Israelite Marriage Ceremony?

[Kentucky]

This would suggest that marriage is not sexual intercourse. That some sort of witnessing as to whom God has joined together precedes the physical union. Otherwise, the Law in verse 28-29 would not be addressing the issue. I might be missing something, but I don't know what it is lol.

If some sort of "witnessing" ceremony were commonplace--and the rule rather than the exception--one would reasonably expect, given the number of marriages mentioned in Scripture, that they would be mentioned explicitly and repeatedly. I would think that we wouldn't be left to merely infer--or speculate--about their importance. But then again, I may have missed something, no doubt.

Where did I say "ceremony"? My only concerns are biblical, although I'm not opposed to the cultural traditions of our race; as long as they do not transgress the Laws of God.

Mark

[EzraLB]

Mark,
I didn't say you used the word "ceremony", but if you look up the definition of ceremony you'll find that having witnesses at marriages would, in fact, fall under that definition. Call it a witnessing "formality" if you wish, but either way, it is reasonable to see it as a "rite" or ritual or ceremony in a generic way. Call it a "witnessing" act if you're more comfortable with that.

But that's beside the point. My main point is: given all the marriages mentioned in Scripture, you would expect this "witnessing" to be mentioned repeatedly--or at least a couple times explicitly as an example to follow--if, in fact, it were important or essential. Again, I can find no such examples, but I may have missed something.

While I would agree with you that "witnessing" as an option at a marriage is not explicitly anti-Scriptural, I've yet to see proof that such "witnessing" is essential to legitimating a marriage.

[wmfinck]

The laws of Yahweh God must first be understood within the context of the patriarchal society, before we can even begin to imagine how to keep them in the liberal feminist society of today. And it is impossible for us to keep them all, because we have no power to enforce many of them while we are in captivity.

The Harlequin Romance concept of marriage is to a great degree a product of more recent liberal feminist society. In the ancient patriarchal society, marriage was arranged between a man and the father of his prospective wife, and the woman often did not have a say in the matter. Such was the case with Leah.

But then there are also the cases of Hagar, Bilhah and Zilpah, and neither did any of them have a choice. They were all slaves who were married unto either Abraham or Jacob. Now, in the ancient world a concubine had a lesser legal status than a wife, but they were wives nonetheless, and a man would be punished for violating the concubine of another.

2 And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb? 3 And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her. 4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.... 9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife.

So the real dynamic governing marriage in the Old Testament is property rights. The father, or male next-of-kin, had property rights over his daughter(s). A man had to satisfy the father, not necessarily his daughter, to have her in marriage. So it was again, with Rebecca, Rachel and Leah. So a man's commitment to the marriage transcends his commitment to the wife, as it would extend to the family of the wife.

As for the idea that a marriage must have two witnesses, I must ask this: If a man were convicted of murder, must the two witnesses have been there as the murder took place, and also agreeing to the murder in advance of the actual act? In the ancient world, the parents of the woman and whatever other family were present would be witnesses enough to the fact of the marriage.

Therefore the witnesses to a marriage may surely be after the fact. If I tell my companions that I married a woman, that she was living with me as my wife, and they observed that woman or she was there consenting to my words, then each of my companions becomes a witness to my marriage. If I do wrong to my wife, or they find her with another man, then all of my companions can attest to the damage done. That is why we need witnesses.

Betrothal is the securing of a wife by promise or contract until the act of consummation. The man has a promise of marriage, and the law recognizes such a promise and gives the man certain protections in expectation of its fulfillment. It is not exactly equivalent to engagement, since the woman herself need not be a part of the contract. Many circumstances, such as the preparation of a home or the need for time to fulfill certain requirements set down by the father, could result in an extended period of betrothal. Because of the treachery of Laban, Jacob was betrothed to Rachel for fourteen years.

But Jacob was never betrothed to Leah. So betrothal is not a necessary step to marriage.

This is the context, in part, in which the laws in Deuteronomy must be understood.

[Kentucky]

Mark, I didn't say you used the word "ceremony",

You put the word witnessing in quotation marks and then in the same breath insinuated that I meant ceremony. No, you didn't say I used the word ceremony, you implied it. And that was a dishonest representation.

but if you look up the definition of ceremony you'll find that having witnesses at marriages would, in fact, fall under that definition.

I looked at 10 different dictionaries and found no such thing. Which dictionary is your source to show a symbiosis between marriage and ceremony? I trust Webster's 1828 moreso than modern dictionaries and this is what it said:

CEREMONY, n.

1. Outward rite; external form in religion.

2. Forms of civility; rules established by custom for regulating social intercourse.

3. Outward forms of state; the forms prescribed or established by order or custom, serving for the purpose of civility or magnificence, as in levees of princes, the reception of ambassadors, &c.

Master of ceremonies, an officer who superintends the reception of ambassadors. A person who regulates the forms to be observed by the company or attendants on a public occasion.

Trying to squeeze marriage into a reception of ambassadors is like forcing a square peg in a round hole. Again, I reiterate that my only concern is the biblical reality of what constitutes a marriage, not what it has morphed into from generation to generation.

Call it a witnessing "formality" if you wish,

LOL A formality is just another synonym for ceremony.

but either way, it is reasonable to see it as a "rite" or ritual or ceremony in a generic way. Call it a "witnessing" act if you're more comfortable with that.

It's not a matter of comfort, but rather what is right, as opposed to rite. To ritualize the act of a biblical witness is not only unreasonable, it smacks of man institutionalizing and taking precedence over the original intent; for example: the altar call, the priestcraft, the third party of state and marriage, licensure etc.

But that's beside the point. My main point is: given all the marriages mentioned in Scripture, you would expect this "witnessing" to be mentioned repeatedly--or at least a couple times explicitly as an example to follow--if, in fact, it were important or essential. Again, I can find no such examples, but I may have missed something.

There's a lot of things that the Bible does not specify ad nauseum because of redundancy or that it is a given, even though it falls under the umbrella of a principle. Here's the logic or illogic: we are to keep our bodies clean; but the Bible does not specify armpits; therefore we don't have to clean our armpits.

While I would agree with you that "witnessing" as an option at a marriage is not explicitly anti-Scriptural, I've yet to see proof that such "witnessing" is essential to legitimating a marriage.

I wish it were as cut and dry in a nice neat package for all relationships entertaining the thought of becoming husband and wife, but it isn't. That's why Deut. 22 (and elsewhere) is addressing many circumstances. If we're going to talk about what is essential for something being legitimate, we're really talking about whether something is lawful in the eyes of God or not. If the principle of two witnesses is not lawful, then let every man and woman make their own bed. I think this is an important enough subject to raise the concerns that I have for the young men of Israel today, because we live in a world where every man does that which is right in their own eyes. We live in a moral climate that is nearly bankrupt of the New Covenant, where sowing one's oats is as commonplace as breathing. I Timothy 5:19 says, "Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." Conversely, we could understand this principle not to receive a claim for and elder (or anybody else for that matter) except by two or three witnesses. What the young people need to understand today is that the Law is spiritual (Roman 7:14) and for the benefit of mankind. If marriage is sexual intercourse, then it can be nothing else than the flesh. I beg to disagree with that premise on the grounds that spiritual considerations should come before fleshly considerations, which have nothing whatsoever to do with ceremony. Is the Law flesh? God Forbid!

Mark

[Kentucky]

The laws of Yahweh God must first be understood within the context of the patriarchal society,

Absolutely! I would hate to think of living in any matriarchal society, which can never be according to God's will.

As for the idea that a marriage must have two witnesses, I must ask this: If a man were convicted of murder, must the two witnesses have been there as the murder took place,

Lol. I was thinking the same thing if indeed marriage is defined as sexual intercourse. The question is however: must there be two or more witnesses for the consummation of the marriage?

and also agreeing to the murder in advance of the actual act?

Just because two witnesses establishes a matter does mean there is a differentiation between good and evil.

In the ancient world, the parents of the woman and whatever other family were present would be witnesses enough to the fact of the marriage.

Wow, that's all I'm saying too lol.

Therefore the witnesses to a marriage may surely be after the fact. If I tell my companions that I married a woman, that she was living with me as my wife, and they observed that woman or she was there consenting to my words, then each of my companions becomes a witness to my marriage.

If parents or close relatives witness the covenant between the man and woman and make the joyful announcement to your companions, then they may not necessarily be firsthand witnesses per se, but are informed as to whom God hath joined together before the consummation of the marriage covenant. I would think that this would prevent any other suitors from entertaining a relationship with either the bride or groom.

Betrothal is the securing of a wife by promise or contract until the act of consummation. The man has a promise of marriage, and the law recognizes such a promise and gives the man certain protections in expectation of its fulfillment. It is not exactly equivalent to engagement, since the woman herself need not be a part of the contract. Many circumstances, such as the preparation of a home or the need for time to fulfill certain requirements set down by the father, could result in an extended period of betrothal.

I'm glad you mentioned this aspect for the edification of our young Israelite men. There are prior responsibilities that must be taken into consideration before sexual intercourse. Thank you.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Betrothal is the securing of a wife by promise or contract until the act of consummation. The man has a promise of marriage, and the law recognizes such a promise and gives the man certain protections in expectation of its fulfillment. It is not exactly equivalent to engagement, since the woman herself need not be a part of the contract. Many circumstances, such as the preparation of a home or the need for time to fulfill certain requirements set down by the father, could result in an extended period of betrothal.

I'm glad you mentioned this aspect for the edification of our young Israelite men. There are prior responsibilities that must be taken into consideration before sexual intercourse. Thank you.

Mark

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy that "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".

While righteous men will realize the commitment which should be made before taking a woman "to the tent", the disobedient may not.

But when the disobedient nevertheless have intercourse with a woman, they are just as married as the righteous would be. Unless, of course, their is a sin involved, such as adultery or fornication.

The bottom line is this: having sexual intercourse, you are either married, getting married, or committing adultery or fornication (having sex with someone you cannot marry according to the law, such as a beast).

In the eyes of God, there is no such thing as "sex outside of marriage", unless it is adultery or fornication. But a White man having sex with a White woman who is a virgin cannot be committing either adultery or fornication. If he were, the penalty would be death, rather than a command to take her to wife (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Young Israelite men should indeed take sex that seriously.

[Kentucky]

Betrothal is the securing of a wife by promise or contract until the act of consummation. The man has a promise of marriage, and the law recognizes such a promise and gives the man certain protections in expectation of its fulfillment. It is not exactly equivalent to engagement, since the woman herself need not be a part of the contract. Many circumstances, such as the preparation of a home or the need for time to fulfill certain requirements set down by the father, could result in an extended period of betrothal.

I'm glad you mentioned this aspect for the edification of our young Israelite men. There are prior responsibilities that must be taken into consideration before sexual intercourse. Thank you.

Mark

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy that "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".

While righteous men will realize the commitment which should be made before taking a woman "to the tent", the disobedient may not.

But when the disobedient nevertheless have intercourse with a woman, they are just as married as the righteous would be. Unless, of course, their is a sin involved, such as adultery or fornication.

The bottom line is this: having sexual intercourse, you are either married, getting married, or committing adultery or fornication (having sex with someone you cannot marry according to the law, such as a beast).

In the eyes of God, there is no such thing as "sex outside of marriage", unless it is adultery or fornication. But a White man having sex with a White woman who is a virgin cannot be committing either adultery or fornication. If he were, the penalty would be death, rather than a command to take her to wife (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Young Israelite men should indeed take sex that seriously.

Amen Bill.

Mark

[EzraLB]

Kentucky asked,

"Where did I say "ceremony"?"

You seemed to say it your original comment on this thread. Technically, you did not say "ceremony"; you said "ceremonies". I apologize for misquoting you:

"Marriage ceremonies are an ancient tradition of the White race; Christ even performed His first miracle at one."

[Kentucky]

Kentucky asked,

"Where did I say "ceremony"?"

You seemed to say it your original comment on this thread. Technically, you did not say "ceremony"; you said "ceremonies". I apologize for misquoting you:

"Marriage ceremonies are an ancient tradition of the White race; Christ even performed His first miracle at one."

I probably wasn't communicating very well. I was simply stating that marriage ceremonies were a historical fact, without insisting they were good or bad, because some are good and some are bad. But, to say that I was equating witnessing to a marriage ceremony itself was the furtherest thing from my mind as my only concern was the biblical mandate. Granted, a marriage ceremony with an excess of 2 or more witnesses adds to establishing the matter; as a matter of public record and the mutual happiness of all concerned and fond memories. I personally like weddings of people I care about, but in no uncertain terms do I condemn a friend who meets the minimal biblical prerequisites of responsibilities attached to the full orb of marriage minus the cultural traditions we are familiar with. Anytime somebody says "all" explicitly or implicitly should raise red warning flags of dogmatism, unless specifically stated to be such in the Word. Thanks for your due diligence in this thread and I hope I've clarified my position.

I might also add that my own wedding to my lovely wife was attended by about 100 people, half of whom were not Christian Identity and gave us the opportunity to witness the Good News of who we are to them. Several people came up to us after the ceremony and told us it was the best wedding they ever went to. It was a day of blessings all the way around.

Mark

[worms]

Betrothal is the securing of a wife by promise or contract until the act of consummation. The man has a promise of marriage, and the law recognizes such a promise and gives the man certain protections in expectation of its fulfillment. It is not exactly equivalent to engagement, since the woman herself need not be a part of the contract. Many circumstances, such as the preparation of a home or the need for time to fulfill certain requirements set down by the father, could result in an extended period of betrothal.

I'm glad you mentioned this aspect for the edification of our young Israelite men. There are prior responsibilities that must be taken into consideration before sexual intercourse. Thank you.

Mark

Paul wrote in 1 Timothy that "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".

While righteous men will realize the commitment which should be made before taking a woman "to the tent", the disobedient may not.

But when the disobedient nevertheless have intercourse with a woman, they are just as married as the righteous would be. Unless, of course, their is a sin involved, such as adultery or fornication.

The bottom line is this: having sexual intercourse, you are either married, getting married, or committing adultery or fornication (having sex with someone you cannot marry according to the law, such as a beast).

In the eyes of God, there is no such thing as "sex outside of marriage", unless it is adultery or fornication. But a White man having sex with a White woman who is a virgin cannot be committing either adultery or fornication. If he were, the penalty would be death, rather than a command to take her to wife (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

Young Israelite men should indeed take sex that seriously.

What if that man is already married? If he had sex with another Israelite woman, even if she was a virgin, wouldn't that be adultery because he has cheated on his wife?