is true then there must be at least two verses saying sex consummated a marriage and made it legal and binding.
-
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
-
I'm not married. I have neither plans nor wish to get married. So maybe I'm not one who needs to "know" anything. But I am perplexed why this issue is so "important" and why young people need to understand it. So...could you just cut to the chase already and say why you think it is? Otherwise, it's just 'strife over words'.
-
The problem with Jacob and Leah is that very few details are given. Octoberose says "And how does Genesis say Jacob and Rachel married? "Jacob went into her" after Laban gave her to him." I don't think Genesis is saying that's how Jacob married her, that happens after Jacob marries her.
Gen 29:21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.
Jacob calls Rachel his wife before he has sex with her. Laban has to give her to Jacob, not unlike God giving Eve to Adam. Adam and Eve had a marriage ceremony, however small and "informal" it was. The sex happens after the marriage ceremony. Traditionally, couples have sex on their wedding night. This is after they're married, not to become married.
So Laban gathers all the men together and makes a feast. Presumably this is a wedding feast. No details are given here. Neo, you state
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.
Nowhere does it say these things occurred with Rachel. We're given no details. Did Laban give a speech about how Jacob is marrying Rachel? Or was he being vague and only saying how Jacob was marrying his daughter? Maybe Jacob assumed he meant Rachel, since that was what they agreed, but everybody else assumed he meant Leah, since Laban says "It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn." Either way it doesn't say.
Were Leah and Rachel present at the feast? We don't know. In the evening Laban brings Leah to Jacob. Jacob doesn't know it's Leah. Maybe she's covered, or it's dark, or both. Only in the morning does Jacob find out it's Leah. Laban tells Jacob to complete the week of Leah, and then he will give him Rachel. This would be a week of festivities, similar to Samson in Judges 14:12-17.
Gen 29:28 Jacob did so, and completed her week. Then Laban gave him his daughter Rachel to be his wife.
Rachel is now his wife and then he has sex with her. Not to make her his wife, she's already his wife because Laban gave her to him.
You mention Bilhah the handmaid and say that no ceremony is mentioned. No ceremonies are mentioned because the focus of these passages is on making babies, the sons of Israel. You bolded the key words yourself.
Gen 30:4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.
Bilhah becomes his wife first, then Jacob has sex with her. A ceremony would be understood, since the word wife is mentioned.
Moving on from Jacob, let's go to the Law of Moses.
Exo 22:16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.
Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
Here we have a man who sleeps with a woman who isn't his wife and doesn't become his wife until he pays the bride-price for her and her father accepts. If her father doesn't give her to him, she's not his wife, even though they had sex. A similar passage occurs in Deuteronomy.
Deu 22:28 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
This bride-price is mentioned a few times in scripture. Boaz pays for Naomi's possessions and for Ruth.
Rth 4:9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, "You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon.
Rth 4:10 Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day."
Rth 4:11 Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, "We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem,
Rth 4:12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the LORD will give you by this young woman."
Rth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.
Notice there are witnesses. And that only after Boaz takes Ruth to be his wife does he go in to her.
And the other bride-price mention I found is between Saul and David.
1Sa 18:25 Then Saul said, "Thus shall you say to David, 'The king desires no bride-price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, that he may be avenged of the king's enemies.'" Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
1Sa 18:26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son-in-law. Before the time had expired,
1Sa 18:27 David arose and went, along with his men, and killed two hundred of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, which were given in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife.
Earlier Neo, you stated
But I'm not talking about that either. If I claim to be married (per Ray's understanding), I must produce evidence of a vow.
More broadly, you must produce evidence of a ceremony performed in front of witnesses. Nowadays this would be a marriage certificate. In Ray's study, he says "They have found actual marriage contracts, Jewish marriage contracts that go back to the 5th century B.C. So this idea of, ‘well they didn’t have ceremonies.’ Yes they did. In fact Malachi was written about 500 B.C."
Ray doesn't give a source, but I did a quick google search and sure enough, there are references to ancient marriage contracts. I'm not sure if there's any place in scripture that mentions them, but I did find 3 places where certificates of divorce are mentioned.
Deu 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Isa 50:1 Thus says the LORD: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce, with which I sent her away? Or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your transgressions your mother was sent away.
Jer 3:8 She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
If they had certificates (other translations bill, writing, scroll) for divorce, I'm guessing they had them for marriage too.
My post is getting long, so I'll end here.
-
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.
-
amen and amen.
-
Repent......and the preparation for the ceremony begins.
-
Very well put Gina, thanks for your thoughts.
Indiana Bob
-
Good stuff Gina. Thanks for sharing it
Rhys
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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! ;D) 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' ? ;D ;)
(I'm glad you found my comments helpful, guys! :) )
-
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.
-
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. ???
-
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!
-
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' ? ;D ;)
(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.. ;)
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
Well, in closing...
I just wanted to say this since it's on the topic of marriage.
I know that marriages can have their bad spots and lonely spots and happy spots and all of that and I just want to pray for you, whoever you are, who may be going through a rough patch in your own marriage. I pray that God breathes new life in your home and your lives.
And if you've gone through a divorce for whatever reason and you might be feeling contrite about it or yourselves, God is with you!
For this is what the high and exalted One says-- he who lives forever, whose name is holy: "I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. Isaiah 57:15
For those of us who are not married - we have a Bridegroom. We, just like the married believers, also have One we can truly depend on to be there for us through thick and thin. And we have much to look forward to:
Surely, He Who spares not His own Son, but gives Him up for us all, how shall He not, together with Him, also, be graciously granting us all? (Romans 8:32)
-
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.
Ok Loc.. I give. The correct answer, as you say, is probably the simplist. Now I just need you to tell me what, exactly, is that simple answer. I STILL have not received an answer to my original question...I suppose it can only be because no one has a clue.
-
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
Indeed, Ricky. But we still have the age old problem of hearing ears... "Who hath believed our report?"
-
I agree Ricky,
Sex alone does not a marriage make.
Jesus pretty much said that in his conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well. John 4:16-17
Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Joel
-
"Where is the vow?" The vow is in the heart and in the mouth. That's an answer.
Faith without works is dead. For with the heart man believeth and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Let him who has...eh, you know the rest.
-
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
Indeed, Ricky. But we still have the age old problem of hearing ears... "Who hath believed our report?"
Ricky: It is not true that God brought them together spiritually. Obviously there was no limo. Let's be real. But God did not bring them together spiritually.
The spiritual does not come first, but the physical does, and then comes the spiritual. 1 Cor. 15:46
Gen 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and [physically] brought her to the man.
Here is the vow from the first Adam:
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall [physically] leave his father and his mother, and be [physically] joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
As for sex making a marriage, I think not:
2 Samuel 13 Living Bible
1 Prince Absalom, David’s son, had a beautiful sister named Tamar. And Prince Amnon (her half brother) fell desperately in love with her.
2 Amnon became so tormented by his love for her that he became ill. He had no way of talking to her, for the girls and young men were kept strictly apart.
3 But Amnon had a very crafty friend—his cousin Jonadab (the son of David’s brother Shimeah).
4 One day Jonadab said to Amnon, “What’s the trouble? Why should the son of a king look so haggard morning after morning?”
So Amnon told him, “I am in love with Tamar, my half sister.”
5 “Well,” Jonadab said, “I’ll tell you what to do. Go back to bed and pretend you are sick; when your father comes to see you, ask him to let Tamar come and prepare some food for you. Tell him you’ll feel better if she feeds you.”
6 So Amnon did. And when the king came to see him, Amnon asked him for this favor—that his sister Tamar be permitted to come and cook a little something for him to eat.
7 David agreed and sent word to Tamar to go to Amnon’s quarters and prepare some food for him.
8 So she did and went into his bedroom so that he could watch her mix some dough; then she baked some special bread for him.
9 But when she set the serving tray before him, he refused to eat!
“Everyone get out of here,” he told his servants; so they all left the apartment.
10 Then he said to Tamar, “Now bring me the food again here in my bedroom and feed it to me.” So Tamar took it to him.
11 But as she was standing there before him, he grabbed her and demanded, “Come to bed with me, my darling.”
12 “Oh, Amnon,” she cried. “Don’t be foolish! Don’t do this to me! You know what a serious crime it is in Israel.
13 Where could I go in my shame? And you would be called one of the greatest fools in Israel. Please, just speak to the king about it, for he will let you marry me.”
14 But he wouldn’t listen to her; and since he was stronger than she, he forced her.
15 Then suddenly his love turned to hate, and now he hated her more than he had loved her.
“Get out of here!” he snarled at her.
16 “No, no!” she cried. “To reject me now is a greater crime than the other you did to me.”
But he wouldn’t listen to her.
17-18 He shouted for his valet and demanded, “Throw this woman out and lock the door behind her.”
So he put her out. She was wearing a long robe with sleeves, as was the custom in those days for virgin daughters of the king.
19 Now she tore the robe and put ashes on her head and with her head in her hands went away crying.
20 Her brother Absalom asked her, “Is it true that Amnon raped you? Don’t be so upset, since it’s all in the family anyway. It’s not anything to worry about!”
So Tamar lived as a desolate woman in her brother Absalom’s quarters.
Tamar wasn't now a woman who'd received no certificate of divorce from her husband. Tamar was actually willing to be (to be = as in they were not yet) married to Amnon BEFORE and after he forced himself on her, but he wouldn't marry her because he hated her. So, therefore, there was no marriage simply because they had sex.
And Absalom had Amnon murdered and the rest, as they say is history.
Case dismissed!
Next....................?!
:-0
-
Gina,
Huh? That was a clear case of rape. She was unwilling to have a sexual union with her brother... But once the deed was done, it was done. Her pitiful plea to accept it as a "covenant marriage" was just that...pitiful. Surely you understand what her options were at that point. What case is closed??
Here is the vow from the first Adam:
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."
24 For this reason a man shall [physically] leave his father and his mother, and be [physically] joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
So that's the vow? Those are the magic words we need to say to "marry" another? Really--was my wife taken from my body during surgery when I was hermaphroditic, like Adam? Big time reaching now, aren't we?
Listen, the "marriage covenant", in the words of Ray, 'is a Christian Hoax.' There is no "vow" that makes a couple man and wife. Keep searching though, if it matters to you.
-
Could have been the vow in the presence of witnesses. Why not? We certainly have record of it in writing, don't we. he he
Okay, so you've stated your position succinctly. If you're satisfied with that and you believe that and you believe that God agrees with your position, you should be very happy. But you don't sound very happy and sure don't sound very sure. You sound like you need a lot of convincing. You sound like you need people to agree with you before you can believe it yourself. If you believe you have the truth, you certainly don't need OUR blessing. The only one you need to affirm the truth is God.
Good luck with that.
-
Ok Loc.. I give. The correct answer, as you say, is probably the simplist. Now I just need you to tell me what, exactly, is that simple answer. I STILL have not received an answer to my original question...I suppose it can only be because no one has a clue.
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?
-
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.
-
Neo:
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!
Really now.
2 Cor 11:
2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Here's Paul's written record that he betrothed the Corinthians to Christ. They didn't betroth themselves to Christ. You say you didn't know what you were reciting. That's understandable. You were only 19. You were young. But the same can be said of those who sign contracts when purchasing a car. Who reads the fine print? All we know is .... we want to be driving that car.
Did the Corinthians know what they were getting into? I don't think so. They were yet carnal.
Just because your physical marriage was solidified by the state doesn't make it void in the eyes of God:
Romans 13
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good.
...
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
When you married your wife you say that the vows were written for you, and therefore God didn't join you, the state did. I'm sorry, the state didn't force you to recite any vows. Your marriage is not invalid in the eyes of God all because you recited vows before people that God set in positions of power to witness them. You can claim you didn't understand your vows or even know what you were saying, but that could have simply been a helluva bachelor party the night before. Ya know? Again, you were united voluntarily and no one held a gun to your head.
I believe that God used the state/rulers, if you will, to solidify your physical union in the same way God uses men like Paul to betroth us to Christ - by deed and by word. And you were planning on marrying your wife however long before you actually tied the knot, right? The state didn't put it on your heart to want to be married to your wife. They were just there in the event you decided you wanted to marry her.
He who finds a wife, finds a good thing.
The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the LORD comes the proper answer of the tongue.
Many are the plans in a person's heart, but it is the LORD's purpose that prevails.
A person's steps are directed by the LORD. How then can anyone understand their own way?
Don't be concerned that simply because you have a written record of your marriage to your wife from those put in place by God, that God didn't join you two together.
And you can be sure that your wife didn't know what she was reciting either. Not many do when they're that in love. Being in love is hypnotic and people aren't typically in the best frame of mind when they're drunk on love.
It's very humbling to discover in our walk with Christ that we have no free will.
I really hope that you are not regretting marrying your wife? I hope she is treating you good and is kind to you, Michael. We may disagree on certain trivial things, and get a little rude here and there, but I would venture to guess based on what I have read from you that you have been kind and faithful to her as much as humanly possible. And God wouldn't have a problem with that.
God bless you,
Gina
-
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
There may be different levels of understanding on this, the whole Adam and eve Parable is just that ,Adam being a “type of Christ” Eve representing Humanity .... Without permission God takes out of Adam a Bone then proceeds to create Eve. When the “bride” Eve is formed Adam is happy Bone of my bone flesh of my flesh.(we all come out of Christ)In him and thru him all ALL things...
Eve or humanity is considered Weak or spoken of as the weaker as she like us circumed to the Serpent. Likewise all of us go thru this hence we are weak/wicked/...whichever theologian’s dictionary you follow.
The whole word is about the fusion of the 2 – for this reason a MAN shall leave his FATHERS HOUSE and be joined to his wife and the 2 shall become as one.
For the same Reason ...Jesus Left /was sent from his FATHER's HOUSE in order to become one with us.(I believe)
There is rejoicing at the arrival of The Christ in us and it impacts many...Luke 1 v44
Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
-
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.
-
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 us. All 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??)
-
NEWSFLASH !!!!
Hey guys, I found this really, really cool bible study by Ray on marriage. He based his study on the Scriptures. Isn't that unusual? I attached it below; everyone should study it.
Just think. Ray was just a roofer.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,5675.0.html
-
I think everybody has read Ray's material, it is very helpful... but he could not cover everything, now could he. Now should we just remain where we are or should we continue to grow? "Do not quench the Spirit (1Th 5:19. There is no harm that I can see in this discussion... sometimes people need to talk things out. You can contribute if you think you have something that will help, none of us have all the answers, but together we can come to a better understanding. Or you certainly can just stay out of it, if it is not to your llikeing. There are many Scripture references being used and as long as this remains civil it can be helpful.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
Hello all,
My 1/2 of a cent,reading this post was like a soap opera,I will" quote" Gina,
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?
Walt.
-
I think everybody has read Ray's material, it is very helpful... but he could not cover everything, now could he. Now should we just remain where we are or should we continue to grow? "Do not quench the Spirit (1Th 5:19. There is no harm that I can see in this discussion... sometimes people need to talk things out. You can contribute if you think you have something that will help, none of us have all the answers, but together we can come to a better understanding. Or you certainly can just stay out of it, if it is not to your llikeing. There are many Scripture references being used and as long as this remains civil it can be helpful.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
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 all of us in here follow Ray's teachings, but it's certainly not the end of it, and sometimes people needs more explanation. I may not be interested in contributing more in this topic or you may not, then just stay out of it and stop trying to moderate it what people can say or not say.
We are liked minded people brought together by Ray's teaching, there should not be somebody bashing people over the head with their self-righteous opinions in here. People need this place to have discussions, but it does nobody any good for somebody to lord it over the rest and belittle peoples attempt to gain understanding.
mercy, peace and love (I say this sincerely, even in the face of adversity)
Kat
-
John all of us in here follow Ray's teachings, but it's certainly not the end of it, and sometimes people needs more explanation. I may not be interested in contributing more in this topic or you may not, then just stay out of it and stop trying to moderate it what people can say or not say.
We are liked minded people brought together by Ray's teaching, there should not be somebody bashing people over the head with their self-righteous opinions in here. People need this place to have discussions, but it does nobody any good for somebody to lord it over the rest and belittle peoples attempt to gain understanding.
mercy, peace and love (I say this sincerely, even in the face of adversity)
Kat
Kat, everyone here does not follow Ray's teachings as shown by this thread.
Under the guise of "discussion", some try to bring in other teachings, unsupported by Scriptures, which I believe is against Forum rules. One rule is "If you have come here to teach us, then take your teachings elsewhere."
I ask my previous question again. What have we learned in this thread that Ray did not cover in his bible study on marriage (at least two Scriptures please.) ?
If I may be permitted to use a beloved Ray-ism---I'm holding my breath........................
I'm sorry to cause you adversity. Maybe you'll get a bigger set of wings in the age to come. :D (Oh, for those who are humor challenged, the bigger set of wings thing is not scriptural, but a joke.)
-
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)
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
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 us. All 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.........................
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Alex:
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:
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,
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
-
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?
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
Alex:
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:
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,
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
Hi Michael,
I agree with ray but I don't agree with you. A marriage being a carnal institution does not mean that marriage and sex become one in the same. You are really twisting things to make it this way. I think you were given many good examples by all the members here about how these two cannot be the same. You completely dismissed the example of ruth which directly related to your quote of Genesis and raising up seed to a deceased member. Loc mentioned and showed you scripture with the certificates of divorce which Jesus even said must be given to a woman which would logically follow that a certificate of marriage existed as well.
Regardless though, you persist, so let me try one last time.
You say "INTERESTNGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don’t believe the woman was ever called “wife” UNTIL they were actually married!"
Let me first point out that you are wrong about this:
2Sa 3:14 And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.
Espoused and Betrothed are the same word. You can look that up yourself. Here is a case where the betrothed is referred to as the wife.
Your next point about there being a difference between the wife and the virgin is wholly inaccurate. King David has not yet married her, she is his betrothed, but he refers to her as his wife. She is a VIRGIN WIFE.
Let me give you a second witness. In the new testatment, even though Joseph and Marry have not had sex, and are betrothed, joseph is still referred to her as the husband which would make her his wife, yet clearly marry is a virgin at this point. A VIRGIN WIFE.
Matthew 1:18-19 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. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
So now with this premise shown to be false, what you say about paul In Corinthians 7 as this pertaining to virgin versus wife is wrong.
I completely disagree with you that Paul is arguing that sex Is marriage. You are twisting that. I already pointed that out to you. No where in all of that chapter does Paul say "Sex is marriage" and he could have very easily said so. No, He is saying that those who cannot control themselves, instead of sinning by committing ADULTRY, UNLAWFUL SEX, that they MARRY, so they CAN have sex lawfully. This is NOT the same thing as saying that SEX IS MARRIAGE.
Lets read it together:
1 Corinthians 7 King James Version (KJV)
1 Cor7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
1 Cor 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Cor 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
Do you read anywhere in there that marriage is "SEXUAL UNITY?" NO! This is about avoiding fornication, not committing sin. Why is it to avoid fornication? Because a MAN and a WOMAN having SEX is NOT MARRIAGE, ITS FORNICATION, ADULTRY! It doesn't read, "Nevertheless, to marry, let every man have his own wife." Nope.
Its the very same reason why the next verse has everything to do with the ORDER of things. First comes marriage, becoming husband and wife, and THEN the sex so as to avoid fornication, to NOT BURN, to avoid sinning.
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.
This absolutely has everything to do with the order of things.
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 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1 Cor 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
1 Cor 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
If you cannot control yourself, if you cannot "contain," then you have to marry. Why? Because sex is marriage? NO! "To avoid fornication... (ver 2)" Because the only LAWFUL form of SEX which prevents you from BURNING is IN MARRIAGE. This is not hard to understand.
Hebrews 13:4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.
Only in marriage is SEX lawful.
Listen! Carefully! The first time two people have sex outside of marriage, if as you say sex is what makes a marriage, the very first time would place that sexual act outside of marriage and they would still be committing adultery! The very first time they do it, they are not husband and wife, because it is after the sex, that according to you, they become husband and wife. This creates the problem of initiating lawful marriage in God's eyes through illicit sexual intercourse between two people. It also causes a whole hosts of other issues. The simple fact of the matter is that marriage does not involve the sexual act to make two people husband and wife. This allows the sex that follows for the first time to be pure and undefiled as it takes place between husband and wife. Your version of it has it all backwards and makes illegal sex necessary for legal marriage. This is wrong. This is a lie! You are twisting things. Have we not now come to the point of blasphemy, saying God requires us to break His commandments to abide by His commandments? Is this not a kingdom divided amongst itself?
Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Did Jesus say, "everyone who look sat a woman with lustful intent has already MARRIED her in his heart?" NO! He says they have committed adultery, unlawful sex, because only in marriage is this lawful. You can lust after your WIFE its OKAY.
The rest of Corinthians follows this same pattern. Its all about marrying if you can't control yourself to prevent you from committing adultery, fornication, etc... which is highly stressed as something to avoid and flee in the new testatement.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
Lastly, I will point out to you, that Jesus attended a MARRIAGE CEREMONY! So what happens between the betrothed, and the consummation of the marriage? THE CEREMONY, the exchanging of vows, the covenant, which officially pronounces a couple... "HUSBAND" and "WIFE." They now have lawful rights to each other's bodies.
John 2 1-2 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
So again, with King David and Jospeh as two witnesses against you, a wife can be a virgin. Virgin and wife are not the contrast here. Married and not married are.
God be with you,
Alex
-
Listen, this is a very complex subject apparently judging by how this whole discussion has gone. I agree with ray but we appear to have some objections on the issue from some. Now, that being said, let me just paint this picture for us if marriage is as Neo is clamining.
2 Cor: 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
So what does this do for our relationship with Christ?
Paul says he espoused us to Christ. The church is to be Christ's bride.
Ephesians 5:25-32
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
There is to be a marriage between the two.
Revelation 19:7-9 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev 19:9 (CLV) And he is saying to me, "Write: 'Happy are those invited to the wedding dinner of the Lambkin.' And he is saying to me, "These are the true sayings of God."
Rev 19:9 (GNB) Then the angel said to me, "Write this: Happy are those who have been invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb." And the angel added, "These are the true words of God."
Rev 19:9 (MSG) The Angel said to me, "Write this: 'Blessed are those invited to the Wedding Supper of the Lamb.'" He added, "These are the true words of God!"
John see's new Jerusalem descending out of heaven adorned as a BRIDE for her husband.
Revelation 21:1-2 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
What is the point of this marriage ceremony with God and His bride (that's us) if marriage comes through sexual intercourse? Why not talk about us having spiritual sex with Christ to become His wife instead of talking about a coming marriage ceremony?
Besides, isn't the term "Bride" used specifically in relations to a wedding ceremony? So clearly a wedding ceremony is very important in recognizing officially that two are now one, that two have become officially husband and wife?
I'm not trying to be dense here but these are seriously the questions that come to mind if marriage is sex.
God bless,
Alex
-
I must admit the thoughts and questions on this subject never entered my mind. I read Ray's work on the subject seemed simple enough and accepted. Alex, you my friend have done a credible and valid job, thank you. In my opinion should there be argument against what you posted, the argument would only be for an argument.
-
This thread is absolute proof of everlasting life. :D
-
Alex wrote:
I agree with ray but I don't agree with you. A marriage being a carnal institution does not mean that marriage and sex become one in the same. You are really twisting things to make it this way. I think you were given many good examples by all the members here about how these two cannot be the same. You completely dismissed the example of ruth which directly related to your quote of Genesis and raising up seed to a deceased member. Loc mentioned and showed you scripture with the certificates of divorce which Jesus even said must be given to a woman which would logically follow that a certificate of marriage existed as well.
Alex, your entire post is ridiculous. A long re-hash of earlier posts, overlaid with more spurious disputations and childish assertions (‘I’m right, you’re wrong! So there!’).
I don’t care who you agree with—you’re being purely argumentative. Let me just say that the reason I haven’t addressed each and every detail of everyone’s posts is because I haven’t the time. I said enough, and offered enough scripture to make my points, however. What you choose to believe is of no personal concern of mine. But others may have not thought much on these things before—perhaps now they will. They may begin to seek out some of these things on their own. There are indeed many more questions than I have answers…But one thing this discussion has proved to me is something Ray said: “when a thing is true, the more you study it, the truer it becomes”. I am now more convinced than ever that the so-called “contract theory” of marriage is a farce, NOT taught in scripture, but just a bleed-over from the prevailing Babylonian and statist ideology. If I had infinite time, I could prove that beyond anyone’s doubt.. But that wouldn’t change anyone’s mind, now would it? There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You say "INTERESTNGLY, though (and I might have missed something, but..) I don’t believe the woman was ever called “wife” UNTIL they were actually married!"
Let me first point out that you are wrong about this:
2Sa 3:14 And David sent messengers to Ishbosheth Saul's son, saying, Deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.
Espoused and Betrothed are the same word. You can look that up yourself. Here is a case where the betrothed is referred to as the wife. Your next point about there being a difference between the wife and the virgin is wholly inaccurate. King David has not yet married her, she is his betrothed, but he refers to her as his wife. She is a VIRGIN WIFE
Alex, I will concede this one point to you. TAKE NOTE that I said I wasn’t sure about that (it was merely something I noticed while going through the scriptures in this discussion). Nevertheless, your zeal to be right! only wins you a hollow concession.. Because it doesn’t matter.
I obviously know what “espoused” and “betrothed” mean. I DISCUSSED them both in detail in many posts. Perhaps you failed to read them. I explained how the scripture calls a man a “husband” when he was only espoused and NOT married. (Now we see that the word “wife” is also used to describe the same thing for an espoused woman). Why do you think this alters my position? I used the very fact to make some very valid points. Actually, you are arguing my position..
David had an espoused wife…Joseph had an espoused wife… Were they married? No. When does the scripture show they were? HOW does it show they were? That is the point of this discussion. Seems like you’re being deliberately dense here.
I completely disagree with you that Paul is arguing that sex Is marriage. You are twisting that.
YOU are twisting that. I never argued that sex IS marriage. You cannot be more blind, if after SIX pages of discussion, you still assert this foolishness.
One more time… An espoused couple becomes a married couple with their sexual union. It is the ACT which CREATES the marriage. This is what Paul says in Corinthians. This is the pattern we see throughout the whole of scripture. There is no scripture which shows otherwise. Not one.
Nearly all the rest of your post, you squander words repeating yourself and talking over me. I won’t waste any more time with it. With regard to 1 Corinthians 7, if you or anyone else is still confused, they can go back and re-read what I wrote. Better yet, study the text yourself. What you have said here in rebuttal is childish nonsense.
Listen! Carefully! The first time two people have sex outside of marriage, if as you say sex is what makes a marriage, the very first time would place that sexual act outside of marriage and they would still be committing adultery!
Utter nonsense. Go back and read my last post.
Lastly, I will point out to you, that Jesus attended a MARRIAGE CEREMONY! So what happens between the betrothed, and the consummation of the marriage? THE CEREMONY, the exchanging of vows, the covenant, which officially pronounces a couple... "HUSBAND" and "WIFE." They now have lawful rights to each other's bodies.
No. Jesus attended a marriage FEAST. Just a wee twist of the scripture you did there, but it matters… Other than that fact, you made the rest of that up out of whole cloth.
And this, in a nutshell, identifies the entire problem with the “marriage covenant” doctrine. It’s made up. You WANT it to be there, so you insert it. When you can’t make plain sense of the scriptures which describe the giving and taking of marriage, you must insert your own back-stories, innuendos, and scenarios to re-translate to fit your pagan, statist, Babylonian world view.
From the beginning of this thread, I asked just what exactly was this “covenant” or “vow” or “contract” that you allege God insists we enter into in order for a man to “take a wife”.. that is, to “marry”. Not much to my surprise, no one has found anything in the scriptures even remotely prescribing such a thing. The most telling response, though was in one member saying in essence, ‘the vows just don’t matter’…”they can be what ever you want them to be.”
And so it is. And here we are, half a book later in this thread, and no one is the wiser to this hustle.
-
I think that is a good final comment and before somebody decides to start it all back up again, well you know....