Married spiritually but not legally

[Bill]

You are free to interpret the Hebrew however you want lol

Not upset with you , i did take the humor / jest you sent it in

 

[joestue]

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? | GotQuestions.org

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? What can we learn from the account of David and Jonathan?

www.gotquestions.org

Personally I have suspended judgement on consentual adults. It is clear from the NT and to a lesser extent in the OT that the pedastery is explicitly condemned.

 

[Bill]

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? | GotQuestions.org

What was the relationship between David and Jonathan? What can we learn from the account of David and Jonathan?

www.gotquestions.org

Personally I have suspended judgement on consentual adults. It is clear from the NT and to a lesser extent in the OT that the pedastery is explicitly condemned.

God is definitely upset when it comes to adverse behavior in reguards to Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a union of the spouse and God.

There are a few things that really **** off God .

Any Christian who leads another astray .

Any Christian who condemns another person, because that person fails to meet your requirements in meeting God.

Any human who is inhuman to others, especially thier own mothers and children .

Any human that murders an unborn child with full intent in doing so , this inclues the newborn children as well .

There are a few others , but you get the picture

 

[joestue]

No disagreement with you on that...

 

[Bill]

No disagreement with you on that...

Hey , you know me , always open for a good debate.

 

[dattaswami2]

I am married, but not legally. My husband and I can't afford to have a wedding or get rings right now, but we have prayed to god to accept our marriage and have told him that we are married. Do you have to get married by a priest to actually be married in god's eyes?

What is the difference between a marriage and a live-in-relationship? In both, minds are united and bodies are also united. The difference is only in the word, which is the scripture recited making God as the witness. If both promise on God not to leave each other, the live-in-relationship becomes the marriage.

If you say that the word in the marriage is strong and cannot be broken, this is not observed today because there is the way of legal divorce. Hence, breaking the promise on God is commonly observed in both marriage and live-in-relationship.

There are three instruments (Trikaranams of a soul, which are body, word and mind). Here, all the three are important, but, in this context, word becomes most important because the word is given before God. Hence, not leaving each other becomes the most important angle because God is involved in such promise-word.

 

[Twistie]

What is the difference between a marriage and a live-in-relationship? In both, minds are united and bodies are also united. The difference is only in the word, which is the scripture recited making God as the witness. If both promise on God not to leave each other, the live-in-relationship becomes the marriage.

If you say that the word in the marriage is strong and cannot be broken, this is not observed today because there is the way of legal divorce. Hence, breaking the promise on God is commonly observed in both marriage and live-in-relationship.

There are three instruments (Trikaranams of a soul, which are body, word and mind). Here, all the three are important, but, in this context, word becomes most important because the word is given before God. Hence, not leaving each other becomes the most important angle because God is involved in such promise-word.

 

[Twistie]

One don't need a wedding ya can get a justice of the peace what the difference between u n every other live in? Nothing nothing at all this is so sad how people are taking His special gifts n using n Twisting them in every kind of way to make what we do feel right but it's all written

Please fast unto the Lord n ask Him to guide you cause it don't cost much for a marriage license n two friends for witnesses n get married especially at the justice of the peace

There r different laws for a married couple then a live there r different rights that come along when to are married in the eyes of the world YH commands us this for a reason but please please do not twist the word blasphemy friend is unforgivable

Oh my

Twistie


When Yeshua spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, he revealed something significant that we often miss in this passage. In verses 17-18, Jesus said to the woman:

"You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on them

 

[Johann]

I am married, but not legally. My husband and I can't afford to have a wedding or get rings right now, but we have prayed to god to accept our marriage and have told him that we are married. Do you have to get married by a priest to actually be married in god's eyes?

Voddie Baucham visited Coral Ridge to discuss the biblical definition of marriage. Our culture is at war against God's design for marriage.

 

[Johann]

You think we are so stupid.

And you think men are so stupid, yes?

 

[Twistie]

Voddie Baucham visited Coral Ridge to discuss the biblical definition of marriage. Our culture is at war against God's design for marriage.

My apologies I got confused in the thread ugh

 

[Johann]

Idc how many men or woman say it's right its not

It is Written

Flesh gives birth to flesh

How can u claim Spirit when you r listening to the flesh?

What are you talking about?

 

[Johann]

My apologies I got confused in the thread ugh

No need to apologize @Twistie

We must be very careful not to redefine scriptures to "fit in" with our cultures.

Shalom
Johann

 

[Twistie]

That is so vulgar. To talk about women swallowing seed is just a way for you to get your dig in with a play on words. You think we are so stupid.

He's not vulgar at all to b honest go to the streets where I am from n then ya will a bunch of vulgar but I agree with plough I must say

Twistie

 

[Twistie]

What are you talking about?

I apologize I got lost in the thread lol

But flesh gives birth to flesh its written

All those who lean on man to teach them will not grow spiritually unless they Latch on to YH Himself

Why the temple gatherers r not maturing in the Spirit paying man for his words will not grow them at all

This whole situation is just sad

My aunt was in this boat at one time like this just living with a man but she latched on to YH hopefully this one does to

Twistie

 

[Johann]

I apologize I got lost in the thread lol

But flesh gives birth to flesh its written

All those who lean on man to teach them will not grow spiritually unless they Latch on to YH Himself

Why the temple gatherers r not maturing in the Spirit paying man for his words will not grow them at all

This whole situation is just sad

My aunt was in this boat at one time like this just living with a man but she latched on to YH hopefully this one does to

Twistie

Isa_52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Rom_10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But such a gospel presupposes a universal proclamation. Of what use is a salvation offered to Jews and Gentiles if they never hear about it? Here we have the heartbeat of Christian missions!
In a series of three “how's” (how shall they call ... believe ... hear without a preacher), the apostle goes back over the steps that lead to the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. Perhaps it will be clearer if we reverse the order, as follows:

God sends out His servants.
They preach the good news of salvation. [Not prophecies]
Sinners hear God's offer of life in Christ.
Some of those who hear believe the message.
Those who believe call on the Lord.
Those who call on Him are saved.

Hodge points out that this is an argument founded on the principle that if God wills the end, He also wills the means to reach that end. This, as we have said, is the basis of the Christian missionary movement. Paul is here vindicating his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, a policy which the unbelieving Jews considered inexcusable.
10:15 God is the One who sends. We are the ones who are sent. What are we doing about it? Do we have the beautiful feet which Isaiah ascribed to Him who brought glad tidings of good things (Isa_52:7)? Isaiah writes of the beautiful feet of Him—that is, the Messiah. Here in Rom_10:15 the “him” becomes “them.” He came with beautiful feet 1900 years ago. Now it is our privilege and responsibility to go with beautiful feet to a lost and dying world.

There "goes your argument" @Twistie.

But that aside, when two people "live" together that is adultery, yes?

Johann.

 

[Johann]

One don't need a wedding ya can get a justice of the peace what the difference between u n every other live in? Nothing nothing at all this is so sad how people are taking His special gifts n using n Twisting them in every kind of way to make what we do feel right but it's all written

Please fast unto the Lord n ask Him to guide you cause it don't cost much for a marriage license n two friends for witnesses n get married especially at the justice of the peace

There r different laws for a married couple then a live there r different rights that come along when to are married in the eyes of the world YH commands us this for a reason but please please do not twist the word blasphemy friend is unforgivable

Oh my

Twistie


When Yeshua spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, he revealed something significant that we often miss in this passage. In verses 17-18, Jesus said to the woman:

"You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on them

You said it well @Twistie
Adultery and divorce, remarry, divorce is the "acceptable norm" among Christians.

Johann

 

[Johann]

Hi Sue,

It would not really be beneficial for us to argue Law unless you've had some experience in this area. But perhaps I shouldn't presume, so where did you read law?

Now according to Case Law and Common Law, Marriage exists as a Right held by the people long antecedent to the creation of the State, and the State has no powers granted to it to deny such a Constitutional Right, and therefore cannot "give permission" for something over which it never had jurisdiction.

From a Federal perspective, this is covered by the 10th amendment of the Bill of RIGHTS.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Given historical precedence, though, marriage would be HELD BY (not "granted to") the people as a RIGHT under the 1st amendment as Freedom of Religion, in that a Priest or Rabbi would typically preside over such a ceremony.

And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the Bible existed way longer than the Constituted State Powers in the land. Common Law Marriage IS marriage. And Common Law IS Law. I would suggest you might wish to bone up on your Black's Law Dictionary over the holidays.

Black's Law Dictionary

Building on the strength of previous editions, this edition includes an extensive appendix on legal abbreviations plus 17000 new definiti...

www.goodreads.com

Again, a marriage license is a signed waiver of rights held by the people granting the State permission to be a party of interest in the marriage contract so that an easy (non 12 person jury) divorce may be presided over by a judge.

Chao,
Rhema

Marriage
This relation is in a general way represented by several Hebrew words, the most distinctive of which are several forms of חָתִן, chathan’, to give in marriage; Gr. γάμος, a wedding. It is very remarkable, however, as well as significant, that there is no single word in the whole Hebrew Scriptures for the estate of marriage, or to express the abstract idea of wedlock, matrimony, as the German Ehe does. It is only in the post-exilian period, when the laws of marriage had gradually developed themselves, that we meet with the abstract אישותand זווג— — ζεῦγος (Jebanoth, 6:5; Kiddushin, 1:2); the former denoting the legal, and the latter the natural side of matrimony. But even then no such definition of marriage is to be found in the Hebrew writings as we find in the Roman law, “Nuptiue sunt conjunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vite, divini et humani juris communicatio” (Dig. lib. xxiii, Titus 2, “De ritu nupt.”). In the present article, which treats of marriage as found amongo the Hebrew race, we cover the entire field of matrimonial relations and ceremonies, both ancient and modern. SEE WEDLOCK.
I. Origin, Primitive Relations, and General View of the Married State. —
1. The institution of marriage is founded on the requirements of man’s nature, and dates from the time of his original creation. It may be said to have been ordained by God, in as far as man’s nature was ordained by him; but its formal appointment was the work of man, and it has ever been in its essence. a natural and civil institution, though admitting of the infusion of a religious element into it. This view of marriage is exhibited in the historical account of its origin in the book of Genesis; the peculiar formation of man’s nature is assigned to the Creator, who, seeing it “not good for man to be alone,” determined to form an “help meet for him” (Gen_2:18), and accordingly completed the work by the addition of the female to the male (Gen_1:27). The necessity for this step appears from the words used in the declaration of the divine counsel. Man, as an intellectual and spiritual being, would not have been a worthy representative of the Deity on earth, so long as he lived in solitude, or in communion only with beings either high above him in the scale of creation, as angels, or far beneath him, as the beasts of the field. It was absolutely necessary, not only for his comfort and happiness, but still more for the perfection of the divine work, that he should have a “help meet for him,” or, as the words more properly mean, “the exact counterpart of himself’“ (עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, Septuag. βοηθὸς κατ᾿ αὐτόν; Vulg. adjutorium simile sibi, “a help meet for him”) — a being capable of receiving and reflecting his thoughts and affections. No sooner was the formation of woman effected, than Adam recognized in that act the will of the Creator as to man’s social condition, and immediately enunciated the important statement, to which his posterity might refer as the charter of marriage in all succeeding ages, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Gen_2:24). From these words, coupled with the circumstances attendant on the formation of the first woman, we may evolve the following principles:
(1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man, and as expressed in the words “one flesh;”
(2) the indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on the strongest grounds (compare Mat_19:9);
(3) monogamy, as the original law of marriage, resulting from there having been but one original couple, as is forcibly expressed in the subsequent reference to this passage by our Lord (“they twain,” Mat_19:5) and St. Paul (“two shall be one flesh,” 1Co_6:16);
(4) the social equality of man and wife, as implied in the terms ish and ishshah, the one being the exact correlative of the other, as well as in the words “help meet for him;”
(5) the subordination of the wife to the husband, consequent upon her subsequent formation (1Co_11:8-9; 1Ti_2:13); and
(6) the respective duties of man and wife, as implied in the words “help meet for him.”
2. The introduction of sin into the world modified to a certain extent the mutual relations of man and wife. As the blame of seduction to sin lay on the latter, the condition of subordination was turned into subjection, and it was said to her of her husband, “he shall rule over thee” (Gen_3:16)- a sentence which, regarded as a prediction, has been strikingly fulfilled in the position assigned to women in Oriental countries; but which, regarded as a rule of life, is fully sustained by the voice of nature and by the teaching of Christianity (1Co_14:34; Eph_5:22-23; Timothy 2:12). The evil effects of the fall were soon apparent in the corrupt usages of marriage: the unity of the bond was impaired by polygamy, which appears to have originated among the Cainites (Gen_4:19); and its purity was deteriorated by the promiscuous intermarriage of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” i.e. of the Sethites With the Cainites, in the days preceding the flood (Gen_6:2).
3. For the history of marriage in the later ages. see below. One question may properly be considered here, i.e. celibacy. Shortly before the Christian sera an important change took place in the views entertained on the question of marriage as affecting the spiritual and intellectual parts of man’s nature. Throughout the Old Testament period marriage was regarded as the indispensable duty of every man, nor was it surmised that there existed in it any drawback to the attainment of the highest degree of holiness. In the interval that elapsed between the Old and New Testament periods, a spirit of asceticism had been evolved, probably in antagonism to the foreign notions with which the Jews were brought into close and painful contact. The Essenes were the first to propound any doubts as to the propriety of marriage; some of them avoided it altogether, others availed themselves of it under restrictions (Josephus, War, 2:8, § 2, 13). Similar views were adopted by the Therapeutae, and at a later period by the Gnostics (Burton’s Lectures, 1:214); thence they passed into the Christian Church, forming one of the distinctive tenets of the Encratites (Burton, 2:161), and finally developing into the system of Monachism. The philosophical tenets on which the prohibition of marriage was based are generally condemned in Col_2:16-23, and specifically in 1Ti_4:3. The general propriety of marriage is enforced on numerous occasions, and abstinence from it is commended only in cases where it was rendered expedient by the calls of duty (Mat_19:12; 1Co_7:8; 1Co_7:26). With regard to remarriage after the death of one of the parties, the Jews, in common with other nations, regarded abstinence from it, particularly in the case of a widow, laudable, and a sign of holiness (Luk_2:36; Luk_2:7; Josephus, Ant. 17:13, 4; 18:6, 6); but it is clear, from the example of Josephus (Vit. 76), that there was no prohibition even in the case of a priest. In the Apostolic Church remarriage was regarded as occasionally undesirable (1Co_7:40), and as an absolute disqualification for holy functions, whether in a man or woman (1Ti_3:2; 1Ti_3:12; 1Ti_5:9); at the same time it is recommended in the case of young widows (1Ti_5:14).
II. Mode of selecting a Bride, Betrothal, and Marriage price. —
1. Imitating the example of the Father of the Universe, who provided the man he made with a wife, fathers from the beginning considered it both their duty and prerogative to find or select wives for their sons (Gen_24:3; Gen_38:6). In the absence of the father, the selection devolved upon the mother (Gen_21:21). Even in cases where the wishes of the son were consulted, the proposals were made by the father (Gen_34:4; Gen_34:8); and the violation of this parental prerogative on the part of the son was “a grief of mind” to the father (Gen_26:35). The proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, except when there was a difference of rank; in such a case the negotiations proceeded from the father of the maiden (Exo_2:21), and when accepted by the parents on both sides, sometimes also consulting the opinion of the adult brothers of the maiden (Gen_24:51; Gen_34:11), the matter was considered as settled without requiring the consent of the bride. The case of Rebekah (Gen_24:58) forms no exception to this general practice, inasmuch as the alliance had already been concluded between Eleazar and Laban, and the question put to her afterwards was to consult her opinion, not about it, but about the time of her departure. Before, however, the marriage contract was finally concluded, a price (מהר) was stipulated for, which the young man had to pay to the father of the maiden (Gen_31:15; Gen_34:12), besides giving presents (מתן) to her relations (Gen_24:53; Gen_34:12). This marriage-price was regarded as a compensation due to the parents for the loss of service which they sustained by the departure of their daughter, as well as for the trouble and expense which they incurred in her education. Hence, if the proffered young man had not the requisite compensation, he was obliged to make it up in service (Gen_29:20; Exo_2:21; Exo_3:1). Some, indeed, deny that a price had to be paid down to the father for parting with his daughter, and appeal for support to Gen_31:15, where, according to them, “the daughters of Laban make it a matter of complaint, that their father bargained for the services of Jacob in exchange for their hands, just as if they were strangers;” thus showing that the sale of daughters was regarded as an unjust act and a matter of complaint (Saalschutz, Das Mosaische Recht. p. 733). But, on a closer inspection of the passage in question, it will be seen that Rachel and Leah do not at all complain of any indignity heaped on them by being sold just as if they were strangers, but, on the contrary, mention the sale to corroborate their statement that they are no longer their father’s property, have no more any portion in his possession, and are
now regarded by him as strangers, since, according to the usual custom, they have been duly sold to their husband, and hence agree with the latter that it is time for them to depart. Besides, the marriage-price is distinctly mentioned in other passages of Scripture (Exo_22:15-16; 1Sa_18:23; 1Sa_18:25; Rth_4:10; Hos_3:2), and was commonly demanded by the nations of antiquity; as the Babylonians (Herod. 1:196); Assyrians (Elian, V. H. 4:1; Strabo, 16:745); the ancient Greeks (Odyss. 8:318 sq.; Arist. Polit. 2:8; Pausan. 3:12, 2); the Germans (Tacitus, Germ. 18), and still obtains in the East to the present day. In fact, it could not be otherwise where polygamy was practiced. As the number of maidens was under such circumstances less than that of wooers, it called forth competition, and it was but natural that he who offered the highest marriage-price obtained the damsel. There was therefore no fixed marriage-price; it varied according to circumstances. We meet with no dowry given with the bride by her father during the patriarchal age, except a maid-servant (Gen_24:61; Gen_29:24; Gen_29:29).
2. The Mosaic enactments introduced no changes into these usages. The father’s power over the child in matters of marriage continued paramount, and he could give his children to any one he pleased without asking their consent. Thus Caleb offers his daughter Achsah (Jos_15:16-17) as wife to any one who will conquer Kirjath-sepher (Jdg_1:12). Saul promises his daughter to him who shall kill the Philistine, and barters his daughter Michal for the prepuces of a hundred slain Philistines (1Sa_17:26-27; 1Sa_18:25-27); and Ibzan takes thirty wives for his thirty sons (Jdg_12:9). The imaginary case of women soliciting husbands (Isa_4:1) was designed to convey to the mind a picture of the ravages of war, by which the greater part of the males had fallen. A judicial marriage-price (הבתולה מהר) was now introduced, which was fixed at fifty silver shekels (Exo_12:16, with Deu_22:29), being the highest rate of a servant (Lev_27:3), so that one had to pay as much for a wife as for a bondwoman. When the father of the maiden was rich and did not want the marriage-price (אין חפוֹ במהר), he expected some service by way of compensation for giving away his daughter (1Sa_18:25). As soon as the bargain was concluded, and the marriage- price paid, or the required service rendered, the maiden was regarded as betrothed to her wooer, and as sacredly belonging to him. In fact, she was legally treated as a married wontan ( אשת איש); she could not be separated from her intended husband without a bill of divorce, and the same law was applicable to her as to married people. If she was persuaded to criminal conduct between the espousals and the bringing her home to her husband’s house, both she and her seducer were publicly stoned to death; and if she was violated, the culprit suffered capital punishment (Deu_22:23-27, with Deu_22:22; and Lev_20:10). With such sacredness was betrothal regarded, that even if a bondmaid who was bought with the intention of ultimately becoming a secondary wife (Exo_21:7-11), was guilty of unchastity prior to her entering into that state, both she and her seducer were scourged, while the latter was also obliged to bring a sin-offering, and. the priest had to pray for the forgiveness of his sin (Lev_19:20-22). Every betrothed man was by the Mosaic law exempt from military service (Deu_20:7).
3. In the post-exilian period, as long as the children were minors-which in the case of a son was up to thirteen, and a daughter to twelve years of age- the parents could betroth them to any one they chose; but when they became of age their consent was required (Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3:11, 12). Occasionally the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend, and hence the case might arise which is supposed by the Talmudists (Yebam. 2, § 6, 7), that a man might not be aware to which of two sisters he was betrothed. So in Egypt at the present day the choice of a wife is sometimes entrusted to a professional woman styled a khat’beh; and it is seldom that the bridegroom sees the features of his bride before the marriage has taken place (Lane, 1:209-211). It not unfrequently happened, however, that the selection of partners for life was made by the young people themselves. For this, the ceremonies connected with the celebration of the festivals in the Temple afforded an excellent opportunity, as may be gathered from the following remark in the Mishna: “R. Simeon ben-Gamaliel says. There were never more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ab and the Day of Atonement. On these the maidens of Jerusalem used to come out dressed in white garments, which they borrowed, in order not to shame those who had none of their own, and which they had immersed [for fear of being polluted]. Thus arrayed, these maidens of Jerusalem went out and danced in the vineyards, singing, Young man, lift up thine eyes, and see whom thou art about to choose; fix not thine eye upon beauty, but look rather to a pious family; for gracefulness is deceit, and beauty is vanity, but the woman that fears the Lord, she is worthy of praise” (Megilla, 4:8). Having made his choice, the young man or his father informed the maiden’s father of it, whereupon the young people were legally betrothed. The betrothal was celebrated by a feast made in the house of the bride (Jebamnoth, 43 a; Taanith, 26 b; Pessachil, 49 a; Kiddushin, 45 b), and is called קידושוֹן, made sacred, for by it the bride was made sacred to her bridegroom, and was not to be touched by any one else. It is also called אירסין, which may be from ארש איס, to betroth. For a betrothal to be legal, it has to be effected in one of the following three modes:
(1.) By money, or money’s worth, which, according to the school of Shammai, must be a denar (דיני) = 90 grains of pure gold, or, according to the school of Hillel, a perutah (פרוטה) = half a grain of pure silver, and which is to be given to the maiden, or, if she is a minor, to her father, as betrothal price (כס קידושין);
(2.) By letter or contract (שטר אירוסין), which the young man, either in person or through a proxy, has to give to the maiden, or to her father when she is a minor; or,
(3.) By cohabitations (ביאה, usus), when the young man and maiden, having pronounced the betrothal formula in the presence of two witnesses, retire into a separate room. This. however, is considered immodest, and the man is scourged (Kiddushin, 12 b). The legal formula to be pronounced is, “Behold, thou art betrothed or sanctified to me (את מקודשת לי כדת משה וישראל הנה), according to the law of Moses and Israel” (Kiddushin, 1:1; 4:9; Tosiftha Kethuboth, 4; Kethuboth, 4:8; Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3; Eben in Ezer, 32). Though betrothment, as we have seen before, was the beginning of marriage itself, and, like it, could only be broken off by a regular bill of divorcement (גט), yet twelve months were generally allowed to intervene between it and actual marriage (חופה) in the case of a maiden, to prepare her outfit, and thirty days in the case of a widow (Kethuboth, 57 a). The intercourse of the betrothed during this period was regulated by the customs of the different towns (Mishna, Kethuboth, v. 2).


This is very long, but I don't give a hoot, since to me, "living" with another person and considered it to be a "marriage" is unbiblical.

Johann

 

[Johann]

Marriage
This relation is in a general way represented by several Hebrew words, the most distinctive of which are several forms of חָתִן, chathan’, to give in marriage; Gr. γάμος, a wedding. It is very remarkable, however, as well as significant, that there is no single word in the whole Hebrew Scriptures for the estate of marriage, or to express the abstract idea of wedlock, matrimony, as the German Ehe does. It is only in the post-exilian period, when the laws of marriage had gradually developed themselves, that we meet with the abstract אישותand זווג— — ζεῦγος (Jebanoth, 6:5; Kiddushin, 1:2); the former denoting the legal, and the latter the natural side of matrimony. But even then no such definition of marriage is to be found in the Hebrew writings as we find in the Roman law, “Nuptiue sunt conjunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vite, divini et humani juris communicatio” (Dig. lib. xxiii, Titus 2, “De ritu nupt.”). In the present article, which treats of marriage as found amongo the Hebrew race, we cover the entire field of matrimonial relations and ceremonies, both ancient and modern. SEE WEDLOCK.
I. Origin, Primitive Relations, and General View of the Married State. —
1. The institution of marriage is founded on the requirements of man’s nature, and dates from the time of his original creation. It may be said to have been ordained by God, in as far as man’s nature was ordained by him; but its formal appointment was the work of man, and it has ever been in its essence. a natural and civil institution, though admitting of the infusion of a religious element into it. This view of marriage is exhibited in the historical account of its origin in the book of Genesis; the peculiar formation of man’s nature is assigned to the Creator, who, seeing it “not good for man to be alone,” determined to form an “help meet for him” (Gen_2:18), and accordingly completed the work by the addition of the female to the male (Gen_1:27). The necessity for this step appears from the words used in the declaration of the divine counsel. Man, as an intellectual and spiritual being, would not have been a worthy representative of the Deity on earth, so long as he lived in solitude, or in communion only with beings either high above him in the scale of creation, as angels, or far beneath him, as the beasts of the field. It was absolutely necessary, not only for his comfort and happiness, but still more for the perfection of the divine work, that he should have a “help meet for him,” or, as the words more properly mean, “the exact counterpart of himself’“ (עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, Septuag. βοηθὸς κατ᾿ αὐτόν; Vulg. adjutorium simile sibi, “a help meet for him”) — a being capable of receiving and reflecting his thoughts and affections. No sooner was the formation of woman effected, than Adam recognized in that act the will of the Creator as to man’s social condition, and immediately enunciated the important statement, to which his posterity might refer as the charter of marriage in all succeeding ages, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh” (Gen_2:24). From these words, coupled with the circumstances attendant on the formation of the first woman, we may evolve the following principles:
(1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man, and as expressed in the words “one flesh;”
(2) the indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on the strongest grounds (compare Mat_19:9);
(3) monogamy, as the original law of marriage, resulting from there having been but one original couple, as is forcibly expressed in the subsequent reference to this passage by our Lord (“they twain,” Mat_19:5) and St. Paul (“two shall be one flesh,” 1Co_6:16);
(4) the social equality of man and wife, as implied in the terms ish and ishshah, the one being the exact correlative of the other, as well as in the words “help meet for him;”
(5) the subordination of the wife to the husband, consequent upon her subsequent formation (1Co_11:8-9; 1Ti_2:13); and
(6) the respective duties of man and wife, as implied in the words “help meet for him.”
2. The introduction of sin into the world modified to a certain extent the mutual relations of man and wife. As the blame of seduction to sin lay on the latter, the condition of subordination was turned into subjection, and it was said to her of her husband, “he shall rule over thee” (Gen_3:16)- a sentence which, regarded as a prediction, has been strikingly fulfilled in the position assigned to women in Oriental countries; but which, regarded as a rule of life, is fully sustained by the voice of nature and by the teaching of Christianity (1Co_14:34; Eph_5:22-23; Timothy 2:12). The evil effects of the fall were soon apparent in the corrupt usages of marriage: the unity of the bond was impaired by polygamy, which appears to have originated among the Cainites (Gen_4:19); and its purity was deteriorated by the promiscuous intermarriage of the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” i.e. of the Sethites With the Cainites, in the days preceding the flood (Gen_6:2).
3. For the history of marriage in the later ages. see below. One question may properly be considered here, i.e. celibacy. Shortly before the Christian sera an important change took place in the views entertained on the question of marriage as affecting the spiritual and intellectual parts of man’s nature. Throughout the Old Testament period marriage was regarded as the indispensable duty of every man, nor was it surmised that there existed in it any drawback to the attainment of the highest degree of holiness. In the interval that elapsed between the Old and New Testament periods, a spirit of asceticism had been evolved, probably in antagonism to the foreign notions with which the Jews were brought into close and painful contact. The Essenes were the first to propound any doubts as to the propriety of marriage; some of them avoided it altogether, others availed themselves of it under restrictions (Josephus, War, 2:8, § 2, 13). Similar views were adopted by the Therapeutae, and at a later period by the Gnostics (Burton’s Lectures, 1:214); thence they passed into the Christian Church, forming one of the distinctive tenets of the Encratites (Burton, 2:161), and finally developing into the system of Monachism. The philosophical tenets on which the prohibition of marriage was based are generally condemned in Col_2:16-23, and specifically in 1Ti_4:3. The general propriety of marriage is enforced on numerous occasions, and abstinence from it is commended only in cases where it was rendered expedient by the calls of duty (Mat_19:12; 1Co_7:8; 1Co_7:26). With regard to remarriage after the death of one of the parties, the Jews, in common with other nations, regarded abstinence from it, particularly in the case of a widow, laudable, and a sign of holiness (Luk_2:36; Luk_2:7; Josephus, Ant. 17:13, 4; 18:6, 6); but it is clear, from the example of Josephus (Vit. 76), that there was no prohibition even in the case of a priest. In the Apostolic Church remarriage was regarded as occasionally undesirable (1Co_7:40), and as an absolute disqualification for holy functions, whether in a man or woman (1Ti_3:2; 1Ti_3:12; 1Ti_5:9); at the same time it is recommended in the case of young widows (1Ti_5:14).
II. Mode of selecting a Bride, Betrothal, and Marriage price. —
1. Imitating the example of the Father of the Universe, who provided the man he made with a wife, fathers from the beginning considered it both their duty and prerogative to find or select wives for their sons (Gen_24:3; Gen_38:6). In the absence of the father, the selection devolved upon the mother (Gen_21:21). Even in cases where the wishes of the son were consulted, the proposals were made by the father (Gen_34:4; Gen_34:8); and the violation of this parental prerogative on the part of the son was “a grief of mind” to the father (Gen_26:35). The proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, except when there was a difference of rank; in such a case the negotiations proceeded from the father of the maiden (Exo_2:21), and when accepted by the parents on both sides, sometimes also consulting the opinion of the adult brothers of the maiden (Gen_24:51; Gen_34:11), the matter was considered as settled without requiring the consent of the bride. The case of Rebekah (Gen_24:58) forms no exception to this general practice, inasmuch as the alliance had already been concluded between Eleazar and Laban, and the question put to her afterwards was to consult her opinion, not about it, but about the time of her departure. Before, however, the marriage contract was finally concluded, a price (מהר) was stipulated for, which the young man had to pay to the father of the maiden (Gen_31:15; Gen_34:12), besides giving presents (מתן) to her relations (Gen_24:53; Gen_34:12). This marriage-price was regarded as a compensation due to the parents for the loss of service which they sustained by the departure of their daughter, as well as for the trouble and expense which they incurred in her education. Hence, if the proffered young man had not the requisite compensation, he was obliged to make it up in service (Gen_29:20; Exo_2:21; Exo_3:1). Some, indeed, deny that a price had to be paid down to the father for parting with his daughter, and appeal for support to Gen_31:15, where, according to them, “the daughters of Laban make it a matter of complaint, that their father bargained for the services of Jacob in exchange for their hands, just as if they were strangers;” thus showing that the sale of daughters was regarded as an unjust act and a matter of complaint (Saalschutz, Das Mosaische Recht. p. 733). But, on a closer inspection of the passage in question, it will be seen that Rachel and Leah do not at all complain of any indignity heaped on them by being sold just as if they were strangers, but, on the contrary, mention the sale to corroborate their statement that they are no longer their father’s property, have no more any portion in his possession, and are
now regarded by him as strangers, since, according to the usual custom, they have been duly sold to their husband, and hence agree with the latter that it is time for them to depart. Besides, the marriage-price is distinctly mentioned in other passages of Scripture (Exo_22:15-16; 1Sa_18:23; 1Sa_18:25; Rth_4:10; Hos_3:2), and was commonly demanded by the nations of antiquity; as the Babylonians (Herod. 1:196); Assyrians (Elian, V. H. 4:1; Strabo, 16:745); the ancient Greeks (Odyss. 8:318 sq.; Arist. Polit. 2:8; Pausan. 3:12, 2); the Germans (Tacitus, Germ. 18), and still obtains in the East to the present day. In fact, it could not be otherwise where polygamy was practiced. As the number of maidens was under such circumstances less than that of wooers, it called forth competition, and it was but natural that he who offered the highest marriage-price obtained the damsel. There was therefore no fixed marriage-price; it varied according to circumstances. We meet with no dowry given with the bride by her father during the patriarchal age, except a maid-servant (Gen_24:61; Gen_29:24; Gen_29:29).
2. The Mosaic enactments introduced no changes into these usages. The father’s power over the child in matters of marriage continued paramount, and he could give his children to any one he pleased without asking their consent. Thus Caleb offers his daughter Achsah (Jos_15:16-17) as wife to any one who will conquer Kirjath-sepher (Jdg_1:12). Saul promises his daughter to him who shall kill the Philistine, and barters his daughter Michal for the prepuces of a hundred slain Philistines (1Sa_17:26-27; 1Sa_18:25-27); and Ibzan takes thirty wives for his thirty sons (Jdg_12:9). The imaginary case of women soliciting husbands (Isa_4:1) was designed to convey to the mind a picture of the ravages of war, by which the greater part of the males had fallen. A judicial marriage-price (הבתולה מהר) was now introduced, which was fixed at fifty silver shekels (Exo_12:16, with Deu_22:29), being the highest rate of a servant (Lev_27:3), so that one had to pay as much for a wife as for a bondwoman. When the father of the maiden was rich and did not want the marriage-price (אין חפוֹ במהר), he expected some service by way of compensation for giving away his daughter (1Sa_18:25). As soon as the bargain was concluded, and the marriage- price paid, or the required service rendered, the maiden was regarded as betrothed to her wooer, and as sacredly belonging to him. In fact, she was legally treated as a married wontan ( אשת איש); she could not be separated from her intended husband without a bill of divorce, and the same law was applicable to her as to married people. If she was persuaded to criminal conduct between the espousals and the bringing her home to her husband’s house, both she and her seducer were publicly stoned to death; and if she was violated, the culprit suffered capital punishment (Deu_22:23-27, with Deu_22:22; and Lev_20:10). With such sacredness was betrothal regarded, that even if a bondmaid who was bought with the intention of ultimately becoming a secondary wife (Exo_21:7-11), was guilty of unchastity prior to her entering into that state, both she and her seducer were scourged, while the latter was also obliged to bring a sin-offering, and. the priest had to pray for the forgiveness of his sin (Lev_19:20-22). Every betrothed man was by the Mosaic law exempt from military service (Deu_20:7).
3. In the post-exilian period, as long as the children were minors-which in the case of a son was up to thirteen, and a daughter to twelve years of age- the parents could betroth them to any one they chose; but when they became of age their consent was required (Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3:11, 12). Occasionally the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend, and hence the case might arise which is supposed by the Talmudists (Yebam. 2, § 6, 7), that a man might not be aware to which of two sisters he was betrothed. So in Egypt at the present day the choice of a wife is sometimes entrusted to a professional woman styled a khat’beh; and it is seldom that the bridegroom sees the features of his bride before the marriage has taken place (Lane, 1:209-211). It not unfrequently happened, however, that the selection of partners for life was made by the young people themselves. For this, the ceremonies connected with the celebration of the festivals in the Temple afforded an excellent opportunity, as may be gathered from the following remark in the Mishna: “R. Simeon ben-Gamaliel says. There were never more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ab and the Day of Atonement. On these the maidens of Jerusalem used to come out dressed in white garments, which they borrowed, in order not to shame those who had none of their own, and which they had immersed [for fear of being polluted]. Thus arrayed, these maidens of Jerusalem went out and danced in the vineyards, singing, Young man, lift up thine eyes, and see whom thou art about to choose; fix not thine eye upon beauty, but look rather to a pious family; for gracefulness is deceit, and beauty is vanity, but the woman that fears the Lord, she is worthy of praise” (Megilla, 4:8). Having made his choice, the young man or his father informed the maiden’s father of it, whereupon the young people were legally betrothed. The betrothal was celebrated by a feast made in the house of the bride (Jebamnoth, 43 a; Taanith, 26 b; Pessachil, 49 a; Kiddushin, 45 b), and is called קידושוֹן, made sacred, for by it the bride was made sacred to her bridegroom, and was not to be touched by any one else. It is also called אירסין, which may be from ארש איס, to betroth. For a betrothal to be legal, it has to be effected in one of the following three modes:
(1.) By money, or money’s worth, which, according to the school of Shammai, must be a denar (דיני) = 90 grains of pure gold, or, according to the school of Hillel, a perutah (פרוטה) = half a grain of pure silver, and which is to be given to the maiden, or, if she is a minor, to her father, as betrothal price (כס קידושין);
(2.) By letter or contract (שטר אירוסין), which the young man, either in person or through a proxy, has to give to the maiden, or to her father when she is a minor; or,
(3.) By cohabitations (ביאה, usus), when the young man and maiden, having pronounced the betrothal formula in the presence of two witnesses, retire into a separate room. This. however, is considered immodest, and the man is scourged (Kiddushin, 12 b). The legal formula to be pronounced is, “Behold, thou art betrothed or sanctified to me (את מקודשת לי כדת משה וישראל הנה), according to the law of Moses and Israel” (Kiddushin, 1:1; 4:9; Tosiftha Kethuboth, 4; Kethuboth, 4:8; Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3; Eben in Ezer, 32). Though betrothment, as we have seen before, was the beginning of marriage itself, and, like it, could only be broken off by a regular bill of divorcement (גט), yet twelve months were generally allowed to intervene between it and actual marriage (חופה) in the case of a maiden, to prepare her outfit, and thirty days in the case of a widow (Kethuboth, 57 a). The intercourse of the betrothed during this period was regulated by the customs of the different towns (Mishna, Kethuboth, v. 2).


This is very long, but I don't give a hoot, since to me, "living" with another person and considered it to be a "marriage" is unbiblical.

Johann

Yes?

 

[Twistie]

Isa_52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Rom_10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But such a gospel presupposes a universal proclamation. Of what use is a salvation offered to Jews and Gentiles if they never hear about it? Here we have the heartbeat of Christian missions!
In a series of three “how's” (how shall they call ... believe ... hear without a preacher), the apostle goes back over the steps that lead to the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. Perhaps it will be clearer if we reverse the order, as follows:

God sends out His servants.
They preach the good news of salvation. [Not prophecies]
Sinners hear God's offer of life in Christ.
Some of those who hear believe the message.
Those who believe call on the Lord.
Those who call on Him are saved.

Hodge points out that this is an argument founded on the principle that if God wills the end, He also wills the means to reach that end. This, as we have said, is the basis of the Christian missionary movement. Paul is here vindicating his preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, a policy which the unbelieving Jews considered inexcusable.
10:15 God is the One who sends. We are the ones who are sent. What are we doing about it? Do we have the beautiful feet which Isaiah ascribed to Him who brought glad tidings of good things (Isa_52:7)? Isaiah writes of the beautiful feet of Him—that is, the Messiah. Here in Rom_10:15 the “him” becomes “them.” He came with beautiful feet 1900 years ago. Now it is our privilege and responsibility to go with beautiful feet to a lost and dying world.

There "goes your argument" @Twistie.

But that aside, when two people "live" together that is adultery, yes?

Johann.

What argument? It is written r you saying YH is wrong that flesh don't birth flesh? That man can teach spiritual lessons?

Twistie