What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Virginity testing.

So, what is marriage then and how does it differ from "they are no longer two but one"?
Click to expand...

Marriage does differ from sex. We see the Bible confirm this over and over whenever we see the term "wives and concubines". If sex = marriage, then what are concubines? They certainly weren't wives.

A good and very early example of biblical marriage is Issac and Rebekah. Abraham's servant spoke with Rebekah's father and brother. Rebekah was consulted and agreed to the union. A dowry was paid. Rebekah was sent to her groom attended by her nurse or maid. Abraham's servant met with Isaac and went over the details of the contract with him and then, after all of that, then they wen't into his mother's tent and consummated the marriage. There was a lot more than just sex involved.
 
handy said:
Marriage does differ from sex. We see the Bible confirm this over and over whenever we see the term "wives and concubines". If sex = marriage, then what are concubines? They certainly weren't wives.

A good and very early example of biblical marriage is Issac and Rebekah. Abraham's servant spoke with Rebekah's father and brother. Rebekah was consulted and agreed to the union. A dowry was paid. Rebekah was sent to her groom attended by her nurse or maid. Abraham's servant met with Isaac and went over the details of the contract with him and then, after all of that, then they wen't into his mother's tent and consummated the marriage. There was a lot more than just sex involved.
Click to expand...

handy, do you know of anywhere in the Bible where there is a description of a marriage ceremony or vows taken as we do today or similar to?
 
handy said:
Marriage does differ from sex. We see the Bible confirm this over and over whenever we see the term "wives and concubines". If sex = marriage, then what are concubines? They certainly weren't wives.

A good and very early example of biblical marriage is Issac and Rebekah. Abraham's servant spoke with Rebekah's father and brother. Rebekah was consulted and agreed to the union. A dowry was paid. Rebekah was sent to her groom attended by her nurse or maid. Abraham's servant met with Isaac and went over the details of the contract with him and then, after all of that, then they wen't into his mother's tent and consummated the marriage. There was a lot more than just sex involved.
Click to expand...

However, none of these other than sex refers to marriage even in Issac and Rebekah case. Asking permission for marriage from the bride's father is not marriage itself.

Gen 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's [death.]
 
felix said:
However, none of these other than sex refers to marriage even in Issac and Rebekah case. Asking permission for marriage from the bride's father is not marriage itself.

Gen 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's [death.]
Click to expand...

Yes, she became his wife when the marriage was consummated but they had agreed to the marriage. This was not rape and it was not a man harlot encounter. Issac and Rebekah had agreed to be husband and wife.
Which leads me to this ...there was no ceremony and public vows taken either. Simply an agreement between a man and a woman.
 
felix said:
However, none of these other than sex refers to marriage even in Issac and Rebekah case. Asking permission for marriage from the bride's father is not marriage itself.

Gen 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent; and he took Rebekah and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's [death.]
Click to expand...

Was Hagar Abraham's wife?
 
Deborah13 said:
Yes, she became his wife when the marriage was consummated but they had agreed to the marriage. This was not rape and it was not a man harlot encounter. Issac and Rebekah had agreed to be husband and wife.
Which leads me to this ...there was no ceremony and public vows taken either. Simply an agreement between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Below is what God had in mind when giving the Law to Israelites. It is not an agreement but "sex" that defines marriage.

(Exod 22:16-17) "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her [to be] his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.
(Deut 22:28-29) "If a man finds a young woman [who is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

However, the above law is not "forced" meaning, the father of the bride can refuse.
 
Deborah13 said:
Was Hagar Abraham's wife?
Click to expand...

(Gen 16:3) Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.

If Scripture says so, so be it. Amen.
 
felix said:
Below is what God had in mind when giving the Law to Israelites. It is not an agreement but "sex" that defines marriage.

(Exod 22:16-17) "If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her [to be] his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.
(Deut 22:28-29) "If a man finds a young woman [who is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

However, the above law is not "forced" meaning, the father of the bride can refuse.
Click to expand...

Yes, the father could refuse to give her to him for his wife and so she did not become his wife. He still had to pay the price because he had defiled her.
 
reba said:
And the families
Click to expand...

Yes, but we do see that she could have refused.

I live in Colorado which is one of fourteen states in the US that common law marriage is still legal. If you want out of it you would have to get a divorce.
The Constitution was written under comman law.
The reason common law marriages were legal in the first place was because that in the frontier days there were people living in remote areas. There were not always civil servants or pastors to perform a marriage. So people married by consent to one another. I can't believe that God did not honor those marriages.
 
felix said:
(Gen 16:3) Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar her maid, the Egyptian, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan.

If Scripture says so, so be it. Amen.
Click to expand...

Oh yes!! I forgot Abram had more than one wife!! He had others too.
So I have to stand on the concubines, what were they?
 
Deborah13 said:
Yes, but we do see that she could have refused.

I live in Colorado which is one of fourteen states in the US that common law marriage is still legal. If you want out of it you would have to get a divorce.
The Constitution was written under comman law.
The reason common law marriages were legal in the first place was because that in the frontier days there were people living in remote areas. There were not always civil servants or pastors to perform a marriage. So people married by consent to one another. I can't believe that God did not honor those marriages.
Click to expand...

Deborah:

I think part of it is that if the woman was repudiated, it was recognized that she had rights; that is, she deserved a bill of divorcement for her protection and for understanding about her status. This, irrespective of whether there was an original marriage record in existence.

An example of this is that First Lady Florence Harding was divorced under Ohio law, before she married Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor as President. Even though there was never any record of her having been married.

(I'm confused by some of Felix's statements; I'm not sure where they lead.)
 
Deborah13 said:
Yes, the father could refuse to give her to him for his wife and so she did not become his wife. He still had to pay the price because he had defiled her.
Click to expand...

Both the verses are dealing with rape. Hence, the woman is not guilty in anyway. It is the man who is guilty.
 
felix said:
..
That is not a sin to Hosea but to show how abominable it is for God to be with Israel as His wife which ultimately led God to divorce Israel.
..
Click to expand...

...but seeing as Israel is to be restored (I'm a Dispensationalist in my prophetic understanding), any putting away will be ultimately rescinded.

So Hosea was indeed given a lesson in God's longsuffering and patience.
 
farouk said:
Deborah:

I think part of it is that if the woman was repudiated, it was recognized that she had rights; that is, she deserved a bill of divorcement for her protection and for understanding about her status. This, irrespective of whether there was an original marriage record in existence.

An example of this is that First Lady Florence Harding was divorced under Ohio law, before she married Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor as President. Even though there was never any record of her having been married.

(I'm confused by some of Felix's statements; I'm not sure where they lead.)
Click to expand...

As it is today. Also so that if she or he is left a widow they have inheritance rights.
But the fact remains that there was not always pastors or civil servants available to perform a ceremony. They commited to each other and were in agreement to their marriage. I believe God honored those marriages and sanctified their children. And I don't believe they were living in sin.
 
Deborah13 said:
As it is today. Also so that if she or he is left a widow they have inheritance rights.
But the fact remains that there was not always pastors or civil servants available to perform a ceremony. They commited to each other and were in agreement to their marriage. I believe God honored those marriages and sanctified their children. And I don't believe they were living in sin.
Click to expand...

Deborah:

On the other hand, what about a young woman born to such a couple, who turns 18 or thereabouts, and they live up a mountain someplace, and she meets a young man from the same mountain area and they want to become a permanent fixture. Would the parents really be justified in advising her simply to start living with the young man?

(I'm just being hypothetical here.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
farouk said:
...but seeing as Israel is to be restored (I'm a Dispensationalist in my prophetic understanding), any putting away will be ultimately rescinded.

So Hosea was indeed given a lesson in God's longsuffering and patience.
Click to expand...

Although there are prophecies about restoring Israel, when new covenant came, it is being replaced by better promises and I can't see a single NT prophesy about restoring Israel. Even the new Jerusalem in NT is very much different from the new Jerusalem in OT which has nothing to do with the present land of Israel. I think that is off topic.. may be we can discuss later at some other thread.
 
felix said:
Although there are prophecies about restoring Israel, when new covenant came, it is being replaced by better promises and I can't see a single NT prophesy about restoring Israel. Even the new Jerusalem in NT is very much different from the new Jerusalem in OT which has nothing to do with the present land of Israel. I think that is off topic.. may be we can discuss later at some other thread.
Click to expand...

felix: Romans 11, I would reckon; but like you say, it's getting into another area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top