In Biblical accounts, marriage is NOT officiated by the church at all, but is arranged by fathers and takes place upon consummation.
Readership: Christians
Theme: A Mini-Series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 850 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes
Modern Marriage Ceremonies are Not Biblically Based
This article was written by Pastor Ryan Ahlgrim of First Mennonite Church in Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A.
Anabaptist World: Where are marriage ceremonies in the Bible? (2014/10/11)*
Pastor Ahlgrim’s viewpoint appeals to the basic Sex = Marriage paradigm, which Artisanal Toad derived from Old Testament passages.
I have often been puzzled by something missing from the Bible: marriage ceremonies.
Although lots of people are married in the Bible, there are no descriptions of any ceremonies. Adam and Eve are “married” simply by the fact that they are made for each other and they procreate. Jacob marries Leah by mistake, which happens not because of a disguised bride at a wedding ceremony, but because he consummates the marriage in the darkness of a tent. Jesus attends a wedding in Cana which consists of a family party, but no ceremony is described. The only “ceremony” I can find in the Bible is Tobit 7:12-14 in which a father places the hand of his daughter in the hand of the husband, and then writes a contract.
The reason why there are no marriage ceremonies in the Bible is because marriage did not involve a ceremony. Marriage in the Bible simply consists of a man and woman, with the consent of the woman’s father or guardian, living together and attempting procreation. No vows, no priest, no ritual, no prayer, no pronouncement, no license, no registration.
Anabaptist World: Where are marriage ceremonies in the Bible? (2014/10/11)*
This is quite different from how we define and enact marriage today.
Today, for a marriage to be “real” it must be legal; in other words, it must be recognized by the laws of the state and registered with the state. Also, for many Christians, a marriage is not a “Christian marriage” unless it is officiated by a credentialed minister who makes a verbal pronouncement, preferably in the presence of the congregation.
But these are all recent innovations. For most of human history, marriage has simply been an agreement, recognized or arranged by the immediate families, for a man and woman to live together.
Marriage as a legal institution, and as a religious ceremony, began as a result of the Reformation. Beginning in the Middle Ages, churches kept records of who was married to whom. But Luther viewed marriage as a “worldly matter,” and so he turned over the recording of marriages to the state. Calvin believed that for a marriage to be valid it needed to be both recorded by the state and officiated by the church. The Catholic Church did not require marriages to be officiated by a priest until 1563, and the Anglican Church did not get around to making this requirement until 1753. So for the past five hundred years there have been, in the European tradition, three kinds of marriage: legal, religious, and social. But social marriage, strictly speaking, is the most biblical.
Anabaptist World: Where are marriage ceremonies in the Bible? (2014/10/11)*
Comparing Paradigms
The larger point which Pastor Ahlgrim is making here is that according to the Bible, marriage is NOT officiated by the church at all, but is arranged by fathers and takes place upon consummation.
This stands at odds with what The Eye of Sauron wrote about the Orthodox position.
“To be clear, the purpose of performing the sacrament is to ensure that the sacrament took place in the absence of documentation. Otherwise they may be living in sin and their kids will be illegitimate. The side effect is that it gives the church an opportunity to teach the couple what the sacrament actually entails. Do they always do this? Not that I know of. (RCC does with precana but Orthodoxy does not have as well refined of a system.) It is a missed opportunity.”
When we consider EoS’s viewpoint in light of Pastor Ahlgrim’s, we see a stark contrast between the Sacramental Marriage construct and Marriage as described in the Bible.
If we admit EoS’s Orthodox view as being valid, then that would imply that all the Patriarchs in the Bible may have been living in sin and their children were illegitimate, including Abraham, the father of faith, and baby Jesus too, I suppose — all because they never received a Sacramental Marriage from the church (or whatever official approbation was required).
OTOH, if we admit Pastor Ahlgrim’s Biblically based view as being preeminent, then it appears that the Cathodoxy is overreaching their authority. This is precisely where Sharkly* is coming from in writing,
“When a man has sex with a virgin they become one flesh, AKA married. But that fact didn’t give the church the control over men to create the earthly kingdom and earthly power they lusted for. So they lied and said, “That makes you a “fornicator”, because only the church can join a man and a wife. Put her away, you’re living in sin, or else come to our church and for a small fee we’ll legitimize your illegitimate relationship.”
This also appears like Sacramental Marriage is a sales pitch for Cathodoxy, as I described in The Necessity of Requirements for Sacramental Marriage (2023/6/1).
* Sharkly is (or was?) a Mennonite, like Pastor Ahlgrim.
H/T: Trey Magnus
Related
- Σ Frame: The Mystery of Marriage (2022/1/7)
- Σ Frame (Red Pill Apostle): The Importance of Biblical Marriage (2022/1/3)
- Σ Frame: Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency (2022/11/14)
- Cornerstone: Marriage Without The State (2023/11/3)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
This is just me… and I could be wrong. But in my opinion, a valid marriage is simply a vow, a covenant that a man and a woman makes to be married to each other for the rest of their lives. It could have witnesses where they’ve made this vow. I’d prefer it to have witnesses. But so long as we both firmly believe in our Heavenly Father, that God exists and He is our witness… for me, that would be enough in the religious / spiritual sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This.
I know traditions are important for men. It gives us strength and reason even when we don’t understand why we do some things. It’s a method to tie us to our past.
But EoS also laments where does one draw the line, even scripture is a tradition handed down on which books are actually in the bible, and if you don’t draw the line somewhere it’s turtles all the way down.
My take, having the ‘church’ officiate marriage and bind it to the allegories in scripture was needed at the time, and I would say important. But this fallen world has come a long ways since the 1500’s. The church is not preeminent in society anymore, the state is actively opposed to God and society as a whole is gynocentric to it’s core.
Where does this leave a believing man who wants to honor God?
I’ll loop back to what I started with:
We are told to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. So that’s what I’m doing.
I live in a state that has ‘common law’ marriage AND community property. Most every way I try to navigate this minefield, there are incentives to eject with cash and prizes, that coupled with “the whispers” as Dalrock called it, makes for danger.
This is what I’m doing. She’s on board with this… Remember the burning desire part that EoS and everyone else says is the key, and it is. And I’ve been screening this girl hard for almost 3 years now.
We are getting a Cohabitation agreement, that spells out that we are not putting ourselves out there as married.* We declare our assets and debts and they belong to us and we are not sharing. We are establishing joint accounts for the purpose of running a residence. We are setting up medical directives and medical power of attorney, so we have all the rights as a couple that are hitched in that way.
Once all that is in place we will be moving in together. And it’s going to be this way until she pays off her student debt, IN FULL. (This is not a small number, she went to medical school.)
I’m not going to be going into business with her, buy property with her or any of that until that debt is paid off, period.
If/when she’s got that debt paid off, I might consider a pre/post nuptial agreement. I’m still on the fence with that.
This won’t change if God gives us kids (unsure that’s even possible with my age and her age), but I WILL NOT invite the state into my affairs as long as I can help it.
I haven’t spoken to the elders about this at my church, and I don’t know how they will fall on this issue with us, but plan to at the end of the summer. She’s been coming to church with me since January. If they decide they don’t want us there, I will shake the dust off my feet and find another church body to fellowship with.
I will also add that we have made ‘commitments’ to each other, that in my mind ‘hold up’ where it counts BUT will not hold up in the earthly courts.
I’m done with the one way suicide pacts.
*I sat down with a family law attorney for a hour and asked all the questions, and figured out what it means to be “married” by my state. That is one of the reasons I gave her a ring. It gives her ‘cover’ ( and a ‘flex’) but still keeps me out of the family courts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ whiteguy1
Probably will work if it’s just you two.
Probably won’t work if you have children. Court judges have leeway in throwing stuff out, especially in the “best interests of the children.” They also don’t like people trying to game the system. One of the leaders of RPChristians is a divorce attorney, and he’s seen that a bunch.
I don’t mind not doing things through the state, but it makes things significantly more complicated and if you have kids things probably won’t hold up anyway.
Basically, don’t marry any woman that you don’t fully trust and who doesn’t follow your lead even when she disagrees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debts, like student loans, acquired before marriage are not community property. Property acquired before marriage (like a house in your name) is not community property.
Your family law attorney should have explained that to you. Your Cohabitation Agreement could explicitly state that her student loans pre-date the agreement and are not community property. The same could be written for a house in your name.
Now for some bad news. Cohabitation Agreements or Domestic Partnerships must also legally operate under community property law in California, Nevada and Washington. Those three states recognize that you are not married, but nevertheless will subject you to community property law.
LikeLike
Yeah thankfully I’m not in those states. And yes that’s true on the student debt part as well, but even in the family court system ‘feelz is realz’ so I’m trying to walk the path that keeps the overly emotional family court judge from saying, “Well, she’s got all this debt, and you have none, so she should get more than half because that ‘feels’ fair.” Even with her being a doctor, the income / debt disparity is so large I’m not willing to take any chances.
I’d also like to point out to all the brothers here if you choose to go this route, NEVER EVER put anything related to kids in a cohab, pre-nup, post-nup agreements. This gives the court system an automatic way to void out the agreement no matter how well the rest is written. For the state, “It’s for the children” is their ultimate trump card.
LikeLike
Well, I’ve got a penis, and so, for that offense, they gave my wife half of the value of my house that I owned 100% in my name before we married. Purportedly because “she kept house there” for a few years. Funny, nobody ever gave me half of any of the houses I lived in for a few years. You talk as if you believe in laws when it comes to the family courts. LOL! The law in Kansas says I could get an At-Fault divorce if my wife failed to provide me with sex. But the judge absolutely refused to even let me request that when I tried to request that after my wife had admitted to it in court. Because if she was found to be At-Fault, that could have allowed me to be granted preferable consideration in the division of assets.
They worship the woman’s sex hole. The laws mean next to nothing to them. The law to them is like the Bible to a churchian Feminist, it’s just a bunch of words to be twisted to justify them worshipping the empty hole between their own legs.
Trust me! I really wish what you wrote had held true in my divorce. If the divorce court had ruled according to the laws, my wife would have been left with some debt while I would have been left with over $500K. But they didn’t like what was according to the law, and so they just made shit up as they went and then declared it to be legal. That financial disparity might have been half of why I got no custody of my sons, so that they could give her the maximum amount of “child support” / alimony. My sons were just pawns that the court sacrificed to the goddess of satanic Feminism.
My wife and her legal team committed numerous frauds and perjured themselves, and the court just didn’t care the slightest bit. While I spent five years almost constantly under the threat of being charged with contempt of court. Even the court reporter b!tch joined in trying to coach my wife during her testimony. When my wife blurted out the clearly wrong answer and lost her sketchy claim on the land I inherited from my parents, the court reporter looked at my wife with a sad face and shook her head “no”, giving my wife a signal to change her answer or to restate her answer differently. But fortunately, my ex-wife is foolish and stubborn, and just stuck with what she had said probably intending to be most hurtful against my sentimental attachment to my father’s land.
If you believe that the “family” courts are anything other than the enforcement arm of radical Feminism, well, bless your heart. Your childlike faith in those institutions to operate according to the published laws is quite cute.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile, if an elderly SAHW → Widow tried to claim social security benefits on the basis of her “keeping house” for many years, she would be laughed to scorn. (My grandmother tried this after my grandfather died.) “Child support” is more or less PC legal code for “supplemental income for frivorcing adulteresses” (subject to legal fees and taxes, of course). It’s all rigged to make men (not the government) pay for the consequences of bad social policies that men have no say in. Something like “indirect / proxy / vicarious taxation without representation”.
BTW, Sharkly has a new post with an update on his situation.
Whitewater Community Church: Serving the Antichrist (2023/6/5)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sharkly, sorry to hear about your situation brother. That just sucks!
That’s why I’m going to the cohab agreement, it keeps it out of family court (unless kids are involved). Cohab agreements fall under the civil courts and the rules there are different, at least in my state. I’ll keep your boys in my prayers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@sharkly
They don’t follow their own laws. You’re the honest one, not the stbx, and not 1 member of that system. My ex lied about any and everything that benefited her. Her legal team committed felonies — forgery — provable because it was in documents sent to multiple people in court emails.
My ex hired my attorney to use against me. Someone stepped in to do paperwork, checked the file at the office, and found out. They emailed me and told me my ex was her client. After that, it was never corrected and my attorney sent and received documents to my ex as her client 15x. Nobody cares.
I hear guys who have never been in a divorce trial constantly tell me what happens in court. I knew one guy who went through a divorce and his ex never even showed up to the trial, but he still told me I can win custody!! Prenuptials will protect u in court like they will protect you from a bear in the woods. The bear doesn’t give a damn about that paper. It’s got something else on its mind. Guys think they are gonna show up in court and the judge is gonna say, “Damn! U got us! There’s no way we’ll throw out that worthless paper u have your trust in.”
The only alternative is marriage without signing the contract, in which case she’s risking a lot if you become wealthy.
LikeLike
@whiteguy1
That may be true in theory since a Cohab agreement is probably considered a contract. But if your relationship should head south and the Cohab agreement needs to be implemented, she could claim (through her attorney) that the Cohab agreement was your idea and she entered into the Cohab agreement under duress or under some false pretense which her attorney knows will likely invalidate the Cohab agreement.
For further protection, it may be advisable (if possible) to have written in the Cohab agreement that the Cohab agreement was her idea and not yours. If she balks at that idea it shows her heart is not into it.
LikeLike
Joe, spoke with an attorney about all of this, and just this scenario, it doesn’t matter what her feelz / attorney says. It’s a written contract that falls under the jurisdiction of the civil courts. As a general rule, courts are pretty protective of their jurisdictions. But as long as the contract doesn’t include anything about children, the family courts won’t have standing.
— Plus, in my situation at least, her salary is going to be higher than mine in about a year’s time (gross not net; her student loans are CRAZY high).
LikeLike
Worse than that, the church has strayed so far from its scriptural groundings to the point that it’s largely indistinguishable from any secular institution. Thus it has rendered itself not only irrelevant, but potentially dangerous to anyone of serious spiritual bent.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is not necessarily correct.
In Genesis before the Law of Moses was given, Abraham for example married his half sister which is considered incest and banned. Jacob married Leah and Rachel and Law prohibits this in Leviticus 18 as you can’t marry sister wives.
You can make the case that genetics were more perfect near Creation and incest needs to be banned later on due to the problems with inbreeding, but it also makes the case for progressive revelation over time in the Bible.
For instance, from Creation to the Law of Moses, to the prophets, to Jesus and the gospel, there is more revealed Truth over time on how to live righteously. Jesus reveals the heart and intent behind Creation and the Law of Moses many times as well confirming this point.
Also, Ahlgrim ignores the fact that God is the father giving Eve to Adam. It seems fairly consistent for the family negotiation (Patriarchs, dowry, etc.) to be an essential part of a marriage in the vast majority of cases. When you’re in a small community where everyone knows each other, then a marriage ceremony is redundant. The fathers’ negotiated the deal with the husband and wife to-be’s approval, and everyone knows you’re married.
Like I’ve said before, the Sex = Marriage proponents ignore the fact that the Law of Moses gives the father veto power over a man and woman who had sex, and most of the Patriarchal examples had the man or a servant go to the family to negotiate for the wife (Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc).
The New Testament Jesus and even some of the books like Jude allude to extra-Biblical sources of common sayings and what not too, so there is the air that the surrounding cultural context matters in both hermeneutics and exegesis of the text.
All this to say that:
I. Sex = Marriage is still not correct.
II. The Church’s methods of marriage are not necessarily wrong or incorrect even if there are minimal requirements.
I’d say these are the general essential components in the Bible:
A. Father/familial agreement
B. Witnesses (the families agreement serve as witness, but you can have others).
C. Sex
The vows to God and each other are in agreement with God’s intention with the Creation of marriage, so that’s why they probably came to be. Same with a marriage / wedding celebration. There’s going to be a marriage feast at Jesus’ wedding to the Church in Revelation 19.
You can argue that Catholic and Orthodox are similarly a good thing because they elucidate what you are agreeing to in marriage in the eyes of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DS,
Right. To be more precise, the error in logic is in assuming that the Sacramental Marriage construct applies retroactively to the past. The fact that this null hypothesis is not true shows that the Sacramental Marriage construct (or any socio-marital construct) is relative to the cultural-socio-spacial-temporal context and may change over time. You basically agreed with this by writing,
However, I believe the nature of marriage itself is NOT relative to the context of time. It is an independent paradigm that is “eternal”, if you will. This is where the Sex = Marriage argument carries spiritual validity. [Evidence 1: 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8. Evidence 2: It is impossible for one to become a pristine virgin again after doing the deed.]
In this mini-series, I am attempting to elucidate this distinction between the temporal and the eternal by couching the temporal aspects in the church’s Sacramental Marriage construct, and the eternal aspects in soteriological terms, which (judging by the comments) is a topic that commenters have demonstrated to be a pertinent difference between the Christian sects. This contrast contains differences that we need to be aware of in order to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. We are in the world, but not of it.
LikeLike
@ Jack
Fair. Although the choices you presented in the OP were more black and white or right and wrong when in reality we have some type of situation where it’s more fundamental truth (minimal aspects of marriage) + wisdom in how to apply it per revealed revelation of God (sacramental marriage).
LikeLike
No, it was not a veto. Why does the Mosaic Law require the man to pay the bride-price unconditionally? The answer is plain and simple and reflects the logical conclusion of Genesis 2: because a marriage took place when they had sex.
As hecares already noted, Jesus cancelled divorce. In doing so, he cancelled the patriarchal right of a father to send away (divorce) his daughter’s new husband from his new wife. In this way only, Catacomb Resident is correct that “we cannot reproduce the Old Testament standard”, but it is because we follow the New Covenant, not the Mosaic one.
In “Man and Woman in Biblical Law”, Tom Shipley writes (emphasis added):
And in particular he notes:
The Bible never says that the father’s daughter was not married, nor does it say that God acted as the Father for Adam and Eve. These are all inductive arguments that are only required due to a failure to recognize that Sex = Marriage — the Law of God since creation — is the premise underlying the Mosaic law. Rather, we can see by deductive argument that a bride price was required because a marriage took place and that the father had the legal right to force a divorce.
Or put another way, the Law of Marriage at creation explains the Law of Moses, not the other way around.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I disagree completely. It was NOT a marriage because it lacked the fathers consent. In the OT, a daughter was the property of her father in every way. He could even sell her into slavery if he choose to do so.
Regarding marriage:
He shall pay a dowry “for her to be his wife”. He does not yet own what he has not yet paid for, and even if he pays for her (because of the damage done to the fathers property), she still does not belong to him without the father’s consent.
This is even upheld in the New Testament:
Biblically, for a virgin daughter, there is no marriage without the fathers consent. She is his property and only he has the right to sell her, trade her, or give her away. It is Shipley who is reading into the text what he wants it to say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trey Magnus,
I agree that fathers own their virgin daughters, but I disagree with your interpretation.
I think the Bible teaches us that sex = one flesh = marriage. And I believe the scriptures you’ve cited are all fully consistent with that.
Why?
Because they had sex, and they are married. If the father disallows their union, she was still married, and can’t marry another for as long as her husband lives. However, the husband is allowed to have more than one wife, so he isn’t prevented from marrying an additional wife, but he has to pay full price for the bride he took off the market. My interpretation is that the father can agree to their consummated union and let them live together as a normal married couple, or he has a threat-point because they both ignored his patriarchal authority, that he can, if he chooses, spite them both back to where the husband gets nothing but the one-night-stand for his bride-price, and the woman then is no longer able to remarry or leave serving her father’s house, being bound by God’s law from marrying another man for as long as her father-denied husband lives.
One must firstly remember that the English Bible has been both desexualized (bowdlerized) and translated by a church that presumptuously believes that they should exert and maintain control over the initiation of marriages. However, if I were to translate the verse it might read like this, as cobbled together from various translations with my own editorial comments:
If any man thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to (either imprinting on her psyche, or making her reputation for purity questionable, or perhaps engaging in non-coital sexual activity), (which virgin has “bloomed” or “ripened” into puberty and therefore) is old enough to get married, and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her (copulate), let him do what he wants (he wants to exercise his sex drive); it is no sin (for engaged / betrothed couples to copulate their way into married status). Let her be married. (taken, united), (through the betrothed husband doing what he wants), (the betrothal already entails the giving-away of the bride and the joint family covenant, the marriage commitment “vow” is already implicit). (God clearly tells us that “it” isn’t a sin. Most logically because “it” is something that folks might otherwise think is a sin, e.g. sexual immorality.)
LikeLike
ὃ θέλει ποιείτω ; οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει
what he desires let him perform; he does not sin
While I’m sure your fiancées had y’all desiring a lengthy formal wedding ceremony involving lots of symbolic rites and shaking the hands of a myriad of distant in-laws before eating chalky wedding mints. I, on the other hand, was desiring to shoot a massive load of my sperm into my fiancée. Maybe that’s why I still don’t imagine a formal church wedding ceremony being the “desire” in that passage. And some translations even say that it was a sexual desire.
One possible definition of the word translated above as “perform”, is:
e. of things effected by generative force, to produce, bear, shoot forth: James 3:12 of a fountain yielding water.
So, an acceptable alternate translation might be:
That which he wills, let him perform it (shooting forth like a fountain) he sinneth not.
Y’all may commence to hating on my sexualized (Tommy Nelson-esque) translation.
LikeLike
How about another? Here is Deuteronomy 25:5b (see the interlinear):
Quite the marriage ceremony.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sharkly and all,
Regarding your comment on Bible translations and specifically, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. Please read the following. It is long, but one of the best things I have read in a long time on the subject of Bible translations and that verse specifically (what the author calls his “Litmus Test” verse) and will explain a major reason why I take the position I take on virgin daughters.
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/whats-the-best-bible-translation-and-more-importantly-why/
Also, there are numerous instances of sex in the OT, where just the act did not constitute a marriage.
Consider:
Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:31-38) – His daughters having sex with him did not make them his wife(s).
Onan and Tamar (Genesis 38:1-9) – Having sex with his brothers wife did not make her his wife and the children would not even be his.
Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38:13-19) – Judah had sex with his Daughter-in-law Tamar (thinking she was a prostitute) and that did not make her his wife.
In the law, a man having sex with a slave woman that did not belong to him (Leviticus 19:20-22) – There is no mention of this woman becoming the man’s wife just because they had sex. She was the property of someone else and having sex with her did not magically cause her to change ownership or create a marriage. He didn’t even have to pay a brides price, just make a guilt offering (Ram) and he would be forgiven the sin.
It is recorded that Sampson had sex with three women in his life. The first one, the girl from Timnah was reported as his wife (Judges 14:15). But later, Sampson had sex with a prostitute from Gaza (Judges 16:1) and she was never called his wife. Then he was in a ongoing sexual relationship with Delilah and she was never called his wife.
Eli’s sons had sex with the many women who served at the entrance of the tent of meeting and those women were not considered their wives (1 Samuel 2:22).
David had sex with Bathsheba (Uriah’s the Hittite’s wife) (2 Samuel 11:4) and that did not make her David’s wife. She was still Uriah’s wife. She did not become David’s wife until after David had Uriah killed in battle the only then did she become David’s wife (2 Samuel 11:26-27).
Amnon had sex with his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:14) and there is no report of her being called his wife after that although it indicates in verse 13 that she could have been given to him as a wife if he had asked her father for her.
Was about a concubine? From what I read, they were not actual wives and not actually married to the man they were having regular sex and often children with. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/5672-concubines
I admit that I do not know exactly what “one-flesh” means but based on everything that I read in the Bible, I just can’t come to the conclusion that just sex=marriage. From what I read, it takes a fathers consent (for a virgin daughter) and the understanding between the parties that they are entering into a “marriage” relationship. There are just too many instances of sex in the Bible where the result was never called a marriage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Livirate Marriage is part of the Mosiac Law (Deuteronomy 25:5–6):
Notice that the formation of marriage by sex is independent of and separate from his authority, literally, his name. This is just one more piece of evidence that vows, authority, and property law in Mosaic Law are separate matters from the Adamic Covenant of marriage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ramman3000,
Regarding:
“Livirate Marriage is part of the Mosiac Law (Deuteronomy 25:5–6):
“…Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her…””
Thank you. I stand corrected on that one instance. What about all the rest?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an unfortunate example, because it is confounded by other variables.
First, Lot didn’t consent. Some (not I) believe sex=marriage only if the man consents to having sex. But Lot was not even aware of it. Even in my previous comment on Exodus 22:16-17, the woman was seduced, not raped: there was mutual consent, so the marriage took place. No such simple explanation exists here.
Second, the punishment for rape is death (see: Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Under the future Mosaic Law, Lot’s daughters would rightly have been put to death. Notably, death terminates the one flesh bond. The necessity for death adds to the suggestion that Lot was ‘married’ to his daughters.
Third, recall that under Mosaic Law, adultery could not result in a licit marriage. Recall also that, per Paul, sex with a prostitute is the same. The one flesh bond was created, yes, but the marriage was more-or-less instantly dissolved by divorce (sending away) upon its creation. The same goes for incest. Lot’s marriage would have been illicit under Mosaic Law. In such cases, an implicit divorce is mandatory.
Fourth, Lot sent them away from his marriage bed by not taking them as his wives nor to his bed again.
So what can we say about all of this? One one hand, having sex and sending them away—not again taking them to wife—doesn’t actually establish that they were not initially married. On the other hand, nothing here clearly establishes that they were married. In essence, this citation doesn’t tell us all that much either way, especially when it is confounded by other issues.
LikeLike
In the past, there has been some confusion about what fornication / porneia entails exactly. This pretty much sums up my understanding of fornication / porneia. There’s a lot of F-ing around, but family formation is frustrated. No “real” marriage and no children come out of it. In the case of sexual denial to a spouse, there’s NO F-ing around, but marital sanctification and procreation are frustrated. In all cases, people are fooling around such that a sanctified marriage and children are averted. IOW, people defile themselves and God’s will is never achieved (Malachi 2:14-16; 1 Corinthians 7:13-15).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Precisely. Marriage can be somewhat circularly defined as the relationship where licit/marital sex happens. Generally, everything sexual outside of this, no matter what its label or description is, is sexual immorality that opposes God’s will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most of your examples are illicit ‘marriages’: adultery, incest, fornication, rape, or prostitution: Judah and Tamar, Samson, and David and Bathsheba, Amnon and the rape of Tamar. Regarding Eli’s sons, whether it was marriage or not, it was explicitly illicit. Like Lot and his daughters, these examples don’t provide much insight. However, we can evidence of Sex = Marriage in how David had to kill Uriah — severing the one flesh bond — to take her as his licit wife.
Divorce in the Bible is “sending away” (Greek: apoluō), “certificate of dismissal” (Greek: biblion apostasiou), “separate” (Greek: chōrizō), “leave” (Greek: aphiēmi), “divorce” (Hebrew: kerithuth) only in the context of the certificate of dismissal, and “send” (Hebrew: shalach). Mosaic Law only provided regulations for divorce (e.g. the certificate of dismissal), it didn’t define what divorce was (dismissal, sending away). When Paul speaks of separation and leaving in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, he isn’t talking about modern legal separation, he’s talking about divorce.
If a man and woman are living together as husband and wife and having sex they are married because they are not separated. They have a one flesh bond and neither left or was sent away. This is analogous to a common law marriage. That’s all it takes to be married: have sex and don’t go your separate ways.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is a great question. A free wife was a normal wife. A concubine was a bond (or slave) wife. The free wife had robust legal marital rights. The bond wife was more-or-less considered property and had few rights. However, both were wives and both could be divorced (e.g. Sarah’s slave, Abraham’s concubine).
Leviticus 19:20-22 and Exodus 22:16-17 are illustrative. What separated a free and bond wife was the payment of the bride price and the father’s agreement (one-in-the-same thing, actually). If a man seduced a virgin, he was implicitly claiming her as his concubine, a bond wife. But Mosaic Law does not allow this! No free daughter of Israel could be permitted to debase herself like that, so the new husband had to unconditionally pay the bride price, even if her father then sent her away — divorced her — from her new husband. The point of the law is twofold: (1) a marriage took place when they had sex; and (2) the marriage was initially of the inferior bond wife type.
What happens today, in OT terms, is that when a man’s daughter sleeps with her boyfriend, she’s now a bond-wife, a concubine. If he finds out she did it and allows it, it is like agreeing that his daughter is a bond-wife, that is, property. Free wives are not property. The purpose of the marriage ceremony and the father giving away the bride is, if anything, to establish that she’s not a concubine of her new husband. It’s a public sign of legitimacy. But it has no impact on whether or not she is married.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It took Amnon only a few seconds to marry Tamar and it took him about the same time to divorce her. Moreover, Tamar consider the divorce to be even worse than producing a marriage through rape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is not necessarily correct.
As everyone seems to forget this:
So the Father of ANY woman can no longer null ANY marriage!
Let alone any church or government or man or woman that has become married through sex either!
If you believe Jesus and the New Testament that is (of course).
But everyone here seems to go by some denomination’s, the world’s, or the serpent’s word, NOT Jesus — the Word of God made Flesh’s Word.
I like this place other than all that.
LikeLike
Way to stay on topic here bud!
God, Moses, and Jesus all said for us to not murder. But it still happens. And the perpetrators in some cases still walk free. Heck the state will give them a parade when it should be using the sword.
So what then? How does a believing man deal with a wife who divorces him, has the state take 85% of his wealth, steals his children and then makes him pay for years for kids he’s not allowed to see? (All under threat of violence / jail from the state if he doesn’t do these things?)
I will posit that we live in a world where women are encouraged and given licence to kill a marriage by both the state and the church.
Offer some solutions here bud. We all know that we are all far from the ideal that Christ laid out, but we still have to live in this world till he comes back.
LikeLike
Obviously this pastor is overreacting to a partial truth and thus excusing and spreading fornication by his lack of ability to see the whole picture.
The church didn’t lust for power and thus change things. Culture changed and the church responded to prevent fornication.
Obviously in the OT a man approached the father and asked for one of his daughters, the father agreed but gave the daughter a say, and if the daughter said yes, BAM, that was a marriage.
But at some point women were granted autonomy to find a man on their own. Then the church took over with marriage ceremonies to prevent women from being whores. But the church recognized that the father SHOULD have authority over the daughter, she SHOULD NOT have FULL autonomy, so the father was given what used to be the daughter’s place, i.e. final consent, when in the ceremony they ask “Who gives this woman in marriage?” and the father steps forward to do so.
But then the father became entirely irrelevant over time and many marriage ceremonies make a mockery of this by having some male friend she probably slept with before before the one to give her in marriage. And many just drop this part since its not in perfect line with feminism.
The church should backtrack and take back society by removing the Pericope Adulterae and rolling back feminism entirely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait,
Dave, what history are you reading? Seriously have you read the book of the martyrs? The “church” has been lusting after power ever since the wolves snuck in (which we were told to be on guard for!).
We all see what needs to happen, what changes that society needs to make to get ‘back on track’ and heck even what needs to happen in the church body to bring it back to where it needs to be. BUT not one of us will be able to do any of this unless made a dictator.
Let’s start thinking about helping the individual brother in Christ, who wants to follow Christ with his whole heart but is overwhelmed by what’s arrayed against him. Not only is the world stacked against him (the early Church had to live in the shadow of Rome, lots of examples there) and now we’ve got the ‘church’ being just as bad fighting against him too.
I look at young men like Rocko and my heart goes out to him and brothers like him. They want to follow Christ, but this world is stacked against them. My hope is that my stories / warnings / encouragements / possible solutions help him become the man God wants him to be, all the while avoiding the landmines that I’ve stepped on.
And to repeat what Jack and others have said here, it’s got to start with earnest prayer and a heart and mind open to the spirit on how to act and move that gives glory to God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll take the position that we cannot reproduce the Old Testament standard. It was based on a covenant tribal social setting. In the Ancient Near East, all that was needed was for the man to take the girl, the father to agree, and for the the clans to know about it. It’s important that the husband’s clan is informed they are now responsible for some level of care for her welfare, and to honor the man’s exclusive claim on her. Ceremony arose over time, but was not required by God.
The impossibility of having a tribal feudal government changes things. The society and government (and now churches) are openly hostile to the OT ideal. Without a covenant social context, it must of necessity become a matter of social accountability of another kind. In that sense, it really is nothing more than a social contract with financial implications in most cases.
There’s also a big gap between the simple biblical ideal and the organized traditions of mainstream churches today. Insofar as people belong to a church, the church has to know about the commitment between the two, because the church becomes morally liable for doing all they can to make it work. But as deti notes, this has gotten seriously perverted these days. The link between state and church was invalid from the start (all the way back to circa 300 AD), and it simply got more and more removed from Scripture. Today, according to Scripture, the church looks way too much like the state and secular society.
As a rebel against the establishment in this, I recommend the simplest ceremony possible. The issue of “officiating” is simply getting support from whatever the official represents. Since the mainstream churches bear little resemblance to the First Century, I don’t see any point in vows, blessings, etc. These days I say let the couple have whatever ceremony they like, or none at all. If they aren’t already trying to walk if faith, it’s just another ceremony. Just make the announcement to whomever cares and make it work — or not.
I see no point in getting the government involved because it is openly hostile to faith and Scripture in our American setting. However, it’s also stupid to ignore the government without some kind of planning and precautions. Thus, I am not offended by separating a civil marriage ceremony from anything the couple decides to do in faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Catacomb,
Going back to an earlier post in this mini-series, Regulations vs. Reality (2023/5/), Ed Hurst described how the absence of a feudal orientation obscures the knowledge of God’s will and how this plays out.
What we’re doing here is recognizing how the church’s Sacramental Marriage construct fails to reveal God’s will in certain ways, and we’re attempting to fill in those remaining blanks.
Going into this mini-series, I had the idea that if we gained more clarity on this, then that might be enough to fill in those blanks. At the very least, we could improve our communications about this matter and possibly understand what’s going on. I believe we’ve made some meager progress on the latter two goals, but the former is still beyond our reach without a revision of our paradigmatic orientation.
The question remains whether it is better to tolerate the weaknesses of the established traditions, or to attempt to construct a new orientation (or a modern adaptation / revision of the old) using lessons from the old and the new. I am leaning towards the latter, but we (we meaning those following this discussion in the Christian Manosphere), can’t even agree on what marriage is. I should ask Matt Walsh to make a documentary about “What is a marriage?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
…and…
The biblical standard is that when a man and woman have sex, a permanent marital bond takes place. In the case of a virgin bride, it is sealed in literal blood. The Old Testament makes this clear enough, but the New Testament makes it even less ambiguous.
Jesus made it clear that no man can tear asunder what God has brought together (Matthew 19:4-6), but for some reason redpillers do not like this. Paul made it clear that even when a man has sex with a prostitute, they become one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:15-16). To remind everyone: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24), the Bible is quite explicit that these are the same thing. Paul is telling people not to wife up prostitutes.
It’s actually incredibly easy to reproduce the Old Testament standard: don’t have sex with anyone who isn’t your wife and if you get divorced, do not remarry until your spouse is dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At the very least, it appears we can say that there is no requirement, from a Christian standpoint, for the state or government or political authority to be involved in anyone’s marriage.
There may be reasons of convenience or law for a Christian couple to include the state, but that is a personal and practical decision, not a foundational one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: Bridal Charades | Σ Frame
Derek / ramman,
In your last two comments (here and here), you have explained the Sex = Marriage paradigm in terms of the Old and New Covenants / Testaments very clearly. Basically, the Sex = Marriage paradigm is a fundamental element of both the Adamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. But the question that remains in my mind, and probably for many readers as well, is how does the New Covenant under Christ change any of this? I think there is a change, but it is not so clear exactly what it is. In general, the Old Covenants address conduct, commitments, and sexual relations, while the new Covenant digs deeper to assess the state of one’s heart.
This may very well explain why there is a divided opinion on the validity of the Sex = Marriage paradigm.
— Those who subscribe to the Sex = Marriage paradigm obviously believe that it still applies under the New Covenant.
— Those who do not agree with the Sex = Marriage paradigm must think that the New Covenant overrides this in some way, although I am not sure anyone has explained how.
LikeLike
Jack,
Consider the comments under “Radix Fidem and Weddings“:
…and…
Why the Sabbath with regard to marriage? In Matthew 12:1-8, Jesus told the Pharisees of two cases—David and priests on sabbath duties—where the letter of the Mosaic law was violated, but no wrong took place. In Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus told the Pharisees that following the letter of Mosaic law on divorce was actually wrong. Five times in Matthew 5 Jesus says “you have heard that it was said…” and then proceeds to clarify the intention of the Mosaic law from what was actually written.
Yes, the letter of Mosaic Law was highly contextual, whether it be vows, marriage, purity regulations, divorce, etc. Laws existed within a specific civil, cultural, and religious system that does not exist anymore. But—and this is key—Jesus showed that the underlying “spirit of the law” or “the heart of the matter” is the same. Not the specific mechanics, but their purpose according to God’s priorities for his peoples.
In Matthew 23:13-39, especially v16-26, Jesus contrasts the application of law (e.g. tithing/giving and swearing/oaths/vows) with the purpose of the law (e.g. justice, mercy, faithfulness). But in verse 23, Jesus tells the Pharisees not to stop following the Mosaic Covenant (under which they were still bound), but rather not to neglect the greater things.
And so, what about sex and marriage?
The New Covenant has a lot of “deregulation”, but it didn’t do away with the spirit of the original regulations w.r.t. sex/marriage. Jesus and Paul showed that the Mosaic Covenant was insufficient. The New Covenant had to include stricter and explicit requirements: no divorce, no remarriage after divorce, no divorced bishops/deacons, no polygamy, no prostitution, no fornication, no homosexuality, etc. But all of these were rooted in the Adamic Covenant (and even the spirit of the Mosaic Covenant), not some new sexual purity standard. God wanted marriage to be this pure from the beginning.
Certain denominations consider that apostolicity in the New Covenant to be a matter of “succession of leadership” not measured by “adherence of leadership to scripture”. It was explained thus (emphasis added):
The core operational axioms are different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive.
LikeLike
People from the strict Reformed view behave as if the ancient high-church confessional faiths have never heard of the letter of the law. That they invented the concept of legalism vs grace. A two-second search of Wikipedia of all places reveals, once again, that this is something we have known about the whole time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_(religion)
LikeLike
One of the key questions a priest is required to ask himself when assessing the messiness of a convert’s pre-Orthodox life (marriages, divorces, baptisms) is “Was grace present?” (economia). It is basically asking the question about spirit (intent) and letter.
This is a very subjective precedure and takes a very seasoned and mature Christian with great discernment to figure out sometimes (which is why a priest often confers with other priests in his circle) before adjudication. In mine and my wife’s case, this is exactly what happened. (It took him weeks to get back to us about what the correct path forward was regarding my reversion, her conversion, our marriage, and our kids status.)
Orthodoxy doesn’t need a lecture on this concept. Why not interact with some real life Orthodox Christians with complicated lives who have found grace and are at peace with it?
LikeLike
The Orthodox turn Mary into an overbearing mother who can’t even let Christ reign in heaven, so they clearly are gynocentric. It would make more sense to listen to a real pagan than those pagan LARPers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Sora,
Aren’t you referring to Catholicism? What is your experience with the Orthodox church that would bring you to form such an opinion?
LikeLike
I see. Well, that puts a bit of a damper on the discussion of whether or not an Orthodox Christian might have something useful to say here.
LikeLike
The above exchange is why the “Christian” Manosphere will eventually grind to halt.
It can either be something like an ecumenical “notes from the field of dating / mating selection and marriage from men in the trenches”, or it can be a club that is so small, where only one dominant sect or set of Christian attitudes and beliefs runs off everyone else. The latter is the most likely and is a recipe for even further obscurity and irrelevance. (As if this tiny corner of the web wasn’t obscure enough.)
What I would like? Something like this.
Article–
Protestant Commenter: “Here’s how I and my faith tradition interact with these concepts. Here’s my take on it from that perspective.”
Catholic Commenter: “Here’s how I and my faith tradition interact with these concepts. Here’s my take on it from that perspective.”
Mormon Commenter: “Here’s how I and my faith tradition interact with these concepts. Here’s my take on it from that perspective.”
Orthodox Commenter: “Here’s how I and my faith tradition interact with these concepts. Here’s my take on it from that perspective.”
All Commenters: “That’s interesting. Tell me more about how your faith tradition might look if it were implemented.” (Or ignore the comment and move on.)
Instead, we have:
Commenter of any faith tradition: “Here’s how I and my faith tradition interact with these concepts. Here’s my take on it from that perspective.”
Other Commenters: “Your entire faith tradition are pagan LARPers who worship Mary!” OR “Anybody who thinks that way isn’t a real Christian!” OR “They aren’t practicing such and such Christian concept the way I believe, therefore [whatever non-useful thing I want to insert here].”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe you may have misunderstood my argument.
My discussion on the spirit vs letter of the law was in answer to Jack’s question about the differences between Covenants. Then I brought up apostolicity, because this discussion of ‘spirit vs letter’ is not applicable to the case of Orothodoxy and Roman Cacholicism, or as I quoted:
I was, incidentally, agreeing with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not Reformed. I am not Baptist[*], and I’ve never attended a denomination that holds official doctrine that agrees with what I presented here, let alone me spouting their talking points. It is a spurious claim.
The real problem is that you don’t think dialogue, disagreement, and discernment have value…
…because this axiom puts the tradition of men in primacy over the Word of God. And so, you’d prefer that such discussion cease. By contrast, …
…I often listen intently to many different faith traditions that differ from my own, including Reformed, Baptist, Methodist, Mennonite, non-denominational, etc. I do so even when they viciously excoriate me for my (false?) viewpoints. Why? Because these faiths offer Jesus through presentation of the Word of God. But any faith that teaches justification by works and the axiom of sola ecclesia—which you have so plainly, accurately, and unambiguously described above—is a false faith.
Jesus did not go easy on the rich young man. He didn’t shy away from saying what needed to be said in order to do the work of God. Why should we do any differently?
That’s softball. Jesus equated those who refused the Word of God with pigs, snakes, and feral dogs and told his listeners that anyone who rejected him or his Father would be thrown into and burned in the same trash heap where Moloch worshipers had once sacrificed and burned children.
LikeLike
RamblingMan,
Word salads like this make me confused about what you’re trying to say and which of your statements you really believe. To make yourself clear, you should begin each doctrinal statement with “I believe that…”, or “My denomination holds that…”, or “I understand the Catholic church teaches that…”, or at least provide some context. It’s like in counseling, one of the first things the counselor will tell couples is that they should avoid using absolute phrases like, “You always…” and “You never…”, and stick to phrases like, “I think…” or “When you do X it makes me feel Y.” It just makes the whole communication go a lot smoother.
You’re overreaching your assumptions here. What I got out of EoS’s descriptions of Orthodoxy is that scripture and ecclesia are parallel and intertwined, not that one trumps the other. It seems like you’re the one who wants the discussion to cease.
Are you referring to your strawman of Eastern Orthodoxy? Whew! Couldn’t you find a more efficient way to shut down the discussion? And to cap it all off, there’s nothing like a good old Jonathan Edwards sermon! Meanwhile, we do have some readers here who are going through literal hell at this exact moment. Do you have any good word for these men?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For efficiency, my reply is here.
LikeLike
RamMan,
I was following your argument until I got to the word “apostolicity”. What does this have to do with the Sex = Marriage paradigm?
LikeLike
Jack,
In the case of Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and some Protestants, apostolicity means “apostolic succession“ (or sola ecclesia). By contrast, apostolicity for most Protestants is “adherence to the authority of scripture” (or sola scriptura).
Let’s review your previous comments. First, this…
…clearly only applies to the subset of Protestants whose apostolicity is “adherence to the authority of scripture”, for scripture plainly teaches that Sex = Marriage.
Second, this…
…is explained by an apostolicity of apostolic succession. As EoS made completely clear, scripture alone has no bearing on what the apostolic church teaches. You are unlikely to receive any explanation other than, “because the church says so, and so it is true, now stop talking about it.”
In short, asserting “Sex = Marriage” is equivalent to saying “apostolic succession is an invalid concept”. I can’t make the former claim without also making the latter. One either follows what scripture — Jesus and the Apostle Paul — teaches, or else follows the “apostolic” church tradition.
Every argument has assumptions behind it. The Sex = Marriage and Sex ≠ Marriage arguments are no different. They both axiomatically assume a particular apostolicity.
I can’t argue Sex = Marriage without also arguing that apostolic succession is wrong. This is obviously true! If I thought Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy were legitimately God’s authorized apostolic representatives on earth, I would be obligated to say that sex does not equal marriage and that marriage is a sacrament of salvific grace.
I shouldn’t be blamed merely for pointing out what no one wants to admit, that these matters of extremely great importance to us (i.e. what constitutes marriage) go to the heart of the Christian denominational divide that has existed for over 1500 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramman,
It seems like you’re presenting your arguments in reverse logical order. It should be…
1) Compare Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia
2) Explain how Sola Ecclesia relates to Apostolicity.
3) Explain how the interpretation of Apostolicity is different for Cathodoxy and Protestantism.
4) Explain how the Sex = Marriage arguments unfold differently in terms of Apostolicity.
5) Explain how this negates Cathodoxy’s Sacramental Marriage construct.
In summary, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying the Sex ≠ Marriage argument is valid, and the Sex = Marriage argument is invalid, only because the church says so.
LikeLike
Yes, that would have been better. But if I did all that, complaints would fly about it being verbose, off-topic, sectarian, divisive, pharisaic, insecure, badgering, irrational, irrelevant, and worse than hardened atheism. So I primarily cite scripture, because who cares if I’m reviled or even helpful so long as God’s Word is presented.
Churches do have logically valid arguments (sort of) for “Sex ≠ Marriage” (e.g. vows, sacraments, and authority), but these wouldn’t be presented in good faith. Since the arguments are fully dependent on the underlying axioms — the authority of the church — they are not up for debate. To challenge their logical soundness is to challenge the church itself.
I strive for pristine formal arguments, but they are mostly ineffective. No argument can overturn an axiom. Only the presentation of scripture and the conviction of Holy Spirit has a good chance of success.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ramman,
OK, I understand your position now.
IMO, our goal should not be to convince others, but only to inform — to present the facts and information in an easy to understand manner — and to incite critical thinking and introspection. Some will be convinced, but not others.
Maybe not, but it sure helps us to be informed, think things over, and find the words to express ourselves. If we have the ability to do so, but fail to use it, then we’re letting down those men who would have otherwise been edified.
LikeLike
It actually puts scripture (the writing, collection and collating of which was something the church did) as a part of a hierarchy of other things the church did and continues to do. The idea that the behavior and authority of the church are at odds with scripture is simply a foreign thing to folks from the confessional-apostolic succession traditions. It is a dichotomy that does not have to exist.
There is no scripture — not one — that says:
“After the 3rd century, all of what the church decides to be scripture is static and done and can never be illuminated by any version of the church after that.”
I looked.
The one advantage I have is I am a convert from that way to this way. In fact, I went to a seminary and learned how to “do” sola scriptura “systematically” as they taught me to. Pouring over Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic texts, looking up and parsing verbs in their context and common contemporary usage. Carrying my Strongs exhaustive around. Reading the approved commentaries. Then using my own private interpretations of the text that I so studiously applied my hermeneutic to in order to ram it down everyone else’s throat. Oh, almost forgot — Praying for guidance before I even did any of that. Because, you need God’s help to make you an obnoxious obtuse Pharisee. If you exhaust its permutations, it leads to everyone being a church of one.
So, when I see it I recognize it as the old me. No big deal. It just has no real value in a forum of men from so many different forms of Christianity who are trying to figure out how to have successful marriages in the sexual dystopia we live in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone here ever been to a “Bible Study” in an American church?
It’s basically a bunch of people in a circle. The facilitator is a person who read some devotional or mega church pastor’s latest book and wants to go through a weekly, verse-by-verse analysis of John or whatever.
Each Sunday, everyone files into the room, and starts talking about “what this verse means to me” and how it applied in some one-off, uninteresting story about their lives.
The facilitator MUST nod knowingly and everyone sighs with deep feeling about the individual’s version of whatever verse they are stuck on for the week.
Some guy like Derek inevitably tries to steer the conversation toward the actual, true, objective meaning of the text being considered using solid logic and reason obtained from systematic theology. He may even be “right” about it.
But it is to no avail, because he has no real authority. He may appeal to “scripture” as his authority, but the loop continues to circle back to room full of “priesthood of believers” who ALL think they have the same authority as everyone else in the room, hence, no one does. The scripture are words on a page that need a tie breaker. It’s just human nature and one of many reasons God gave us the church in the first place.
Most of the people leave the Bible study even more confused about what they just read.
Ever wonder how that happened? I don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack, EoS, and the rest of the old timers here.
I’m really good at picking up patterns, and I keep seeing a recurring theme, and this has happened at other websites as well.
I’ve noticed that when we (old timers) actually get a really good discussion going or start talking about solutions, paths forward, or even deeper spiritual things, a couple of commenters will join in and throw a monkey wrench into the discussion which ‘triggers’ others and now we’ve been distracted from the meat of our discussion. And any progress that is being made is stopped in it’s tracks. (And this happens on other blogs that I follow as well at times.)
For instance, just in this thread, I give practical advice on how one could navigate in this dangerous world (directly related to common law), and to follow up, two posters change the topic to divorce (instead of common law marriage) — David Sora and hecares. When I called hecares on it, he quotes scripture back to me followed by linking to a 3 hr video!!!
Now the topic has swerved and Derek chimes in about divorce and we are OT again.
EoS taking about fellowship and how to move forward (which hit the nail on the head EoS, thanks for posting that), and again “David Sora” resorts to name calling… Hmmm… We are talking about deeper spiritual things and how to apply them in our life and I believe either bots or shills are coming on here to actively disrupt our discussions.
Jack, this is your house and your rules. I suggest that you need to be a bit more judicious in use of the ‘ban hammer’ around here, especially amongst newbee’s that post OT.
There appear to be wolves trying to sneak in amongst the flock attempting to break up the fellowship we have going here. This tells me that “we” are on the right path seeking the Good, Beautiful, and True.
I love this body of men that have gathered here, what we are doing here is important and I believe God’s work.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I feel the same way. It is a brave new world when you can develop actual love for men you have never met in real life. But the relationships that have been formed (especially with the men I talk to off line) are forged in a really weird fire which makes them unique. If it was needed, and I could, I would do anything for (some) of you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look at the post summary…
…which is directly related to…
…and then see that my comments on divorce are directly related. Maybe you are having trouble following along with the argument that the role of fathers with respect to marriage formation, vows, and divorce is interrelated? Or maybe you think this is off topic is because you disagree with it and want disagreement silenced:
You know what is off topic? Complaining about being off-topic and advocating censorship in order to artificially produce conformity. Here is my commentary from a couple weeks ago:
Ahem.
I started posting here a few months after the modern era of Sigma Frame began, when Jack wasn’t Jack and he was posting regularly. This was before Dalrock and Boxer closed down their blogs. If you go back to the 2019 Performance Report, you’ll see that of the top 5 commentators then, I’m the only one who still comments here with any regularity. The current crop of commentators has recently successfully managed to chase away a number of “old guard” commentators.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Derek, this isn’t an attack on you. I consider YOU an old timer! But I’ve noticed that some will ‘toss you a bone’ to get you stirred up, just like they will for deti and EoS. Anything to get us infighting.
Heck I’ve seen them trigger Jason as well.
I don’t agree with a lot of your conclusions or your stance on a lot of issues, BUT I consider you a brother here.
These are MY requirements to call someone a Brother in Christ:
1 . Does he believe Christ is his savior?
2. Is he trying to fight evil in this world, in any way shape of fashion?
If it’s yes to both these questions than he’s welcome in my foxhole!
The rest is just noise, and I view like infighting amongst siblings.
Like I said, Derek you are a brother in Christ, who can get triggered like the rest of us. So keep an eye out for wolves in your mist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whiteguy1
You see, I don’t even care whether readers and/or commenters are Christian at all.
It’s not my blog, but I could see this space as serving an evangelical purpose if the stupid crap we argue about wasn’t here.
I imagine an agnostic, or seeking, or on-the-fence lurker being sparked by something one of us writes.
Sort of a friendly competition between the various “denominations”.
Which one of our lives (and interacting faith tradition) looks more like what a hurting, ball-busted, beat down husband wants for himself and his family?
Not the point of the site, I understand.
But a fun byproduct I think.
LikeLiked by 3 people
EoS,
Just for $h!ts and giggles some Mark Twain quotes about religion because I think they shed some light on your rhetorical question. Hint, it’s probably the guy that believes but understands he needs so much grace that it is impossible for him to take himself too seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RPA,
That made me laugh!
I’m in the UK right now so I’m going to bed.
Thanks man!
LikeLike
Thanks for this, by the way…
You know me too well. If I could fit this on to a bumper sticker I would.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bumper stickers in 12 point font aren’t all that effective unless your goal is to get rear-ended. 🙂
The older I get the more I see that I am guilty of the same wrong behaviors I see in others, just done with my own personal flair. The concept that someone’s own need for copious grace is the filter we should see the world through, is as much a personal reflection as it is an observation of the type of person others gravitate towards.
LikeLike
Going back to review comment threads after a couple days is always enlightening.
Commenter hecares has been banned for trolling / arguing in bad faith, and his last 4 comments have been removed with only his first comment left remaining.
Commenter dave sora has been placed on moderation for falsely stereotyping and carelessly mocking Eastern Orthodoxy without providing evidence / reason.
Ramman3000 is encouraged to abbreviate his long monologues to a more concise and direct argument or else restrict them to his own blog.
I’m impressed with whiteguy1’s discernment in this matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jack, though I will give credit to God, I’ve been praying for a while specifically for wisdom and discernment on seeing the evil around me, and God has done just that, not just online but IRL. Which honestly is terrifying at times!
I had the desire to be a elder / deacon, but it was never meant to be. I was given a vision a couple of years ago of that of a guardian dog (instead of herding one), but at the time I really didn’t understand what it meant.
But now I have a clearer vision of what that means. My job is to live within the flock, watching and warning of approaching dangers, willing to give my life for the flock if required, but knowing I’m backed up by the Shepherd if that is my call. While never forgetting that I need to be fed along with the sheep, just that my role is different from most.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Divided We Fall | Σ Frame
To my evangelical Christian mind, God, Adam, and Eve made up the assembled people of God, the Church. There was no mediator between God and man because God communed directly with His people. Priests were necessary as mediators during the Mosaic covenant. And pastors (shepherds) are necessary now because we are like sheep who go astray. But they are both dim reflections of God himself, whose blessing is what we really need on our marriages.
Likewise, God was the father of both Adam and Eve. He both took a wife for Adam and gave her to him. The existing families of the couple both took part.
So I see the wedding in Eden, such as it was, as an ideal which all of our traditional wedding ceremonies try to emulate. You have God, the entire church, and all of the families gathered around the couple saying, “Yes, this is very good.”
LikeLike
Pingback: Hate the sin, not the sinner - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: A Concise History of Marriage Regulations | Σ Frame
Pingback: Moral agency and sex define a marriage | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Apostolic Apostasy | Σ Frame
Pingback: Sacramental Soteriology | Σ Frame
Pingback: Expectations, Laws, and Policies regarding Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Synopsis of Sacramental Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2023 — Part 3 | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of IOIs and Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: Marriage Without The State – Cornerstone
Pingback: 2023 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame
Pingback: On Suffering - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: 9 Types of Red Pill Models | Σ Frame