Contract vs. Covenant - the REAL issue

[Created2Write]

I don't really agree that the covenant is only between us and God. I believe humans can, and should, have a covenant between each other.

 

[FaithPrevails]

I hadn't realized until only recently that the MAIN divide is that a covenant is with God (as Janni said way back in the beginning) that we will honor our words and promises to another person......and a contract is between people.

I don't really agree that the covenant is only between us and God. I believe humans can, and should, have a covenant between each other.

IMO, the marriage covenant is between God and the two people. That's why I like the idea of the unity braid and its symbolic representation of the two becoming one with God.

 

[mkgal1]

What I mean is....the inclusion of God is what makes it a covenant...but, the promise is to our spouse as well as to God. Including God is what bumps up the commitment...like swearing on the Bible. It is more than just that we are promising each other--with God as our witness.....we are promising God.

 

[Created2Write]

I understand better, and I agree with that.

 

[mkgal1]

IMO, the marriage covenant is between God and the two people. That's why I like the idea of the unity braid and its symbolic representation of the two becoming one with God.

I love that idea too.

 

[chaz345]

I don't really agree that the covenant is only between us and God. I believe humans can, and should, have a covenant between each other.

I agree.It's really no more complicated than contract amounts to " I will x as long as you y" and covenant amounts to " I promise to x period, pretty much no matter what you do or don't do."

 

[mkgal1]

I agree.It's really no more complicated than contract amounts to " I will x as long as you y" and covenant amounts to " I promise to x period, pretty much no matter what you do or don't do."

Not sure that ANYONE here besides you has the view point of the bolded part of your post.

What it amounts to is....a contract is based on behavior and between two people; a marital covenant is based on objective and is promised to both your spouse....and God. (ie...I will love, honor, and cherish, you....forsaking all others....all the days of my life.)

 

[highlife]

I agree.It's really no more complicated than contract amounts to " I will x as long as you y" and covenant amounts to " I promise to x period, pretty much no matter what you do or don't do."

That is basicly indentured servitude

 

[Mayzoo]

Indentured servitude was a legal contract (usually written and recorded) exchanging services for specified goods such as food, apparel, and shelter. It was not a covenant, at least IMO.

 

[highlife]

Indentured servitude was a legal contract (usually written and recorded) exchanging services for specified goods such as food, apparel, and shelter. It was not a covenant, at least IMO.

Or slavery or a caged animal, what ever analogy you want to use.

 

[chaz345]

Not sure that ANYONE here besides you has the view point of the bolded part of your post.

With the clarification that pretty much includes things like adultery and abuse, Faith does.

 

[JanniGirl]

If there are exceptions (if this, then that) such as adultery or abuse or ....... how does it make it a 'covenant' as you deem it to be? "I'll do x no matter what." . . . . except if you do these two things. How is that different than saying that someone else has a "contract" if they have a different set of things that are unacceptable?

Just wondering.

 

[dallasapple]

I agree.It's really no more complicated than contract amounts to " I will x as long as you y" and covenant amounts to " I promise to x period, pretty much no matter what you do or don't do."

Not for me on the covenant..because I MADE the "promise" based on HIS return promise to ME.If he had said "marry me and PROMISE me this this and this"..and I promise NOTHING back???I would NOT have made that promise.

The promise was not no matter what..and it was not ONE way when made.

Dallas

 

[Created2Write]

Not sure that ANYONE here besides you has the view point of the bolded part of your post.

Notwithstanding situations of adultery, abuse, or legitimate abandonment, I agree with him. In most marriages, I believe this should be the case. Moreover, I don't think he's talking about those extenuating circumstances. I think he's talking about in the average, everyday marriage between two ordinary people. In such cases, NOTHING should separate the two. And, in cases of adultery or abandonment, the spouse who was cheated on/abandoned can still live out their vows, even as the divorce process ensues, whether they initiated it or not. This way, if, during the divorce process, the uncommitted spouse has a renewal of heart, they don't see bitter hatred from the spouse they desire to reconcile to, and thus, reconciliation can be reached.

In all that we do, even in situations that are far less than ideal, I don't believe our goal should be divorce, although in some cases it may be necessary. I believe, in a covenant, one is always open to reconciliation, even if the divorce process has been started.

 

[Created2Write]

If there are exceptions (if this, then that) such as adultery or abuse or ....... how does it make it a 'covenant' as you deem it to be? "I'll do x no matter what." . . . . except if you do these two things. How is that different than saying that someone else has a "contract" if they have a different set of things that are unacceptable?

Just wondering.

One can live out their covenant unconditionally, even if the marriage is towards an end, imo. It would be hard, but it is possible. Just because something may be a legitimate reason to divorce, doesn't mean the spouse who has been committed can't keep living out their vows. Who knows? That could be what saves the marriage. Just because something is a legitimate reason to divorce, doesn't mean divorce should be the route chosen in all cases, either.

 

[McScribe]

I dunno. I look at the old Brehon laws or Judaic law, and yes there were flaws but we are lacking any sense of contract. I keep seeing comments about contractual thinking, but honestly it's up to us to have a good attitude, and I see zero accountability in the average marriage. What would be wrong with having an agreement about finances, raising a family, sexual intimacy and so on? What would be wrong with having an agreement about how to deal with difficulties? A contract sets expectations.

Let's take another example: the sexless marriage. What will motivate a spouse to reconsider their reluctance and their feeling that they have a right to hold the other spouse hostage to their lack of desire? Is it wrong to say that their motive will be that if they refuse to deal with steps towards compromise and mutual respect and undestanding that the disappointed party will feel that they then have the right to leave? Don't we base all our social agreements on negative and positive consequences?

 

[mkgal1]

If there are exceptions (if this, then that) such as adultery or abuse or ....... how does it make it a 'covenant' as you deem it to be? "I'll do x no matter what." . . . . except if you do these two things. How is that different than saying that someone else has a "contract" if they have a different set of things that are unacceptable?

Just wondering.

That's a really good question. For those that are using that as the definition of covenant..(that it is, "I will do x...no matter what (UNLESS there is adultery or abuse)"....then how is that any different than a contract that states...."I will do x as long as you y" (and the "y" is remain faithful and nonabusive).

I see no difference between the two.

 

[McScribe]

That's a really good question. For those that are using that as the definition of covenant..(that it is, "I will do x...no matter what (UNLESS there is adultery or abuse)"....then how is that any different than a contract that states...."I will do x as long as you y" (and the "y" is remain faithful and nonabusive).

I see no difference between the two.

Because even our covenant with God is conditional. Gods love may be unconditional but His acceptance is not. if we abide in sin we do not abide in Him. God is forgiving, it is in His nature, but we receive the benefit of that forgiveness through our repentance. God may never break covenant with us but we may break covenant with Him.

 

[mkgal1]

Because even our covenant with God is conditional. Gods love may be unconditional but His acceptance is not. if we abide in sin we do not abide in Him. God is forgiving, it is in His nature, but we receive the benefit of that forgiveness through our repentance. God may never break covenant with us but we may break covenant with Him.

I realize that, McS....but, you are speaking of something different. I agree with you.

My question was directed to the ones that are using that definition (that a contract is "I will do x if you do y" and a covenant is "I will do x...no matter what (UNLESS you y or while you are "y"...the "y" being faithfulness and lack of abuse)....I see no distinction between what they are using as dividing factors.

 

[Created2Write]

I dunno. I look at the old Brehon laws or Judaic law, and yes there were flaws but we are lacking any sense of contract. I keep seeing comments about contractual thinking, but honestly it's up to us to have a good attitude, and I see zero accountability in the average marriage. What would be wrong with having an agreement about finances, raising a family, sexual intimacy and so on? What would be wrong with having an agreement about how to deal with difficulties? A contract sets expectations.

And when those expectations aren't met, what then? The contract becomes null and void? Essentially, once the vows are spoken, the "agreement" is already in place. Yes, we should talk about how we're going to raise a family, discipline the kids, spend money, etc. However, our plans about those things often change. No one has a child expecting them to be special needs, but sometimes special needs children are born. Any plans made previously on how to raise them is thrown out the window. Point being, sometimes life makes those decisions irrelevant, and we will have to start from scratch anyway.

Is there anything wrong with making those agreements? Not necessarily. However, the marriage shouldn't really be about those things. Life happens. A couple's strength shouldn't come from the agreements they made, it should come from their love and commitment.

Let's take another example: the sexless marriage. What will motivate a spouse to reconsider their reluctance and their feeling that they have a right to hold the other spouse hostage to their lack of desire? Is it wrong to say that their motive will be that if they refuse to deal with steps towards compromise and mutual respect and undestanding that the disappointed party will feel that they then have the right to leave? Don't we base all our social agreements on negative and positive consequences?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. What do you mean by "agreement"? An ultimatum?