1. New: Christian Forums Staff Recruit Video.- It's that time of year again. We are having our annual Staff Recruit Drive. Simply ask any staffer to help you apply and enjoy the video...
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Blood covenant / marriage

Discussion in 'Christian Philosophy & Ethics' started by MissMystery, Jun 12, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MissMystery

    MissMystery His Workmanship

    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    29
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Christian
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr-8NYMTqg8

    I'd like to hear thoughts on the video above. If you would, consider
    these questions after you listen (these are what I'd like to hear discussed):

    1) If the initial 'act of marriage' was entered into before a person is legally married, is it considered a marital bond in God's eyes? (OT law demanded a raped women be married by her perpetrator, never to be divorced from him).

    2) If a non-virgin legally marries, is the marital contract considered a 'covenant' in God's eyes? If a woman is not virgin when she marries, and there is no 'proof' of a blood-covenant, is it considered adultery (since the token of a blood covenant could only be proven once).

    In light of the information presented in this video, I"m thinking alot of people will be suffering regrets... but the beauty of the 'sacredness of sex' is profound. Something to strive for.
     
  2. MissMystery

    MissMystery His Workmanship

    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    29
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Christian
    The more I think of this, the more I realize all the questions this brings up. Feel free
    to ask a few of your own for discussion as well.
     
  3. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    False.
    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 isnt about rape. Its a repetition of existing laws where a woman was 'enticed' by a man into having sex.
    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 has nothing to do with 'rape'

    Absolutely.
    She is as married as any virgin who has married
     
  4. Joykins

    Joykins free Crazy Liz!

    Messages:
    15,447
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Methodist
    I can't usually watch videos online but I've heard this stuff before.

    No. And it wasn't any raped woman, it was a raped unbetrothed virgin.
    She is married.

    This obsession with blood and virginity is barbaric and unhealthy IMO. The reasons the OT uses it is because blood is the *closest* thing to proof of former virginity they could get (it doesn't even get close to the modern standard of proof and its worth as evidence is questionable) and because of patriarchal concern about virginity having to be some man's property to give or receive as well as the obvious concerns about cuckoos in the nest.
     
  5. Joykins

    Joykins free Crazy Liz!

    Messages:
    15,447
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Sex in and of itself did not constitute a marriage because when an unmarried man had congress with a prostitute it was not considered to constitute a marriage.

    Sex with a virgin was actually NOT considered a marriage--the man had to PAY THE GIRL'S FATHER for the virginity taken, but the FATHER still had the option to withhold consent to the marriage (and God bless the fathers who did). This indicates that it is considered as a sort of property crime.

     
  6. katautumn

    katautumn Wandering, not lost.

    Messages:
    7,562
    Likes Received:
    116
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    That was actually a little bit absurd. For starters, Christians should not focus their attention on blood covenants, as that was part of the old law for the Jews which were supposedly usurped by Christ's sacrifice. To compare taking a woman's virginity to entering into a blood covenant is sort of creepy to me. There are many women out there who do not bleed when their hymen is broken. There are some women whose hymens are broken due to an accident or rape. There are women who are born with hymens that are partially open or born without one at all. Have these women failed their husbands because they cannot offer him a "blood covenant"?

    You cannot have a spirit of virginity either. You are either a virgin or you are not. I have no doubt in my mind that a person can lose their virginity and later make a decision to remain chaste; however, they will never be a virgin again.
     
    Joykins likes this.
  7. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I agree
    Quite true.
    My wife was a virgin when we married and after all this time she never has bled.
    She definitely would have failed to provide any evidence of being a virgin (well, other than her prudish attitude about sex which Im very VERY thankful for).

    Your post makes some VERY good points.
     
  8. Miann

    Miann .devoted.

    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    166
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    Well, I'll be the first to give my support for what the man is teaching in this video... specifically, how sacred virginity is in marriage. When Jesus referred to the standard of God's intent for marriage in Matthew 19, I think this is what He was referring to.

    The video points out that virginity was expected of both men and women. I think if women embraced the sacredness of their virginity, and demanded it from the man they marry, the Body of Christ as a whole, would have a clearer understanding of the 'virgin spirit'.

    Jesus is the example of a 'virgin spirit'... as His sole purpose was to fulfill the will of His Father. The heart of a virgin is focussed on it's beloved, sacrificially focused.

    I'm a little saddened by the negative response, even denial of the existence of blood covenants. Any who have been regenerated in the new birth, are in a blood covenant... the new covenant Jesus instituted in His death and resurrection. I find it interesting, Jesus connected His covenant, with God's original intent for marriage... that a virgin man leaves his parents to enter into a covenant marriage with a virgin woman.

    Which brings up many more questions ;)
    I believe the way the author stated it was that the initial sex act of a virgin couple was the offering of the pledge of fidelity, the covenant of fidelity. (not an exact quote).
    Based on OT teaching of the 'proof of virginity', I think the instances mentioned are more rare than they are prevalent.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  9. Verity.45

    Verity.45 Truth Defender * Faith Contender

    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    128
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    So true, MissMys.

    Regret may also keep people from seeing how valuable a 'virgin spirit' truly is in the marital relationship. I think a person who purposely remained virgin, for the sake of offering this gift of fidelity to their spouse, shows more of a virginal heart than the one who may be virgin by happenstance... without a deliberate choice. By the same token, because of Jesus' covenant, a non-virgin who truly has a virgin's heart, can still be faithful in marriage.
     
  10. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I find the obsession with virginity to be a bit saddening.
    The woman raped...has she no value here?
    The woman divorced against her will....is she meaningless?

    While I value the CHASTENESS of a person, they can be CHASTE, virgin or not.

    No one is denying blood covenants.
    For myself I deny that a virgin is ANY more married than the woman who was not a virgin...or that one marriage is somehow better or more sacred than the other.

    it is a COVENANT that is the marriage, not sex, not blood.
     
    Joykins likes this.
  11. Joykins

    Joykins free Crazy Liz!

    Messages:
    15,447
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Time to bring out the Milton again:

     
  12. Verity.45

    Verity.45 Truth Defender * Faith Contender

    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    128
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    I agree Miann. It's just not taught in western society. Think of the standard of holiness that would come to the Body of Christ if this one truth was embraced.

    Again, great thought. If married couples adapt this attitude through God's grace, I think the marital relationship would be very fulfilling. And it IS a sacrifice for both the man and wife.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  13. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I watched a bit of that video....too much irrelevance concerning GODS covenant of marriage. Im not overly interested in what different cultures do or believe, GODS word is the authority as far as marriage being defined.

    In that, I have to wonder how one who buys into this marriage being a blood covenant can see Paul as doing much beyond calling for sexual 'sin' by telling widows and widowers to marry (clearly, there will be no blood in this situation)
    But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they should remain as I also remain; but if they are not exercising self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
    (1Co 7:8-9 EMTV)

    A question in the OP asked this;
    *IF* it were adultery, then PAUL is himself coercing this adultery by telling these NON-virgin widows to REmarry.

    And if it werent a covenant in Gods eyes, then Paul is tricking these widows into living in fornication.
    Someone, somewhere has not harmonized ALL of the relevant details here.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  14. higgs2

    higgs2 not a nutter

    Messages:
    6,959
    Likes Received:
    464
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Anglican
    This is bizarre to me. There is another view, that marriage is a sacrament -- and virginity does not come into that.
     
  15. Larkise

    Larkise Grateful Heart

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    106
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Interesting thread. I'd like to respond to this verse~
    In the flow the video presented, I think if a widow and former spouse were virgin when they married, Paul's instruction for her to marry again (in the Lord) is in keeping because death separated the couple. Her faithfulness in the former marriage would carry on into a new one, even though the 'token' no-longer exist. It's the 'virgin' heart that does.
     
  16. Joykins

    Joykins free Crazy Liz!

    Messages:
    15,447
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Methodist
    How is a widow's heart a "virgin's" heart? :confused:
     
  17. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    And *I* think you are taking a LOT of liberties with the texts. ;)
    Im sorry, Im not going to allow myself the luxury of guessing 'why' Paul tells the widow to remarry, other than to acknowledge that it MUST be entirely lawful and with Gods approval for Paul to instruct it.
    The fact is he does and he doesnt say a thing about 'if you were FAITHFUL in your previous marriage.....yadda yadda yadda'

    I think some are really INSERTING a LOT of our own ideas into the texts, quite frankly...including the chap on that video.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  18. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    Paul also says this:
    1Co 7:39 A wife has been bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband also dies, she is free to be married to whom she desires, only in the Lord.

    There isnt a single thing that Ive seen in the scriptures that say "if they were virgins and if they were faithful he/she can remarry"
    The texts as a whole show very conclusively that remarriage is simply lawful and assumed (remaining single being the optimal choice) except where the marriage is EXPRESSLY forbidden in the law.

    When a spouse dies we are entirely FREE to remarry (obviously a believer), there are no stipulations added.

    If someone has SCRIPTURE to provide that confirms any LEGITIMATE restrictions on a NON-virgin widow remarrying Im all eyes today and am willing to consider anything you have to offer AS LONG as it actually states (in context) what is being claimed.

    What I find very dangerous about this (yet another erroneous doctrinal view coming about) is NOW we are going to end up with just one more teaching in the church that is trying to DEMEAN and make VOID/nullify GODLY marriages of folks who may not have been virgins when they married.


    I find the whole thing detestable and reprobate, personally.
    Just one more false, abominable doctrine out there to be used by Satan to destroy marriages .
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
    Joykins likes this.
  19. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    114
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I watched a bit more of the video...its amazing how well this guy ties irrelevance together into what SEEMS to be an argument for his views.

    He says that when the woman bleeds during consummation that the blood on the male genitalia is basically what makes it a covenant marriage before God.

    The very first and most problematic issue that I can think of off hand immediately is that this means that Jesus Christ was born out of wedlock and would have been illegitimate since Mary and Joseph did not come together physically until after Christ was born in the flesh.

    *IF* the shedding of blood is what MAKES the marriage a covenant, then there is no possible way our Lord Jesus was born into a lawful covenant of marriage before the Father.

    Im not sure if Ill watch the rest or not since that detail alone is enough to outright reject the whole theory.
     
  20. Larkise

    Larkise Grateful Heart

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    106
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I made that comment in the flow of the video, Joykins, (which goes something like this, in a paraphrased version):

    The woman that makes a deliberate choice to offer her virginity as a token of her fidelity on her wedding night, and continues to make the choice of fidelity throughout her marriage, is most likely going to have this same heart going into a marriage when her husband dies.

    The teacher in the video emphasizes this deliberate choice of commitment, which is the essence of a 'virgin' heart. That is what I meant by my statement.

    I understand the concern, and wonder if this is on the OP mind as well. I'm going to seek answers in prayer on this too.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...