You do not have the right to get married...

[Scarecrow]

cnystrom...your comments reminded me of:

Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Sounds like they were married by covenant then taught to love their husbands and children...or maybe I'm reading it wrong...

 

[Isabella]

Sounds like they were married by covenant then taught to love their husbands and children...or maybe I'm reading it wrong...

Who needs instruction on how to 'love' ones own children?
I think they mean love in an active sense, to love as in, to care for, they are teaching young women to be wives, not young wives to be wives.

At least, that is how I read it, just now.

B

 

[Anonymous]

Isabella wrote, "Who needs instruction on how to 'love' ones own children?
I think they mean love in an active sense, to love as in, to care for, they are teaching young women to be wives, not young wives to be wives."

I think you are right in that the older women were to teach the younger women the "practical" ways of showing or applying the maternal love that existed.

I live in a town in Arizona that had a very high incidence of child abuse, both by mothers, fathers and strangers. It is saddening indeed to see the natural maternal instinct that is so beautiful, become destructive. Unfortunately, there are many that need, "instruction on how to 'love' ones own children".

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

cnystrom said:

In simplest terms a marriage exists when the covenant is established between the two parties for whatever reason.

IMHO, that is essentially correct.

However...

There seems to be many who use the words "fornication" and "adultery" as if they are interchangeable. They are not.

Exodus 20:14 NKJV You shall not commit adultery.

A sexual relationship between a man and a woman violates this commandment (to borrow from mathematical-like notation) if and only if the woman in the relationship is the wife of another man.

Defining fornication (the Greek word "porneia", Strong's # G4202, used 26 times in NT and always translated "fornication" or "fornications" in KJV) is almost like nailing jello to the wall.

After studying it, I concluded that the word "porneia" means "harlotry, prostitution, or ritual prostitution." That conclusion is based on studying the context of all 26 occurrences, and seeking the opinion of those more skilled in Greek than I. (Including looking it up in as many Greek dictionaries and lexicons as I could find.) I also studied the etymology of the English word "fornication." It originally meant "prostitution." This is all documented in my Doctoral Dissertation.

"Prostitution" is exchanging sexual "favors" for gain. "Temple/Ritual Prostitution" is exchanging sexual "favors" to gain the approval of a false deity. "Harlotry" is exchanging sexual "favor" for perceived emotional or similar "gain." In all three, there is no intent to enter into a lifetime covenant - the intended covenant is temporary, a violation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

My conclusion may be wrong, but "that's my story and I'm sticking to it." (Until such time that it may be proven wrong, at which time my opinion will change...)

This is one time that the liberals among professing Christians might be closer to being right than are the fundamentalists. What I found was that those of a liberal persuasion defined "porneia" as narrowly as possible in order to do things that would then not be called "sin" (usually, they define it as temple/ritual prostitution only), while those of a more fundamentalist persuasion tend to define it as broadly as possible, to the point that some go so far as to say that any sex other than that specifically intended for procreation, even within the confines of a monogamous marriage, is fornication. (A man and his woman can not have "that kind of fun..." "business" only! )

Exodus 22:16 NKJV If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.

Based on this plus the very few examples we have of the marriage process itself in the OT, a couple is considered married when there is a covenant between the man or his father and the woman or her father (or whoever succeeds her father if her father is dead. Some details have already been discussed in this thread.) The covenant is sealed when sexual union takes place. And in actuality, the real covenant is between the man, the woman, and God. And according to Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the sex act implies a covenant - thus, Paul's warning:

1 Corinthians 6:15-16 NKJV (15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! (16) Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "THE TWO," He says, "SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."

The whole point of the preceding "babble?" Anyone who has a sexual relationship with a woman has just promised that he will provide for her for the rest of her life! (That's a marriage covenant.) And so, if he is the second or subsequent man to do so, and one or more of her former "lovers" is still alive, it is adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NKJV (28) If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, (29) then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

Yes, I know that there is provision for divorce, both in the OT and NT. That changes the picture painted in the paragraph just before that last Bible quotation some, and should probably be the topic of another thread if it is to be discussed.

Thank God for His Mercy, Grace, and Forgiveness!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Dr. George,

You are correct and your definition below as to what is "fornication" is contrastive to much of the literature today. It was indeed one reason why the scholars of many new Bible translations have now chosen to go with the more neutral term "sexual immorality" instead of the older term of fornication.

This was the proper and right move although it did leave it undefined to a degree. Yet the term "immoral" would leave room to cover any sin as such was listed in Lev. 18. So it still was a proper linguistic move done by the scholars in the newer translations. A lot of error and misunderstanding has taken place by those who translated porneia with the English word fornication. Some of it too had to do with the fact that the term fornication in English developed and grew over time as well.

Thus the "sexual immoral" choice of words was better but in some contexts the idea behind it was clearly as you have so defined below, i.e. sex in order to gain some benefit or even multiple sex partners outside of a constant covenant union.

After studying it, I concluded that the word "porneia" means "harlotry, prostitution, or ritual prostitution." That conclusion is based on studying the context of all 26 occurrences, and seeking the opinion of those more skilled in Greek than I. (Including looking it up in as many Greek dictionaries and lexicons as I could find.) I also studied the etymology of the English word "fornication." It originally meant "prostitution." This is all documented in my Doctoral Dissertation. "Prostitution" is exchanging sexual "favors" for gain. "Temple/Ritual Prostitution" is exchanging sexual "favors" to gain the approval of a false deity. "Harlotry" is exchanging sexual "favor" for perceived emotional or similar "gain." In all three, there is no intent to enter into a lifetime covenant - the intended covenant is temporary, a violation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Dr. Allen,

Thank you for confirming what I found in my own studies. Had you disagreed with my analysis, I would have felt compelled to "hit the books" again to make sure which one of us was right!

However, I must mildly disagree with you about the use of the term "sexual immorality" as is used in place of "fornication" in modern translations. I believe that using such a term not only correctly leaves the definition open to cover all Leviticus 18 sins and abominations as you said, but also, leaves it open to anything that any wild-eyed slogan-shouting "fundamentalist" (maybe something like PolyDoc, only worse? :lol: ) can use when he wants to incorrectly call sin that which is not sin - such as a man and his woman actually enjoying sex when there is no possible chance of procreation from that act. (The woman is post-menopause, for example.) And I actually found people who say just that! (I don't go out of my way to fellowship with idiots, so I didn't even save their Website addresses. )

That is what happened with the definition of the English word "fornication." It has evolved over time, as you said, and so is used to call sin anything sexual that someone desires to label as such, rightly or wrongly. The definition of the English word "adultery" also seems to be headed in that general direction - that is what got me the "left foot!"

IMHO, the sin that most people call "fornication" or "sex before/outside of marriage" is, in reality, not a sexual sin, but is covenant-breaking. And sex before being formally/legally married is covenant-breaking only if the couple does not stay together as a married couple after having what is mislabeled as "premarital sex," regardless of whether or not there is some public or private ceremony and regardless of whether or not they get permission from the government to get married. If the woman is already the wife of another man, it is extramarital sex, also called adultery, a form of covenant-breaking. In fact, I will go so far as to say that there is no such thing as premarital sex, because the act of sex is what seals the marriage covenant, whether the covenant is formally stated or just implied by the sex act itself. In other words, the term "premarital sex" is an oxymoron.

I don't know what would be the proper word or phrase to use for the Greek word "porneia." That probably depends on the immediate context for each of the 26 times it is used in the NT. Thankfully, God did not call me to be a Bible translator! He called me to study His word and apply it to my heart, in my life and my family's life, and then to share the Good News with a lost world.

Having said that, it might be both interesting and enlightening to start a thread discussing the merits and deficiencies of various translations.

If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[DaPastor]

Hey, I think I saw a movie about Apostle Paul - he was carrying a big black KJV. Wow! It is time to throw my Greek and Hebrew Bibles out! :lol: :roll:

 

[Mark C]

...or so says the Pope...

"No one can make a claim to the right to a nuptial ceremony,"

When the "Church" considers itself (as history makes clear) to be identical with the "State" -- or vice-versa --
BOTH will ultimately make the claim that the serfs don't have a "right" to have anything OTHER than their own ordination of 'marriage' to be "recognized". The "prince of this world" has learned how to be a master when it comes to twisting the meaning of words.

It's another example of what I sometimes call the "bald Klintonian truth".

Parse the words very carefully...Caesar certainly does.

 

[Maddog]

Dr George, I appreciate your study and am trying to follow your logic. I am constantly trying to figure out the actual application of your position as regarding teaching our youth (or the rest of us for that matter)about purity. It was easy to say such and such is a sin therefore don't do it but now Johnny and Jenny are determined to seal their "covenant" even though they are fifteen and fourteen. Flesh-out if you would how to instruct J and J and also those of us who are older the virtue of "not making a covenant". How do I sell this idea? How does it relate to the "Big Ten" or the following six-hundred plus rules?
Thanks,
Maddog

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Dr George, I appreciate your study and am trying to follow your logic. I am constantly trying to figure out the actual application of your position as regarding teaching our youth (or the rest of us for that matter)about purity. It was easy to say such and such is a sin therefore don't do it but now Johnny and Jenny are determined to seal their "covenant" even though they are fifteen and fourteen. Flesh-out if you would how to instruct J and J and also those of us who are older the virtue of "not making a covenant". How do I sell this idea? How does it relate to the "Big Ten" or the following six-hundred plus rules?
Thanks,
Maddog

I think that could be posted as a whole new topic and probably should be, because it is a topic in and of itself and an important one.

I think it is very straightforward. Parents should read the entire Bible with their children every 6 to 24 months in my opinion. All family members can sit down and read the Bible together. Inevitably in those 6 to 24 months the offspring will hear EVERYTHING the Bible has to say about the topic of EVERYTHING the Bible has to say including the three letter word ___ , marriage, purity, etc.

The only problem is it does not include the things the Bible does not say directly nor does it teach them what the words in the Bible actually mean, nor does it include the things that just are not in the Bible such as how to build a car, etc. As long as you read an English translation it will be insufficient, because they might read the wrong word when it says Porneia (if I spelled that transliteration of a Greek word into Latin/English letters correctly), or whatever. Therefor ultimately you must teach your kids Biblical Greek and Hebrew immediately and read the Bible to them in Greek and Hebrew, supposedly people learn foreign languages the easiest when they are children, although I am not so sure about that.

Still then the question remains what does Biblical Greek and Hebrew actually mean

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Flesh-out if you would how to instruct J and J and also those of us who are older the virtue of "not making a covenant". How do I sell this idea?

Ephesians 6:1 NKJV Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

According to Numbers 1:45, age 20 was considered adult in the OT. Unfortunately, our kids grow up faster in some ways, yet do not have the same judgment and experience that we adults have.

One of the biggest problems facing our society is that too many kids are growing up in fatherless homes. And sometimes, the father might be present, but only in body. That can be worse than no father at all. And, of course, the worst of he worst is the father who abuses his woman and kids.

Training our kids is the responsibility of the fathers, not the Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, pastors, or public schools. All those can help (except maybe the public schools...) but it is the father's responsibility.

Ephesians 6:4 NKJV And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

So what do we, as Christian leaders, do to fill in for the missing fathers? Hopefully, some of the others who participate in this forum will also contribute from their experience and training in helping to answer this question.

As for not making a covenant...a marriage covenant is intended by God to be a lifetime commitment. Making a covenant and then breaking it is lying, which the Lord hates:

Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: (17) A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, (18) An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, (19) A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

I hesitate to use this passage, but only because it has been consistently misused in order to attempt to show that polygyny is forbidden. However, it is one of the the best passages in the Bible about divorce: Matthew 19:3-9. I will quote Jesus' words in verse 6, but be sure to read the entire passage:

Matthew 19:6 NKJV So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Also, Romans 7:2-3 is relevant to this topic, as is Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

So for the young lady, she is saying that she will be the wife of the young man as long as both are alive - which could be another 70-80 years for a young teen! Is her judgment mature enough to make a commitment like that? Does she have the skills that a homemaker needs? Like cooking, cleaning, picking up hubby's socks... And if she decides to change her mind, and has sex ("makes a covenant") with another young man, she and the other young man just became adulteress and adulterer, and she is on the way to becoming a harlot. (I sure hope that "making a covenant" does not become slang for "having sex!")

A woman can only give her virginity to one man. That is among the most precious gifts that God has given to her for her to pass on - so shouldn't she save it for the man God intends to be her lifelong companion, rather than some kid who makes promises he has neither the ability nor the intention to keep?

And for the young man - taking that gift is stealing if you do not immediately provide her with a home, food, and clothing, and keep doing that for the rest of your lives.

Most teens think that love is all about those strange hormones that suddenly start flowing through the body at about age 12 to 14. They have no real concept of what it means to be married. Too many also have no model of Biblical marriage that they can watch day after day, but instead, get a steady diet of divorce, pornography, and adultery from that one-eyed babysitter.

The young man is promising to provide all of life's material necessities for as long as both he the young lady live. Does he have a job? Does he have a home for her to live in? (Hint: living with Mom and Dad is not providing for your wife. That is Mom and Dad providing for another kid! Plus any that may result form your union.)

Also, if the young man should decide he doesn't want the young lady any more, he just broke the covenant. If he has no intention of being her husband for life when he first has sex with her, he is a liar as well as a thief. Even if he did not say anything about marriage! His actions speak louder than any words he could utter.

And the marriage covenant is not just between the man and the woman. God is also a party to the covenant, and so breaking that covenant is lying to God.

Then, if things go as God intended, there will be kids. I hate going to Wal Mart here in Gallup. There are hundreds of young teenage girls putting their babies in the shopping cart and pushing them around the store. Babies having babies. Where are the babies' fathers? Popping zits in preparation for the next date with another girl. (If they are old enough to have zits!)

Hope this "quick-and-dirty" answer helps some. Also, hope that others will add their thoughts about this.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

According to Numbers 1:45, age 20 was considered adult in the OT. Unfortunately, our kids grow up faster in some ways, yet do not have the same judgment and experience that we adults have..

Does it say age 20 was considered adult or that they should serve in the military? :?

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Does it say age 20 was considered adult or that they should serve in the military?

Serving in the military...and after having served in Uncle Sam's Misguided Canoeists (as our Navy brethren called us) for over 9 years, I should know the difference. :lol: