Where is this marriage covenant doctrine taught in the Bible?

[FollowingHim]

Well apparently I've had multiple posts deleted across unknow threads because I'm "snarky". I'm not sure which conversations were interrupted or which threads of thought were derailed so I'm not sure I can recreate what was lost.
So, if you're thinking you made some good point that no one was able to respond to you may have been cheated. There is a chance your brilliance was thoroughly refuted and exposed as balderdash. It's also just as possible that my response was juvenile and thoughtless and you could have easily overcome my weak logic. We'll never though. But at least snark wasn't allowed to get a foothold on the forums. We all know how foreign that is to our shores. Letting snark make it's first appearance would have changed the entire board.

Checking the logs, @ZecAustin has had only three very brief posts deleted, all from the "What is fornication" thread. Being the last three posts in the thread, nobody had replied to any of them, most probably hadn't even seen them, so no conversations have been disrupted, and Zec will probably restate the same things in a different tone at some point so that conversation is unlikely to be disrupted either. I won't get into any public discussion here on moderation decisions and will remove any further comments of that nature, Zec can raise this further privately if he feels the need, but given the above statement I thought I should make sure other posters know there isn't some massive issue here. All's well, carry on...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Covet (in this context) doesn’t equal desire it equals desire to unlawfully posses. Big difference. Of course you desire your women. But you go about possessing them in a lawful way...

Exodus 22:16-17
[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. [17] If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

1. Ah, ok we agree then. I guess I misheard you. Yes, agreed, that is the definition.

2. Right so, sex forms that unbreakable oneness, like I said. If you're going to have sex with someone, we are designed such that we are supposed to be in oneness relationship with them forever. I think we are in agreement here?
But 2 things. First, note that it is perfectly ok for the dude to just pay the father if the father doesn't want them married. I dunno bro that seems like, pretty similar to a hooker...
Secondly, seems to me there is nothing in that verse that says that order of things is bad or wrong. Likewise nothing about covenants or vows. He has sex, bam she is his wife. If her father prevents that (damn Im glad I dont live in ancient Hebrew society, seeing as how 99% of fathers these days would never give their daughter as a second wife...), then ok, he pays for it. But seems to me this actually proved my and Zec's point...nothing has to take place to make a marriage before or after besides sex.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Since the word "covet" appears in connection with "thou shalt not" in the Ten Statements / Ten Commandments, in addition to stern remarks elsewhere in the Bible, people have come to think that it means something heavier than "desire" or "yearn to possess". But in context, "desire" and similar meanings work just fine: Don't be a person characterized by desire for things in general (covetousness, a.k.a. greed), and specifically don't desire things (including women) belonging to others.

In response to your first question, @EternalDreamer: I didn't supply the "can't", you did. God only knows why, but you did.

And in response to the second: Ask Jesus, I guess, because he can make better sense of that question than I can.

By the way, I haven't been reading this thread closely, but someone appeared unsure of the meaning of covet and so I quoted a dictionary in hopes of being helpful. This post and my previous are not intended to express a position on whatever it is that you're arguing.

But since someone here seems to be implying that to covet is necessarily sinful in some way, I'll mention these verses:

• But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. (1 Cor 14:39)
• Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (2 Cor 9:5)

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, since tone is hard to convey online, but your response seems kinda aggressive and patronizing. I assume you didn't mean it that way?

1. I'm possibly forgetting, but I believe there are different Hebrew words, right? Or are they the same?
In the case that they are the same, and just mean 'desire', then yes I agree completely: the difference is in what the thing is you are desiring. That is, are you desiring something rightly or wrongly?

However, the issue I come to is: (and I can't remember the verse and am out of the house right now so, go easy on me), there is a verse that describes the moment of desire that sin is born. And the separation has to do, again, with intent. That is, 'desiring' something in the sense of 'finding something desirable', verses 'aiming at' or 'seeking after' in terms of considering how to obtain or seeking to obtain. Sorry, I realize this is a vague discussion born out of my poor memory, but going off that separation... I can desire my neighbor's car in the sense that I can think it's a cool car and wish I had one like it. But it becomes sin when I desire to TAKE my neighbor's car, or think about how to do so. That is, my intent is the sin: intent to take/wrongfully possess, not simply 'wanting'.

I guess I'm expanding on @Pacman 's point, that the key part is 'desire to wrongfully possess'. Not just 'possess', not just 'desire', but desire to possess wrongly. Like, it would be wrong for me to possess my friend's wife, right? So, desiring to possess her, my friend's wife, would be wrong. But finding her desirABLE, attractive, or whatever, not the same thing. Because the intent is different.

2. Hmm. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I thought that was your point all along? That covet = sin so don't desire someone? My bad.

3. :/ Really? My point was pretty definitely in relation to the discussion of covet/desire being 'always wrong', and saying that Jesus was said to 'covet' something, and clearly didnt sin. Ergo, covet/desire (whatever that word is) is not inherently wrong.

4. I agree completely Glad we are on the same page.

 

[Pacman]

2. Right so, sex forms that unbreakable oneness, like I said.

Sort of...

If you're going to have sex with someone, we are designed such that we are supposed to be in oneness relationship with them forever. I think we are in agreement here?

SUPPOSED TO BE yes but that doesn't mean that you are...

First, note that it is perfectly ok for the dude to just pay the father if the father doesn't want them married. I dunno bro that seems like, pretty similar to a hooker...

I don't know about "perfectly ok" and it's definitely not prostitution because the father did not want the sex to happen in the first place. The requirement for dowery is the risk the man is taking by not getting permission ahead of time from her father... He might have to pay for her and not even be allowed to keep her... Also I suspect that word would travel around pretty fast to other fathers in the area and he would have difficulty finding any wife at that point...

Secondly, seems to me there is nothing in that verse that says that order of things is bad or wrong.

Agreed I don't think the order in which it happens is all that important although the fact that her father can refuse him makes it risky to do the "sex" thing before the "agreement" thing...

Likewise nothing about covenants or vows.

The agreement (covenant) happens after the sex. That's the "endow" part...

He has sex, bam she is his wife.

I disagree the passage clearly says he has to endow her not that he did endow her by having sex... If the father can refuse him then clearly it takes more than just sex to make her his wife...

My opinion at this point is that agreement between the man and the woman's authority must be present as well as sex in order to make her the man's wife. The woman's authority in 2018 is typically herself because fathers in general have neglected their responsibility in this matter... So both sex and agreed intent have to be present to form a "marriage" a one night stand does not (necessarily) make you married...

 

[Pacman]

However, the issue I come to is: (and I can't remember the verse and am out of the house right now so, go easy on me), there is a verse that describes the moment of desire that sin is born. And the separation has to do, again, with intent. That is, 'desiring' something in the sense of 'finding something desirable', verses 'aiming at' or 'seeking after' in terms of considering how to obtain or seeking to obtain.

James 1:14-15
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. [15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

I can desire my neighbor's car in the sense that I can think it's a cool car and wish I had one like it. But it becomes sin when I desire to TAKE my neighbor's car, or think about how to do so. That is, my intent is the sin: intent to take/wrongfully possess, not simply 'wanting'.

I completely agree.

I guess I'm expanding on @Pacman 's point, that the key part is 'desire to wrongfully possess'. Not just 'possess', not just 'desire', but desire to possess wrongly. Like, it would be wrong for me to possess my friend's wife, right? So, desiring to possess her, my friend's wife, would be wrong. But finding her desirABLE, attractive, or whatever, not the same thing. Because the intent is different.

Again I agree... Could you imagine if the desire by itself was wrong the bondage that would put us under. For instance if I see my neighbors car and I really like it and desire to have it. It's perfectly lawful for me to offer to buy his car from him or even to ask him if I can take it for a drive. It becomes a sin if I start scheming how I can steal the car for a joy ride...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Coveting isn't forbidden. It is forbidden to covet certain things.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Sort of...
I disagree the passage clearly says he has to endow her not that he did endow her by having sex... If the father can refuse him then clearly it takes more than just sex to make her his wife...

My opinion at this point is that agreement between the man and the woman's authority must be present as well as sex in order to make her the man's wife. The woman's authority in 2018 is typically herself because fathers in general have neglected their responsibility in this matter... So both sex and agreed intent have to be present to form a "marriage" a one night stand does not (necessarily) make you married...

Thank you for your explanation I think I understand where you are coming from now.

Correct me if I am wrong: if I understand correctly, your position is that because the father has the authority (in the listed example) to prevent the 'fulfillment' so to speak of the marriage, even after sex, ergo sex does not ALONE equal marriage, is that correct?

And my position is this: God clearly views the marriage relationship as now being established, He simply wants the man (the sex-er? lol) to go through the proper channel of getting the father's permission. Otherwise why is God requiring the man to pay the father the dowry (price for a virgin)? The 'endow' part says to me that in God's eyes, the marriage relationship is established in terms of one-ness/concept. He is now requiring that the 'living out' part of the marriage be followed properly.

 

[FollowingHim]

Coveting isn't forbidden. It is forbidden to covet certain things.

Things that belong to someone else.

I can desire my neighbor's car in the sense that I can think it's a cool car and wish I had one like it.

That's not desiring your neighbour's car. That's admiring your neighbour's car and desiring your own car that is the same type as that one. That's a big difference to desiring your neighour's car. There's no problem with admiring.

Like, it would be wrong for me to possess my friend's wife, right? So, desiring to possess her, my friend's wife, would be wrong. But finding her desirABLE, attractive, or whatever, not the same thing. Because the intent is different.

Once again, that's not desiring your friend's wife, that's admiring her. Nothing wrong with that. In the same way, we can recognise that our daughters are attractive without desiring to take them ourselves. In fact, I was going through old photos of my grandmother when putting together a slideshow of her life for her funeral, and could see in the photos of her from her teenage and 20's years why my grandfather was attracted to her - but I could admire her in that way with absolutely no conflict with the fact that she's my grandmother and with absolutely no desire on my part whatsoever. Big difference. Whenever you go anywhere there are crowds of people it's impossible not to notice the many attractive women in that crowd, but recognising they exist and are attractive does not in any way imply that you desire them.

My point is that I think some posters are using the word desire too frequently and then trying to argue why this desire is ok and that desire is not, and trying to draw a line between "desire" and "desire to possess", which is all just overcomplicating the matter. In reality most of the time you're just using the wrong word.

Desire is wishing to possess something. If you don't want it, you don't desire it. You're just admiring it.

And when I met @FollowingHim2, I did desire her. And that was good because she was available. To be honest, there were other women I also desired in some way before I settled on her - and that desire was also completely sinless and wholesome as each of them was also available. Desire itself is neutral, and is sinless. Right now I desire a cup of tea, I expect I'll have one delivered to my office soon because I have a wonderful wife!

When you desire to take someone else's wife, you're desiring to sin. It's not sinful because desire itself is wrong. It's sinful because sin is wrong, and it is the intent that matters more than the action, so your desire to sin is almost as bad as if you actually did it. Again, "desire" is neutral, but if you desire to sin then you're already a sinner.

 

[rockfox]

The more I ponder these scriptures and the original meaning I am inclined to believe that covenant (defined as an ongoing understood set of responsibilities or commitments) is a necessary part of a marriage.

That is a bait and switch on the definition of covenant. One can have a responsibility without there being a covenant. For example, the brother is responsible to marry the widow of his brother; but he had no covenant with her.

It would be breaking this standard Exodus 20:17 and/or this standard Exodus 22:16 so it’s not ok to do it although it’s not fornication...

Ya, if the law on sex with a virgin and the law on a just married woman who is found to be not a virgin were followed; there wouldn't be a whole lot of opportunity for sex outside of marriage excepting prostitutes. It appears God wasn't going to give women a monogamous monopoly on access to sex with which they could rule men. But He also set up a system where most women married as virgins and produced intact families.

Secondly, seems to me there is nothing in that verse that says that order of things is bad or wrong. Likewise nothing about covenants or vows. He has sex, bam she is his wife. If her father prevents that (damn Im glad I dont live in ancient Hebrew society, seeing as how 99% of fathers these days would never give their daughter as a second wife...), then ok, he pays for it. But seems to me this actually proved my and Zec's point...nothing has to take place to make a marriage before or after besides sex.

There is a startling lack of talk about what animal to sacrifice for this sin. It's more a procedural protection to make sure the father's authority within the dowry system isn't undermined.

fathers in general have neglected their responsibility in this matter

The proper term here is abdicated. Even conservative Christian fathers when presented with the option refuse to act as gatekeepers to their daughters. They may huff and puff when some boy comes calling, but it's all empty posturing and all know it.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

That's not desiring your neighbour's car. That's admiring your neighbour's car and desiring your own car that is the same type as that one. That's a big difference to desiring your neighour's car. There's no problem with admiring.

When you desire to take someone else's wife, you're desiring to sin. It's not sinful because desire itself is wrong. It's sinful because sin is wrong, and it is the intent that matters more than the action, so your desire to sin is almost as bad as if you actually did it. Again, "desire" is neutral, but if you desire to sin then you're already a sinner.

Hmm. These two statements are I think where I am getting hung up. Forgive me if I am missing something or not understanding.

So in the first sentence I've quoted, you say admiring (their car) versus desiring (A car that's the same). And that is different from desiring YOUR NEIGHBOR's car (emphases mine obviously).
Is that an accurate understanding of your word choice?

If so, I completely agree. Here's my issue though: can I desire a woman that's the same as your wife but is not your wife?
How about 75% the same? Or 50%? Etc.

Because, for instance, the reality is, most of us red-blooded guys DESIRE (not just admire. Desire as in, want to have/experience/etc) a woman with the body of, say, Pamela Anderson. That does not mean we desire HER herself. So I see a difference there. And I think that difference is important for two reasons. One, I think our Christian culture has done a horrile disservice to men by sin-ifying and condemning men desiring women, and that needs to stop. Two, there are so many exceptions where taking it literally that 'desiring what someone else has is wrong' would, at face value, quickly become ridiculous (as you mentioned in the car example). To use that instance... My neighbor has a brand new lamborghini. I WANT THAT CAR. By 'that car', of course, I mean a lamborghini that is exactly the same. Well, maybe 99%, minus the coffee stains he's recently made in the cushions. But otherwise, identical. However...and to me, this is the key point (and why I was trying to distinguish between desire and desire to take), I don't want HIS lamborghini. I want him to have and enjoy his...I just want the same thing.

The difference, of course, is I CAN have the exact same thing more or less. I CANNOT have someone exactly the same as your wife. Obviously. Thank God But, IMO (and PLEASE don't take this the wrong way), I can desire your wife's form (want someone who looks similar), her personality (want someone with the same interests and personality type), etc...without desiring YOUR specific wife. Which I think you would agree is a good thing Obviously this is an example (never having met either of you), but right, it would obviously be downright evil of me to want to take your wife from you (a la David and Bathsheba). However, that does not mean I cannot desire someone pretty dang similar. I think that quote from James 1:14 applies here. There is a distinction made between desire and sin. Desire becomes sin when it 'takes form' (is conceived in that rendering). Hence, there must be a difference in HOW we desire.

 

[Pacman]

Hmm. These two statements are I think where I am getting hung up. Forgive me if I am missing something or not understanding.

So in the first sentence I've quoted, you say admiring (their car) versus desiring (A car that's the same). And that is different from desiring YOUR NEIGHBOR's car (emphases mine obviously).
Is that an accurate understanding of your word choice?

If so, I completely agree. Here's my issue though: can I desire a woman that's the same as your wife but is not your wife?
How about 75% the same? Or 50%? Etc.

Because, for instance, the reality is, most of us red-blooded guys DESIRE (not just admire. Desire as in, want to have/experience/etc) a woman with the body of, say, Pamela Anderson. That does not mean we desire HER herself. So I see a difference there. And I think that difference is important for two reasons. One, I think our Christian culture has done a horrile disservice to men by sin-ifying and condemning men desiring women, and that needs to stop. Two, there are so many exceptions where taking it literally that 'desiring what someone else has is wrong' would, at face value, quickly become ridiculous (as you mentioned in the car example). To use that instance... My neighbor has a brand new lamborghini. I WANT THAT CAR. By 'that car', of course, I mean a lamborghini that is exactly the same. Well, maybe 99%, minus the coffee stains he's recently made in the cushions. But otherwise, identical. However...and to me, this is the key point (and why I was trying to distinguish between desire and desire to take), I don't want HIS lamborghini. I want him to have and enjoy his...I just want the same thing.

The difference, of course, is I CAN have the exact same thing more or less. I CANNOT have someone exactly the same as your wife. Obviously. Thank God But, IMO (and PLEASE don't take this the wrong way), I can desire your wife's form (want someone who looks similar), her personality (want someone with the same interests and personality type), etc...without desiring YOUR specific wife. Which I think you would agree is a good thing Obviously this is an example (never having met either of you), but right, it would obviously be downright evil of me to want to take your wife from you (a la David and Bathsheba). However, that does not mean I cannot desire someone pretty dang similar. I think that quote from James 1:14 applies here. There is a distinction made between desire and sin. Desire becomes sin when it 'takes form' (is conceived in that rendering). Hence, there must be a difference in HOW we desire.

And everything you said (which I pretty much agree with) boils down to:

Covet in this context means desire to unlawfully possess...

obviously there is no way for a man to lawfully obtain another mans wife but I find no problem in desiring a wife similar to another mans wife... however there are ways to obtain another mans house or car or any other non human possession he owns. You can offer to buy it... the sin comes in if you are desiring or scheming to steal (unlawfully possess) it...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

And everything you said (which I pretty much agree with) boils down to:

Covet in this context means desire to unlawfully possesses...

obviously there is no way for a man to lawfully obtain another mans wife but I find no problem in desiring a wife similar to another mans wife... however there are ways to obtain another mans house or car or any other non human possession he owns. You can offer to buy it... the sin comes in if you are desiring or scheming to steal (unlawfully possesses) it...

AH. Ok. Agree 100%

 

[Pacman]

Correct me if I am wrong: if I understand correctly, your position is that because the father has the authority (in the listed example) to prevent the 'fulfillment' so to speak of the marriage, even after sex, ergo sex does not ALONE equal marriage, is that correct?

Exodus 22:16-17
[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. [17] If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

That’s part of it. But the passage also says “he SHALL endow her to be his wife” (emphasis mine) so it doesn’t say he has endowed her... it says he shall meaning it hasn’t happened yet but he is required to endow her... so that combined with the fathers option of refusal tells me that sex alone does not make her his woman.

Otherwise why is God requiring the man to pay the father the dowry (price for a virgin)? The 'endow' part says to me that in God's eyes, the marriage relationship is established in terms of one-ness/concept. He is now requiring that the 'living out' part of the marriage be followed properly.

The requirement to pay the dowry in my opinion is because he has taken value away from her father. She is worth more as a virgin so without the dowry being paid he has stolen the value of her virginity that rightfully belongs to her father. It doesn’t imply that they are already married. It is also a deterrent for a man contemplating taking her to bed knowing that he will have to pay for her but might not be allowed to keep her. That’s an awfully expensive one night stand...

 

[FollowingHim]

I CANNOT have someone exactly the same as your wife. Obviously. Thank God But, IMO (and PLEASE don't take this the wrong way), I can desire your wife's form (want someone who looks similar), her personality (want someone with the same interests and personality type), etc...without desiring YOUR specific wife. Which I think you would agree is a good thing

Agreed. It's also entirely acceptable to desire to have a wife who cooks as well as your mother, without that meaning you're desiring your mother...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Exodus 22:16-17
[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. [17] If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

That’s part of it. But the passage also says “he SHALL endow her to be his wife” (emphasis mine) so it doesn’t say he has endowed her... it says he shall meaning it hasn’t happened yet but he is required to endow her... so that combined with the fathers option of refusal tells me that sex alone does not make her his woman.



The requirement to pay the dowry in my opinion is because he has taken value away from her father. She is worth more as a virgin so without the dowry being paid he has stolen the value of her virginity that rightfully belongs to her father. It doesn’t imply that they are already married. It is also a deterrent for a man contemplating taking her to bed knowing that he will have to pay for her but might not be allowed to keep her. That’s an awfully expensive one night stand...

To be clear (because perhaps I am confused)... are you arguing that intent is NOT the important part?

 

[Pacman]

To be clear (because perhaps I am confused)... are you arguing that intent is NOT the important part?

I’m saying both sex and mutual agreement (intent) have to be present. So in this case the father makes the agreement or refuses the agreement. The sex has already taken place but without the agreement of the father she isn’t getting married...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

I’m saying both sex and mutual agreement (intent) have to be present. So in this case the father makes the agreement or refuses the agreement. The sex has already taken place but without the agreement of the father she isn’t getting married...

Hmm.

So maybe this is the start of a whole other thread, but...
Seems to me the intent God cares about is the intent between the man and woman, not the man and her father...

I feel that there is definitely a scriptural argument here but I am blanking on verses right now. It could be simply because of a cultural/era difference, but what God has spoken to me about my 2 wives is that I am to honor their fathers by asking, but it is their devotion He seeks. My gut tells me this is generally true, and that the whole parent-headship thing has to do with protection, wisdom, and honoring one's parents, not that God cares about the intent towards the father or the father's intent/interest. I feel like the fact that adultery and the other verses of betrayal of a woman are about the wrong done to her husband and the relationship with him, rather than the father, shows His heart on the matter. I mean, look how God talks about His brides of Israel and Judah. Yeah, it's imagery, I get that, but... no talk at all of a parent.

 

[Pacman]

Seems to me the intent God cares about is the intent between the man and woman, not the man and her father...

Only if the father has abdicated his responsibility...

If he isn’t a deadbeat or actually dead she is “owned” by him and cannot make a marriage agreement. It has to be made by her father...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Only if the father has abdicated his responsibility...

If he isn’t a deadbeat or actually dead she is “owned” by him and cannot make a marriage agreement. It has to be made by her father...

Ok so, I realize this may come off as feisty since I didn't provide my own scriptural support lol, but, can you show me where you are getting this from as well?

 

[The Revolting Man]

And everything you said (which I pretty much agree with) boils down to:

Covet in this context means desire to unlawfully possess...

obviously there is no way for a man to lawfully obtain another mans wife but I find no problem in desiring a wife similar to another mans wife... however there are ways to obtain another mans house or car or any other non human possession he owns. You can offer to buy it... the sin comes in if you are desiring or scheming to steal (unlawfully possess) it...

Exodus 22:16-17
[16] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. [17] If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

That’s part of it. But the passage also says “he SHALL endow her to be his wife” (emphasis mine) so it doesn’t say he has endowed her... it says he shall meaning it hasn’t happened yet but he is required to endow her... so that combined with the fathers option of refusal tells me that sex alone does not make her his woman.



The requirement to pay the dowry in my opinion is because he has taken value away from her father. She is worth more as a virgin so without the dowry being paid he has stolen the value of her virginity that rightfully belongs to her father. It doesn’t imply that they are already married. It is also a deterrent for a man contemplating taking her to bed knowing that he will have to pay for her but might not be allowed to keep her. That’s an awfully expensive one night stand...

I wonder why no one ever talks about the difference between "utterly refusing" and just plain old refusing. It seems significant and clarified some things for me.