1. 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!
    • 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. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Christian
    Go back over my posts...its been hinted at enough.
    I have enough on my plate repeating the same things in other threads...hopefully this isnt going to just be one more error bent on destroying Gods marriages for us to fight.
     
  2. Joykins

    Joykins free Crazy Liz!

    Messages:
    15,447
    Likes Received:
    281
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Is it because Jesus would have been a mamzer and not allowed in the congregations?

    I thought Crazy Liz addressed that this law seems to have been more honored in the breech than the observation?
     
  3. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Christian
    Just tossing this up as PART of the reason that Ive already touched on.

    Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
    (Mat 1:18 KJVA)
    espoused to Joseph
    and thereby the outward credit both of Mary and Jesus were secured; for had this appeared before the espousals, the Jews would have fixed a brand of infamy on them both; and both the espousals and her being found with child...
    -John Gill
    Exposition of the Bible
    The Jews were all over Jesus because they knew the earthly parents of Christ.
    Had they even THOUGHT that Christ was born out of wedlock there is no way that that accusation would not have been used against Him...and Mary for that matter.

    Additionally, Jesus genealogy is traced thru JOSEPH, not Mary (some claim she was descendant of David too, but it doesnt matter for this point).
    The Jews were obsessed with genealogies and it is thru the male that this is traced, not the woman.
    Of course, if anyone has proof that that is false, Id like to see it so I can amend that particular note (that lineage is traced thru the wife)
     
  4. Crazy Liz

    Crazy Liz New Member

    Messages:
    16,306
    Likes Received:
    432
    Faith:
    Christian
    Sorry, I simply don't. And I've never before seen anyone make that claim.
     
  5. Crazy Liz

    Crazy Liz New Member

    Messages:
    16,306
    Likes Received:
    432
    Faith:
    Christian
    I can see it being nice and convenient, even a good thing. I simply don't know why you think it was THEOLOGICALLY NECESSARY. By the early 3d century, Celsus claimed Jesus was born as a result of her being raped by a Roman Soldier, so there apparently was more than one early theory about his parentage and conception. Exactly when this arose, we don't know, since Celsus' books were all destroyed. The only reference to it we have is Origen's polemic against him.

    If it was merely SOCIALLY necessary, then fine. It made a difference then, but makes no difference now. Why should I be concerned? God preserved Jesus' ancestor Perez without a valid marriage. God could have preserved Jesus with or without Joseph.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  6. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Christian
    Huh...really ?
    did you READ the quote by Gill ?
    Seems that he felt it was somewhat necessary to protect Mary and Christ.
    Im sure I can dig up more from COMMONLY known scholars on the matter.
     
  7. Crazy Liz

    Crazy Liz New Member

    Messages:
    16,306
    Likes Received:
    432
    Faith:
    Christian
    I think he said it was good or convenient or advantageous, but I don't read what he said as any statement it was theologically necessary. He seems just to be commenting on what happened, not saying God had to do it that way.
     
  8. Armistead

    Armistead Veteran

    Messages:
    1,832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If the woman has to be a virgin and must prove it, will those that believe in that abide in all the law. Will you show the sheets to the Pastors and Elders in the church?
    If there is no blood, will you stone the woman? If you are raped, would you accept forced marriage to the man to abide in your virgin status? We can get into many OT laws considering this. If you try and keep them all and break one, you are guilty of breaking them all. I'm amazed at how silly people are when they add man's legalisms to OT law. It has nothing to do with holiness, just man pretending to be holy through man made laws.

    Even in war, levitical law allowed men to capture women in battle if her husband was killed. She went through a mourning process. The man could then have sex with her.
    The fact is, after this, if he didn't want to marry her, he could then send her away. If he didn't marry her, he could not keep her as a slave.

    Most all the OT Saints had many wives, concubines and slave women they had sex with. Obvious, these men were not virgins when they took other wives..sometimes hundreds. In some cases, as David, the bible tells us he blessed David by giving him Sauls wives.
     
  9. ShermanN

    ShermanN Regular Member

    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Marriage was not understood as a blood covenant in the ancient near-east; and neither is marriage presented as a blood covenant in the Bible. Marriage is a covenant, but not a blood covenant. In blood covenants, the life of animals were sacrificed and the covenantors made vows declaring that if they break the covenant their life would be forfeited like that of the animals. In marriage, no animals are sacrificed and no life is lost. The issue of whether a woman was a virgin or not was significant to them, but the marriages of women who were not virgins were just as valid as the marriages of women who were virgins. The men considered that a virgin was worth more than a non-virgin, but that is not a spiritual principle making virgins more valuable to God.

    Furthermore, the strength of any covenant ultimately rests in the character of the covenantors, not in what is said or done. Covenants are only as strong that the character of the covenantors. If you are a faithful person, then you don't even need a ceremony or contract to make you keep your word; you'll keep it because of who you are. On the other hand, if you are an unfaithful person then no contract, covenant, vow, or promise will make you keep your word.

    In biblical times, marriage was understood as a covenant linking two seperate families, creating a new family. Thus one of the reasons kings would have so many wives was because everyone wanted to be related to the king. And kings wanted to strengthen their country by making aliances with surrounding nations, thus they would take wives from royal families of other countries.

    Also in biblical times, marriage was understood in more contractural terms, even having a contract, the marriage contract, the ketubah. The contract spelled out the dowry and any specifications that the couple and their families agreed upon. For example, though polygamy was commonly practiced, if a woman wished for a monogamous marriage, such would be stipulated in the ketubah, the marriage contract, and if the man decided to take another wife, the first wife would receive the full dowry (likely 7-10 years wages) upon the divorce.

    Furthermore, the marriage contract was established when money swapped hands, when the bride-price was paid. The bride-price was typically 1 year's salary and was added to the bride's family inheritance, the total (bride-price + family inheritance) made the dowry. The couple was considered legally married once the contract was established though it might by a year or more before they cohabitate. And though it was customary for the couple to not be intimate until the wedding feast, any children born to the couple before the wedding feast were considered legitimate, not illegitimate. This was important for people born illegitimately were not allowed into the Temple.

    Marriage is not a blood covenant, but is a relational contractural covenant. And any covenant is only as strong as the character of the covenantors. If you want a lasting marriage, marry a faithful person!
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
    Joykins likes this.
  10. Spiritsong

    Spiritsong Guest

    In most cases, wouldn't virgin marriages show faithfulness in the couple?

    Circumcision was considered a blood covenant, the blood not coming from slain animals. Likewise, the marriage entered into by both virgins, would be considered a blood covenant, would it not?
     
    Miann likes this.
  11. ShermanN

    ShermanN Regular Member

    Messages:
    770
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Actually, circumcision was a sign of the covenant, the covenant of Abraham. Women were under the covenant as much a men were, and yet they were not circumcized.

    Concerning virginity, such could speak of a person's faithfulness. It could also be a result of the person's age, attractiveness, or other factors not related to them being a faithful person. Frankly, some are virgins because they are not very attractive. Others are virgins because they are so afraid of rejection that they don't date or risk relationships. And yet others are virgins because of being afraid of ... Only a few, relatively speaking, are virgins because of choosing to be so or because of their comitment to the Lord, because of faithfulness. Furthermore, widows and widowers who were faithful throughout their marriages but lost a spouse, are they not faithful though they are not virgins.

    Please don't misunderstand me, virginity for young men and women is to be prized, keeping one's self for their future spouse! I strongly encourage my children to remain virgins until marriage. Such will help them avoid much brokeness and help them to found a lasting marriage. But marriage is not a blood covenant, even for virgins. And the marriage of two non-virgins is just as valid as the marriage of virgins.

    Marriage is a relational covenant that establishes a social and legal family bond of husband and wife; and of course, sexual intimacy is best reserved for that relationship.
     
  12. HuntingMan

    HuntingMan New Member

    Messages:
    8,312
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Christian
    And when a virgins hymen is ruptured before marriage? Is she robbed of the true meaning of marriage?

    And what about virgins like my wife Laura whos hymen was about as tough as leather and did not break normally so there was no blood ? Are we claiming that she could never be in a this 'blood covenant' because of that ?

    Marriage is not a blood covenant.
    If it were then marrying a NONvirgin widow or a divorced woman would be impossible.
    Marriage is about the vow..the oath...the covenant made.
    :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.