Something I don't understand regarding Mary and Joseph.

[worms]

Recently I was reading a thread on here where pretty much everyone agreed that marriage is actually the act of sex, and not some sort of ceremony. I agree with this notion too by the way.

But if Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born then how come Joseph is described as Mary's husband numerous times, here is an example:

Matthew 1:16 - "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

I would appreciate any answers.

[wmfinck]

First, the words husband and wife are only inferred in the original languages, and interpreted by translators. For instance, while aner was used in somewhat different contexts than the more general anthropos, it still basically means man, and is often translated in that manner in the King James Version. The original texts may therefore be read simply as man and woman whenever the words husband or wife appear.

In New Testament Judaea and elsewhere (but not always) in the ancient world, there was a period of betrothal before a marriage was actually consummated (before it became a marriage, with the joining of the pair in a sexual relationship). The period of betrothal was not some official designation, but only represented the time from when a promise in marriage was made unto the time that the marriage was actually consummated. Although the two had not actually married, Mary was nevertheless promised in marriage to Joseph, and he had taken her from the home of her former guardians (ostensibly her parents). Therefore she was his woman, and the translators chose to render the word as wife.

Contrarily, it is evident in the Old Testament that the ancient Hebrews often did not take a woman from the home of her parents until the marriage was indeed consummated. Therefore parents could produce the "tokens" of their daughter's virginity in the event that a dispute arose concerning her maidenhood (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:15). These "tokens" would evidently include the soiled wedding chamber bedsheets, and the practice of their retention survived as a custom in certain places in the Mediterranean until recent times. So with what Joseph and Mary had done, departing from Mary's parents' home before that consummation, we see a divergence from the cultural construct of the ancient Hebrews.

Marriage happens when a man joins with a woman in a bed. The law of God which regulates that act states that they must be of the same flesh and bone (Genesis 2:19-25). Anyone who doubts that marriage happens in a bed should examine how Jacob married Leah, how Isaac married Rebekah, and how David married Bathsheba. Christ also said "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

While the process of getting married is often (not always) defined by a cultural construct, it should still not be confused with marriage itself, or with God's requirements for legitimate marriage outlined in Genesis 2. There is nothing wrong with cultural constructs, as communities do have a need to regulate themselves, and extra-Biblical guidelines are sometimes necessary for that. However, if we want to use the ancient world as a model, the first marriages at altars were happening in Baal temples! No wonder the idea of marriage is so corrupt today! I would assert that the study of the ancient Biblical cultures - found in sources mostly outside of the Bible - is therefore necessary to a more complete understanding of the events of the Bible. However cultural constructs should not be enforced as if they were God's law - which they most certainly are not.

So while cultural constructs are useful devices for ordering a society, it is not proper that the culture should attempt to supersede the laws of God and the facts of life with its own legalisms, as we see today in Western society. By doing that, the culture later becoming corrupted, governments can then claim authority to redefine the act itself, and therefore we have men "married" to men! Neither have our modern cultural constructs been effective in enforcing God's other laws concerning sexual acts, such as those governing fornication and adultery. So the lesson in this is that in cultural constructs, the people can become alienated from God's law. What we have in modern society today is fully exemplary of that.

This topic, also discussed in other threads here to one degree or another, probably requires a book, or at least a lengthy essay. Another project for the list, LOL.

[Kentucky]

First, the words husband and wife are only inferred in the original languages, and interpreted by translators. For instance, while aner was used in somewhat different contexts than the more general anthropos, it still basically means man, and is often translated in that manner in the King James Version. The original texts may therefore be read simply as man and woman whenever the words husband or wife appear.

My understanding is that there are no "original texts" of either the OT or the NT; there are only copies. If the assumption is that man and woman means husband and wife, then is that to mean there were no words for husband and wife in the original texts? Wouldn't that prompt a bit of confusion for men and women who weren't husband and wife?

In New Testament Judaea and elsewhere (but not always) in the ancient world, there was a period of betrothal before a marriage was actually consummated (before it became a marriage, with the joining of the pair in a sexual relationship). The period of betrothal was not some official designation, but only represented the time from when a promise in marriage was made unto the time that the marriage was actually consummated. Although the two had not actually married, Mary was nevertheless promised in marriage to Joseph, and he had taken her from the home of her former guardians (ostensibly her parents). Therefore she was his woman, and the translators chose to render the word as wife.

Betrothal is a promise of sex? Was the period of betrothal not an official designation, because no two people have the same identical circumstances leading up to a sexual relationship? Rather, this time period could be considered an unofficial designation for the intents of both parties; what has been called courting (not to be confused with dating). If it were an official designation, who then would decide how much time is required? For all intents and purposes the so called betrothal could only be an hour or so or maybe even a few minutes. Which then, would be somewhat on par with the animal world; and yet even some animals have complex courting/mating rituals. The difference between us and them however, is that we are God breathed, having the Spirit of God directing our motivations. Is a promise in marriage then actually a promise to have sex and nothing more? Any promise is a contract, so anything leading up to the consummation is a marriage contract right? The consummation is merely a physical punctuation which seals the contract. In other words, whatever is promised in the contract, is the heart of the contract itself. I have difficulty understanding how the heart of the contract and the consummation are basically the same thing.

Contrarily, it is evident in the Old Testament that the ancient Hebrews often did not take a woman from the home of her parents until the marriage was indeed consummated.

If marriage is sex and consummation is sex, then a Hebrew man had sex with the daughter in the parents home?

Therefore parents could produce the "tokens" of their daughter's virginity in the event that a dispute arose concerning her maidenhood (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:15). These "tokens" would evidently include the soiled wedding chamber bedsheets, and the practice of their retention survived as a custom in certain places in the Mediterranean until recent times.

"Soiled wedding chamber bedsheets," would suggest a wedding? Does the word 'wedding' also suggest sex/marriage?

So with what Joseph and Mary had done, departing from Mary's parents' home before that consummation, we see a divergence from the cultural construct of the ancient Hebrews.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown makes this commentary: "13-30. If a man take a wife, &c.—The regulations that follow might be imperatively needful in the then situation of the Israelites; and yet, it is not necessary that we should curiously and impertinently inquire into them. So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things upon record, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of His wisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and so given to irregular passions. Nor is it a better argument that the Scriptures were not written by inspiration of God to object that this passage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imagination and will be abused by evil-disposed readers, than it is to say that the sun was not created by God, because its light may be abused by wicked men as an assistant in committing crimes which they have meditated." It would appear that Joseph and Mary moved by the Holy Spirit, rather than the Deut. 22:15 Law of protecting innocent women from lust filled men.

Marriage happens when a man joins with a woman in a bed. The law of God which regulates that act states that they must be of the same flesh and bone (Genesis 2:19-25). Anyone who doubts that marriage happens in a bed should examine how Jacob married Leah, how Isaac married Rebekah, and how David married Bathsheba. Christ also said "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The problem with that is some men will take that as a license from God for one night stands. Let's look at Jacob's situation. Did Jacob have sex with Rachael (who he wanted to be his wife) and then contract with her father Laban to work for him for 7 years before they could leave his house? It was because of the cultural custom, that he was fooled into having sex with Leah. This is hardly the model we should use as to whom God hath joined together. Laban usurped the spirit of marriage. Had God's Law of two witnesses been followed, then the cultural construct would have been secondary.

Let's look at Isaac's situation. His father Abraham, not God, sent out a servant to find a wife for Isaac. The servant lavished gifts upon her and the cash register mind of Laban (Rebekah's brother, representing the family) gave his approval. When an agreement of marriage had been made, it was customary for the bridegroom (or his representative) to give the family of the bride gifts as a dowry to demonstrate his financial ability to provide for the bride. "And he and the men who were with him ate and drank and stayed all night" Gen. 24:54. One could construe this as a vicarious wedding ceremony following the Law of two witnesses; again riddled with cultural constructs, but nevertheless much more than a mere "consummation."

While the process of getting married is often (not always) defined by a cultural construct, it should still not be confused with marriage itself, or with God's requirements for legitimate marriage outlined in Genesis 2. There is nothing wrong with cultural constructs, as communities do have a need to regulate themselves, and extra-Biblical guidelines are sometimes necessary for that. However, if we want to use the ancient world as a model, the first marriages at altars were happening in Baal temples! No wonder the idea of marriage is so corrupt today! I would assert that the study of the ancient Biblical cultures - found in sources mostly outside of the Bible - is therefore necessary to a more complete understanding of the events of the Bible. However cultural constructs should not be enforced as if they were God's law - which they most certainly are not.

Correct, however, God's Law of two witnesses, which establishes any lawful matter should never be confused with social constructs. It's apples and oranges. And we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater when customs and traditions are not the same thing as "the traditions of the elders," which made God's Law of none effect.

So while cultural constructs are useful devices for ordering a society, it is not proper that the culture should attempt to supersede the laws of God and the facts of life with its own legalisms, as we see today in Western society. By doing that, the culture later becoming corrupted, governments can then claim authority to redefine the act itself, and therefore we have men "married" to men! Neither have our modern cultural constructs been effective in enforcing God's other laws concerning sexual acts, such as those governing fornication and adultery. So the lesson in this is that in cultural constructs, the people can become alienated from God's law. What we have in modern society today is fully exemplary of that.

The key here is government. Before government got involved with marriages per licensure, the order or ordering of society was coupled with God's Law of two witnesses i.e. in a Christian nation, and hence the law and order of Christians. The two greatest enemies of whom God hath joined together, putatively called "marriage," is government and the state-sanctioned churches.

This topic, also discussed in other threads here to one degree or another, probably requires a book, or at least a lengthy essay. Another project for the list, LOL.

All we have to keep in mind is the Law of two witnesses and not be distracted by anything else (rituals, ceremonies, cultural traditions, licensure ad nauseum) that preempts a matter being established; that includes marriage before sex, not sex before marriage.

I personally have followed the Aryan tradition of a wedding ceremony officiated by a minister of God and attended by our friends and relatives to witness the happy occasion. I did not get permission from the government nor any Baal worshiping church to do so. I never had any pangs of guilt for my choice of priorities. I have a real moral concern for our young men who may be persuaded that a fleshly act trumps a spiritual act. I have to respectfully disagree with you Bill, as we both care deeply about what is right. If I am wrong (and I'd be happy to elucidate any of the finer points), then I don't really see what harm there is in the position I've taken. Yes, either way, other people can take something good and turn it into evil. It may be that even after 6000 years, we still don't have it quite right.

Mark

[worms]

First, the words husband and wife are only inferred in the original languages, and interpreted by translators. For instance, while aner was used in somewhat different contexts than the more general anthropos, it still basically means man, and is often translated in that manner in the King James Version. The original texts may therefore be read simply as man and woman whenever the words husband or wife appear.

In New Testament Judaea and elsewhere (but not always) in the ancient world, there was a period of betrothal before a marriage was actually consummated (before it became a marriage, with the joining of the pair in a sexual relationship). The period of betrothal was not some official designation, but only represented the time from when a promise in marriage was made unto the time that the marriage was actually consummated. Although the two had not actually married, Mary was nevertheless promised in marriage to Joseph, and he had taken her from the home of her former guardians (ostensibly her parents). Therefore she was his woman, and the translators chose to render the word as wife.

Contrarily, it is evident in the Old Testament that the ancient Hebrews often did not take a woman from the home of her parents until the marriage was indeed consummated. Therefore parents could produce the "tokens" of their daughter's virginity in the event that a dispute arose concerning her maidenhood (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:15). These "tokens" would evidently include the soiled wedding chamber bedsheets, and the practice of their retention survived as a custom in certain places in the Mediterranean until recent times. So with what Joseph and Mary had done, departing from Mary's parents' home before that consummation, we see a divergence from the cultural construct of the ancient Hebrews.

Marriage happens when a man joins with a woman in a bed. The law of God which regulates that act states that they must be of the same flesh and bone (Genesis 2:19-25). Anyone who doubts that marriage happens in a bed should examine how Jacob married Leah, how Isaac married Rebekah, and how David married Bathsheba. Christ also said "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

While the process of getting married is often (not always) defined by a cultural construct, it should still not be confused with marriage itself, or with God's requirements for legitimate marriage outlined in Genesis 2. There is nothing wrong with cultural constructs, as communities do have a need to regulate themselves, and extra-Biblical guidelines are sometimes necessary for that. However, if we want to use the ancient world as a model, the first marriages at altars were happening in Baal temples! No wonder the idea of marriage is so corrupt today! I would assert that the study of the ancient Biblical cultures - found in sources mostly outside of the Bible - is therefore necessary to a more complete understanding of the events of the Bible. However cultural constructs should not be enforced as if they were God's law - which they most certainly are not.

So while cultural constructs are useful devices for ordering a society, it is not proper that the culture should attempt to supersede the laws of God and the facts of life with its own legalisms, as we see today in Western society. By doing that, the culture later becoming corrupted, governments can then claim authority to redefine the act itself, and therefore we have men "married" to men! Neither have our modern cultural constructs been effective in enforcing God's other laws concerning sexual acts, such as those governing fornication and adultery. So the lesson in this is that in cultural constructs, the people can become alienated from God's law. What we have in modern society today is fully exemplary of that.

This topic, also discussed in other threads here to one degree or another, probably requires a book, or at least a lengthy essay. Another project for the list, LOL.

Thanks, great explanation.

I must say though, the bit about ancient Hebrews and their tradition of keeping their daughters bed sheets was quite shocking to me. That is a very strange and inconclusive method of proving your daughter is married.

[Kentucky]

I must say though, the bit about ancient Hebrews and their tradition of keeping their daughters bed sheets was quite shocking to me. That is a very strange and inconclusive method of proving your daughter is married.

I'm going out on a limb and say I don't think the phrase was meant to be taken literally. It would seem to be terribly impracticable and open for cheating (from any of the parties). It sidesteps the Law of two witnesses to establish the matter. Therefore, it would seem to be a metaphor or idiomatic expression (lost to antiquity) suggesting the husband-to-be should thoroughly investigate the virginity of his bride-to-be before making any commitments. If one is so cavalier in their choosing a mate and the virginity card is played, the Law is severe for all concerned. This Law appears to be more of a deterrent than a practice. I couldn't find any example of this Law ever being executed in either the OT or NT.

Mark

[wmfinck]

First, the words husband and wife are only inferred in the original languages, and interpreted by translators. For instance, while aner was used in somewhat different contexts than the more general anthropos, it still basically means man, and is often translated in that manner in the King James Version. The original texts may therefore be read simply as man and woman whenever the words husband or wife appear.

My understanding is that there are no "original texts" of either the OT or the NT; there are only copies. If the assumption is that man and woman means husband and wife, then is that to mean there were no words for husband and wife in the original texts? Wouldn't that prompt a bit of confusion for men and women who weren't husband and wife?

I referred to original texts in the context of my reference to the original languages, which we do understand to a great degree. And although we have no original Hebrew texts, we do have Greek texts which date very closely to the first century originals. We also have Dead Sea Scrolls which are copies of Old Testament books in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek which predate the time of Christ. While the texts are not perfect, we can indeed see how words were used.

In either Greek or Hebrew, there were no specific words for husband or wife. For example, the Hebrew word translated woman in Genesis 2:22 is the same word translated as wife in Genesis 2:24. You will find that same phenomenon all the way to the Revelation, in Hebrew or Greek. This is not an assumption, it is merely a fact.

In New Testament Judaea and elsewhere (but not always) in the ancient world, there was a period of betrothal before a marriage was actually consummated (before it became a marriage, with the joining of the pair in a sexual relationship). The period of betrothal was not some official designation, but only represented the time from when a promise in marriage was made unto the time that the marriage was actually consummated. Although the two had not actually married, Mary was nevertheless promised in marriage to Joseph, and he had taken her from the home of her former guardians (ostensibly her parents). Therefore she was his woman, and the translators chose to render the word as wife.

Betrothal is a promise of sex? Was the period of betrothal not an official designation, because no two people have the same identical circumstances leading up to a sexual relationship? Rather, this time period could be considered an unofficial designation for the intents of both parties; what has been called courting (not to be confused with dating). If it were an official designation, who then would decide how much time is required? For all intents and purposes the so called betrothal could only be an hour or so or maybe even a few minutes. Which then, would be somewhat on par with the animal world; and yet even some animals have complex courting/mating rituals. The difference between us and them however, is that we are God breathed, having the Spirit of God directing our motivations. Is a promise in marriage then actually a promise to have sex and nothing more? Any promise is a contract, so anything leading up to the consummation is a marriage contract right? The consummation is merely a physical punctuation which seals the contract. In other words, whatever is promised in the contract, is the heart of the contract itself. I have difficulty understanding how the heart of the contract and the consummation are basically the same thing.

Betrothal was a promise of marriage, and marriage became marriage at the fullfillment of a sexual union. That is the "point of no return", and once there was a sexual relationship, only then was the marriage tangible. The Greek words translated betroth, betrothal, etc. only mean to indicate a promise of marriage. The promise of marriage was usually between men, since in either the ancient Greek or the ancient Hebrew societies, women were not free. Rome was more liberal, and there were free women who could own property without being attached to a man. If a young man sought a wife and you promised him your daughter, the daughter was considered to be betrothed to that young man. Any conditions or agreements were between you and the young man, and your daughter may have no say in the matter, depending upon your allowance. This is fully evident in the story of Jacob and Laban, but is also elucidated in other ancient sources.

Contrarily, it is evident in the Old Testament that the ancient Hebrews often did not take a woman from the home of her parents until the marriage was indeed consummated.

If marriage is sex and consummation is sex, then a Hebrew man had sex with the daughter in the parents home?

Should they go to a motel instead? How did Jacob marry Leah? And, ostensibly, Rachel also? How else would parents be able to display the "tokens" of their daughters' virginity? However the marriage of Isaac to Rebekah was different, because the circumstances were different.

Therefore parents could produce the "tokens" of their daughter's virginity in the event that a dispute arose concerning her maidenhood (i.e. Deuteronomy 22:15). These "tokens" would evidently include the soiled wedding chamber bedsheets, and the practice of their retention survived as a custom in certain places in the Mediterranean until recent times.

"Soiled wedding chamber bedsheets," would suggest a wedding? Does the word 'wedding' also suggest sex/marriage?

Actually, in Italy, Greece and Turkey (although it is no longer Greek it inherited much of its genetics and culture from the Greeks they overran), until recent times it was part of the marriage ritual to display the marriage bedsheets the morning after a wedding, even by hanging them on the side of the house for all of the community to see.

The word wed is an ancient Germanic word which originally meant a vow or a pledge. Originally, the pledge was an agreement between a man and a father for a woman in marriage. Therefore originally, to wed meant to betroth. The current use of the word is a modern one which developed in the Medieval period.

So with what Joseph and Mary had done, departing from Mary's parents' home before that consummation, we see a divergence from the cultural construct of the ancient Hebrews.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown makes this commentary: "13-30. If a man take a wife, &c.—The regulations that follow might be imperatively needful in the then situation of the Israelites; and yet, it is not necessary that we should curiously and impertinently inquire into them. So far was it from being unworthy of God to leave such things upon record, that the enactments must heighten our admiration of His wisdom and goodness in the management of a people so perverse and so given to irregular passions. Nor is it a better argument that the Scriptures were not written by inspiration of God to object that this passage, and others of a like nature, tend to corrupt the imagination and will be abused by evil-disposed readers, than it is to say that the sun was not created by God, because its light may be abused by wicked men as an assistant in committing crimes which they have meditated." It would appear that Joseph and Mary moved by the Holy Spirit, rather than the Deut. 22:15 Law of protecting innocent women from lust filled men.

Of course the Spirit of God was the guiding force behind the events of the lives of Mary and Joseph. But that does not change the observation that the circumstances of their becoming married deviated from older cultural norms. The point is, that the method of marriage should not be a man-ordained ritual. There is no prescribed method of marriage ordained by Scripture. Marriage occurs with the sexual union of a man and woman. Two witnesses: Genesis 24:67, 1 Corinthians 7:9. Of course, there are others.

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Marriage happens when a man joins with a woman in a bed. The law of God which regulates that act states that they must be of the same flesh and bone (Genesis 2:19-25). Anyone who doubts that marriage happens in a bed should examine how Jacob married Leah, how Isaac married Rebekah, and how David married Bathsheba. Christ also said "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

The problem with that is some men will take that as a license from God for one night stands. Let's look at Jacob's situation. Did Jacob have sex with Rachael (who he wanted to be his wife) and then contract with her father Laban to work for him for 7 years before they could leave his house? It was because of the cultural custom, that he was fooled into having sex with Leah. This is hardly the model we should use as to whom God hath joined together. Laban usurped the spirit of marriage. Had God's Law of two witnesses been followed, then the cultural construct would have been secondary.

Let's look at Isaac's situation. His father Abraham, not God, sent out a servant to find a wife for Isaac. The servant lavished gifts upon her and the cash register mind of Laban (Rebekah's brother, representing the family) gave his approval. When an agreement of marriage had been made, it was customary for the bridegroom (or his representative) to give the family of the bride gifts as a dowry to demonstrate his financial ability to provide for the bride. "And he and the men who were with him ate and drank and stayed all night" Gen. 24:54. One could construe this as a vicarious wedding ceremony following the Law of two witnesses; again riddled with cultural constructs, but nevertheless much more than a mere "consummation."

Wow, the idea that marriage doesn't happen until there are vows at an altar had certainly been a license for zillions of one-night stands! Not too many brides today could stain even the whitest bedsheets, and the men are even worse.

I do not agree with your perception, that Laban gave up his sister out of greed. The gift-giving was part of the cultural norm at the time, which we do not understand today. It was the account given by the servant of Abraham, who must have been know to Laban, that persuaded Laban to part with his sister. The Scripture in this instance portrays Laban as a pious man, but your interpretation pretends to refute that portrayal.

50 Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the LORD: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. 51 Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her be thy master's son's wife, as the LORD hath spoken.

The "vicarious wedding ceremony" scenario is your own invention. The scripture explains how and where and when Isaac and Rebekah were "married":

67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Now there could have been a "minister of God" and an altar and two witnesses in that tent, OR there could have been a bed. I choose to believe that there was a bed in that tent.

While the process of getting married is often (not always) defined by a cultural construct, it should still not be confused with marriage itself, or with God's requirements for legitimate marriage outlined in Genesis 2. There is nothing wrong with cultural constructs, as communities do have a need to regulate themselves, and extra-Biblical guidelines are sometimes necessary for that. However, if we want to use the ancient world as a model, the first marriages at altars were happening in Baal temples! No wonder the idea of marriage is so corrupt today! I would assert that the study of the ancient Biblical cultures - found in sources mostly outside of the Bible - is therefore necessary to a more complete understanding of the events of the Bible. However cultural constructs should not be enforced as if they were God's law - which they most certainly are not.

Correct, however, God's Law of two witnesses, which establishes any lawful matter should never be confused with social constructs. It's apples and oranges. And we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater when customs and traditions are not the same thing as "the traditions of the elders," which made God's Law of none effect.

Let's see what the "Law of two witnesses" is about. It is only mentioned twice in Deuteronomy:

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

So then, the "Law of two witnesses" is given as an ordinance guiding the condemnation of a man under the Law. NOT as an ordinance regulating marriage or any other contract or pledge. Four out of the five times that it was referenced in the New Testament, condemnation of a man for transgression was the context. Only one time did Paul use it in another context, as a literary device in 2 Corinthians chapter 13, speaking of his own visits to the Corinthians.

The idea of applying two witnesses to a marriage ceremony (as if a priest could actually marry anyone) was a development of the Medieval church after they made marriage a sacrament, and even later sought to control it.

So while cultural constructs are useful devices for ordering a society, it is not proper that the culture should attempt to supersede the laws of God and the facts of life with its own legalisms, as we see today in Western society. By doing that, the culture later becoming corrupted, governments can then claim authority to redefine the act itself, and therefore we have men "married" to men! Neither have our modern cultural constructs been effective in enforcing God's other laws concerning sexual acts, such as those governing fornication and adultery. So the lesson in this is that in cultural constructs, the people can become alienated from God's law. What we have in modern society today is fully exemplary of that.

The key here is government. Before government got involved with marriages per licensure, the order or ordering of society was coupled with God's Law of two witnesses i.e. in a Christian nation, and hence the law and order of Christians. The two greatest enemies of whom God hath joined together, putatively called "marriage," is government and the state-sanctioned churches.

Your entire conception of the marriage ceremony did not exist until the Roman Catholic Church created it in the late Middle Ages. before Governments and licenses came to control marriage, the ecclesiastical institutions had just as much control of marriage.

This topic, also discussed in other threads here to one degree or another, probably requires a book, or at least a lengthy essay. Another project for the list, LOL.

All we have to keep in mind is the Law of two witnesses and not be distracted by anything else (rituals, ceremonies, cultural traditions, licensure ad nauseum) that preempts a matter being established; that includes marriage before sex, not sex before marriage.

I personally have followed the Aryan tradition of a wedding ceremony officiated by a minister of God and attended by our friends and relatives to witness the happy occasion. I did not get permission from the government nor any Baal worshiping church to do so. I never had any pangs of guilt for my choice of priorities. I have a real moral concern for our young men who may be persuaded that a fleshly act trumps a spiritual act. I have to respectfully disagree with you Bill, as we both care deeply about what is right. If I am wrong (and I'd be happy to elucidate any of the finer points), then I don't really see what harm there is in the position I've taken. Yes, either way, other people can take something good and turn it into evil. It may be that even after 6000 years, we still don't have it quite right.

Mark

This "Aryan tradition" which you perceive as "marriage" is not an ancient tradition. Yes, as I explained in my original post, there were cultures which had some sort of structured ritual designating a marriage which we might call a wedding, but those varied greatly. In ancient times, weddings were social events celebrated quasi-publicly by the wealthy, usually with lavish feasts. The poor may (read "may") have celebrated privately at home on a smaller scale, simply by having a dinner and inviting some friends and relatives. There were no rituals. There were no public oaths or vows. All oaths and vows were private matters between a suitor and his new wife's father. Since women were not "liberated", a brother or uncle may have been her guardian instead of the father.

In Medieval England, it became customary for newly-married couples to stand outside the church and announce their marriage to the community in attendance. Back then, the entire community was required to attend church, so everyone would learn that the couple was married. The state was not involved in the process, and neither was the clergy! The only requirement for the marriage, was that both husband and wife freely acknowledge their union. Otherwise, it may have been considered as a rape, a kidnapping, or anything but a marriage.

In the middle of the 16th century (1538) the Church of England decreed that it's local clergy start recording marriages in their communities. NOT conducting any marriage ritual or ceremony, but only recording marriages as a matter of fact, just like they had already begun recording other things like baptisms. All a couple had to do was go to the clergy and inform it of their marriage, and it would be entered into the church records. This was freely done withour ceremony or witnesses being necessary.

The modern church marriage ceremony developed after that, and for various reasons not only ecclesiastical, but also social and legal, for instance regarding property disputes.

To me, from everything I understand about Scripture, "sex before marriage" and "marriage before sex" are both impossible ideas. If you are having a sexual relationship with someone, you are either married, or you are fornicating!

The idea of what constitutes "marriage", however, has been transformed by modern society into the conduct of the ritual. So now people go out and screw whoever they please, and it is "okay" since they are not "married". This is the situation we have today, and it is the other side of the coin from those concerns which you yourself have expressed here.

The bottom line is that moral men are always going to act morally, and immoral men are always going to excuse immorality.

I must say though, the bit about ancient Hebrews and their tradition of keeping their daughters bed sheets was quite shocking to me. That is a very strange and inconclusive method of proving your daughter is married.

I'm going out on a limb and say I don't think the phrase was meant to be taken literally. It would seem to be terribly impracticable and open for cheating (from any of the parties). It sidesteps the Law of two witnesses to establish the matter. Therefore, it would seem to be a metaphor or idiomatic expression (lost to antiquity) suggesting the husband-to-be should thoroughly investigate the virginity of his bride-to-be before making any commitments. If one is so cavalier in their choosing a mate and the virginity card is played, the Law is severe for all concerned. This Law appears to be more of a deterrent than a practice. I couldn't find any example of this Law ever being executed in either the OT or NT.

Mark

Likewise, I cannot find any example of the "Law of two witnesses" relating to marriage. In fact, it only relates to matters of judgment in a court of law!

Have you ever seen a modern divorce case where a so-called "best man" or "bridesmaid" are called to testify of the facts of a marriage? In my assessment, modern churchianity has only used this law to somehow create an ecclesiastical authority over marriage, and then sets that same law at naught in practice!

The truth is, Mark, that before modern times if a man or woman were wronged in marriage, all one would have to do in court is produce witnesses from the community to testify that the pair had indeed lived as a married couple, and that would be accepted by the court in order to establish the fact that there was a marriage.

As I have told you before, I do not despise a community which celebrates the announcement of a marriage. That would be so silly of me! But man cannot make a marriage. Only God can do that. The most ridiculous statement in churchianity is "I now pronnounce you man and wife". A man cannot be baptized by another man, and neither can he be married by another man!

Furthermore, there are many places in Scripture which reveal what God's expectations are from both male and female once they are married, how they are to treat one another. Those are not the topic here, so I have not addresssed them. Marriage is more than sex, and marriage is more than "church". But "church" cannot marry anyone: only consensual sex within the bounds of God's Law can do that!

[Kentucky]

Thanks for taking the time to reply this morning Bill. I believe it is an important subject to be discussed, because of the sad fact that there are way too many failed "marriages" (for lack of a better term lol).

In either Greek or Hebrew, there were no specific words for husband or wife. For example, the Hebrew word translated woman in Genesis 2:22 is the same word translated as wife in Genesis 2:24. You will find that same phenomenon all the way to the Revelation, in Hebrew or Greek. This is not an assumption, it is merely a fact.

Oh, I don't doubt it. It just seems incredible that there weren't words in the given languages at that time to differentiate married from unmarried.

Betrothal was a promise of marriage, and marriage became marriage at the fullfillment of a sexual union.

This is the subtle prerequisite of consummation and the fundamental premise of a biblical marriage. The particulars of timing and priorities have been the stumblingblock of mankind since the beginning, because we have not really been given any procedural methods . It's almost as if God has given us latitude to do what is right instinctually. The devil is in the details, so to speak lol.

That is the "point of no return", and once there was a sexual relationship, only then was the marriage tangible.

And that's where the Bible addresses moral situations and sets the standard.

The promise of marriage was usually between men, since in either the ancient Greek or the ancient Hebrew societies, women were not free. Rome was more liberal, and there were free women who could own property without being attached to a man. If a young man sought a wife and you promised him your daughter, the daughter was considered to be betrothed to that young man. Any conditions or agreements were between you and the young man, and your daughter may have no say in the matter, depending upon your allowance. This is fully evident in the story of Jacob and Laban, but is also elucidated in other ancient sources.

History is replete with variations, which only goes to show that it was the will of man, rather than a biblical standard (or lack thereof).

Should they go to a motel instead?

Instead of the parent's home? I guess that would be each couple's own decision to elect which venue.

How did Jacob marry Leah? And, ostensibly, Rachel also?

By 7 year contracts.

How else would parents be able to display the "tokens" of their daughters' virginity?

That would seem to be predicated on how they raised their child and be a reflection of their own virtue and above mistrust. A literal interpretation suggests that trust is on shaky grounds to begin with. In other words, guilty before proven innocent.

The point is, that the method of marriage should not be a man-ordained ritual.

I couldn't agree with you more. It should be a God ordained union.

There is no prescribed method of marriage ordained by Scripture.

And again that may be because no two people are alike. Something as special as to how we marry can't be a cookie-cutter 'one-size-fits-all' method or prerequisites of consummation.

Marriage occurs with the sexual union of a man and woman. Two witnesses: Genesis 24:67, 1 Corinthians 7:9.

Those verses aren't as clear to me as they are to you. The common OT expression is "and he knew her," which is absent from the verse. Are we to believe that "took" or "became" or loved" all mean sex? The Pulpit Commentary makes this observation: "The original tenses give greater force and beauty to this obvious rule of Christian common sense and morality. The "marry" is in the aorist - "to marry once for all," and live in holy married union; the "burn" is in the present - "to be on fire with concupiscence." Marriage once for all is better than continuous lust; the former is permitted, the latter sinful." I guess it's a matter of semantics in how one defines "marry." But, a lot of things are better than sin.

Wow, the idea that marriage doesn't happen until there are vows at an altar had certainly been a license for zillions of one-night stands! Not too many brides today could stain even the whitest bedsheets, and the men are even worse.

"Vows at an altar" are mutually exclusive of each other. I don't think I've advocated an altar as something mandatory; that would be something reserved for the autonomy of any given ecclessia. I think vows before God and two witnesses would be more unencumbered and appropriate, but there's zillions of men and women who cannot say "my word is my bond." Perhaps that is why, in my estimation, that sex-marrying is insufficient in defining what constitutes a marriage. In fact, I would go so far as to say, vows should be in writing. Yeah, I know, they might not have done that in ancient times, but what's to say they had it right or that a document in hand is wrong? Men have made decrees all throughout history and that doesn't mean that it's contrary to God's will or that it is a sin.

I do not agree with your perception, that Laban gave up his sister out of greed. The gift-giving was part of the cultural norm at the time, which we do not understand today. It was the account given by the servant of Abraham, who must have been know to Laban, that persuaded Laban to part with his sister. The Scripture in this instance portrays Laban as a pious man, but your interpretation pretends to refute that portrayal.

Perhaps it was a gratuitous swipe at Laban and could have better been directed at the cultural norm of materialism, which seemed to be the prevailing standard.

Now there could have been a "minister of God" and an altar and two witnesses in that tent, OR there could have been a bed. I choose to believe that there was a bed in that tent.

Yep, if something "could have been" that's a lot different than "was."

Let's see what the "Law of two witnesses" is about. It is only mentioned twice in Deuteronomy 17:6:

6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

and Deuteronomy 19:15:
15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;

So then, the "Law of two witnesses" is given as an ordinance guiding the condemnation of a man under the Law. NOT as an ordinance regulating marriage or any other contract or pledge. Four out of the five times that it was referenced in the New Testament, condemnation of a man for transgression was the context.

Certainly, the verses include all capital crimes, of which marriage vows are a part of, without reiterating all of the Laws pertaining to the death penalty. I can provide these Laws that invoke the death penalty in regards to marriage if you like. The marriage law of two witnesses is not a regulation per se, but rather a protection and judgment against sin. Otherwise, one or the other marriage partner can simply say we were never married... prove it. The witnesses prove it.

The idea of applying two witnesses to a marriage ceremony (as if a priest could actually marry anyone) was a development of the Medieval church after they made marriage a sacrament, and even later sought to control it.

And the motives were quite different. It is the axiom of turning something good into evil and evil into good. Well, I've run out of time for the moment. Good discussion.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Marriage is the sexual union, by which the passion would by satiated:

1 Corinthians 7:9, CNT: "9 But if they have no self control, they must marry, for it is better to be married than to be inflamed."

The woman in question was already belonging to the man (betrothed, his "virgin"):

1 Corinthians 7:36-38, CNT: "36 But if one does consider to be unseemly towards his virgin, if perhaps he is beyond adolescence, (and in this way he ought to be,) that which he wishes he must do, he does not err: they must marry. 37 But he who has stood firm, steadfast in his heart, not holding forcibly but who has authority over his own will, and he has decided in his heart to keep himself a virgin, he does well; 38 and therefore he that is giving himself to a virgin in marriage will do well, but he not giving in marriage will do better."

Think about what Paul said here in terms of Mary and Joseph. She too was "his virgin", and the Holy Spirit told him not to put her away, because she was with child from God. But he could not "marry" (have a sexual union with her) until after the Christ child was born.

Paul by saying "they must marry" is referring to the sexual union. I would not want two witnesses around watching that!

Abraham did not run off to the chapel with Hagar (Genesis 16:3). Neither did Abram and Nahor run off to the chapel with Sarai and Milcah (Genesis 11:29). That same word "took" appears in those places also. Where Isaac "took" Rebekah, he made her his wife in that tent by joining in a sexual union with her, and "he loved her". She, of course, also had to agree.

Before the organized churches took over marriage, where eventually it became a business, all a couple had to do was stand and publicly announce that they were married. That would create many more than two witnesses! Everything else is the ritualized additions of men.

If a man lives with a woman as husband and wife, and they profess it, well, for over 1500 years that was a legally binding and acceptable Christian practice. THEN it changed when the church got into the marriage business.

An examination of the history of marriage in European society will find slight differences in diverse places, however what I have professed in this thread is accurate and can be substantiated.

If a couple wishes to stand publicly and attest (without being forced to swear) their commitment to one another before they join in a physical union, well, of course that can be beneficial, and as a practice it would help as a moral display to the community. But it should not be considered a necessity.

Should a Christian man be compelled to sign a piece of paper? Hell no. Let your yeas be yea and your nays be nay. Let us not be forced to emulate contract law. Neither should ritual be compelled before fact.