Stirring the pot for thought and discussion, here are some thoughts. I know that there are a number of viewpoints, some have been recently discussed. This is just another perspective.
There seem to be two main theories about what "makes" a marriage in patriatchal circles: (At least that seemed to be the case back when this was first written, circa 2001):
(1) The act of intercourse
(2) The covenant of betrothal
Actually, there's a third, though perhaps I'm the only one spouting it so far. *grin*
I believe that God's way of creating a marriage involves a PROCESS much like the purchase of a house. (I'm NOT in any way defining women as chattel, but describing simply a process for conceptual clarity. A parable, or allegory or somesuch.)
In the purchase of an home there are three main steps.
First there is the offer to purchase, which I consider a parallel to a "proposal".
Once that offer is accepted and the terms described, a committment is in place. No-one else may rightfully purchase or occupy the dwelling. It is, for all practical purposes, "sold", though technically Real Estate agents put a sign up that says "sale pending". At this point Step 1 is completed.
The offer to purchase often has clauses which must be met before the sale can be finalized. In the case of a home that may entail certain repairs on the part of the owner, or approval of financing on the part of the purchaser. In the case of a betrothal, some cultures might require testimonial proof of physical virginity by a mid-wife, or that the fella have a home or a certain amount of money, or the couple might have decided to do the "closing" after graduation from college, or ...
Alternatively, it is possible that there are no delaying clauses, in which case they might go directly to the second step: The Closing.
In the purchase of property, there tends to be a ceremony called "closing", during which the legal paperwork is signed, money changes hands, and the sale is registered as having occured. In my view, this would be equivalent to the wedding ceremony.
In the real estate world, it can involve 2 people exchanging cash and a bill of sale. It can be hugely elaborate involving a gaggle of lawyers on each side. So, in marriage, it can be as simple as David taking Abigail to his tent, standing outside the door and, presumably, announcing that today he takes this woman as his wife. Or it can involve that big cathedral and the gaggle ... *grin*
Finally, in real estate, the property is occupied. Guess we can all figure out what is the parallel in marriage. The two become one flesh.
Now, here is where it starts to get interesting in theory: What if the proper order of events is ignored?
What if the property is summarily occupied without the offer and the closing? Or what if, between the acceptance and the closing, someone ELSE occupies the property?
As best as I can tell, THIS is what scripture is attempting to address.
Scripture specifies that it is talking about a situation where there is a virgin of marriageable age. In this comparison (agreeing again that it is not perfect, but works for purposes of parable), the property IS for sale.
The bride price is specified by scripture. It is the amount that must be paid if proper order is abused. So price is not the issue.
The issue is "who" and "under what conditions".
Simply put, if one moves in and takes possession without having purchased the property, one must go back and complete the other processes. One must make an offer and obtain its acceptance, and one must have a closing.
In another scenario, if an offer has been tendered and approved, and someone else summarily moves in, they have in fact engaged in serious wrong and are subject to severe punishment.
Worse, if the sale is complete, with the new owner having taken possession, and someone else comes along and begins using it while the owner is out working in the fields, we now have the complete definition of adultery.
What about Paul's talking about joining ourselves together with prostitutes? Once again, this paradigm shed's some light: In this case, one has made temporary use of the property with NO INTENT of completing the process. He has taken possession but without any intent of purchasing, maintaining, protecting, etc. The transaction has a built-in divorce. And while God has no particular complaint about the creation of relationships, specifying only that all steps must be completed, He has a SERIOUS problem with divorce.
Ok. There's my 2 cents for the day. *grin*
Cecil
There seem to be two main theories about what "makes" a marriage in patriatchal circles: (At least that seemed to be the case back when this was first written, circa 2001):
(1) The act of intercourse
(2) The covenant of betrothal
Actually, there's a third, though perhaps I'm the only one spouting it so far. *grin*
I believe that God's way of creating a marriage involves a PROCESS much like the purchase of a house. (I'm NOT in any way defining women as chattel, but describing simply a process for conceptual clarity. A parable, or allegory or somesuch.)
In the purchase of an home there are three main steps.
First there is the offer to purchase, which I consider a parallel to a "proposal".
Once that offer is accepted and the terms described, a committment is in place. No-one else may rightfully purchase or occupy the dwelling. It is, for all practical purposes, "sold", though technically Real Estate agents put a sign up that says "sale pending". At this point Step 1 is completed.
The offer to purchase often has clauses which must be met before the sale can be finalized. In the case of a home that may entail certain repairs on the part of the owner, or approval of financing on the part of the purchaser. In the case of a betrothal, some cultures might require testimonial proof of physical virginity by a mid-wife, or that the fella have a home or a certain amount of money, or the couple might have decided to do the "closing" after graduation from college, or ...
Alternatively, it is possible that there are no delaying clauses, in which case they might go directly to the second step: The Closing.
In the purchase of property, there tends to be a ceremony called "closing", during which the legal paperwork is signed, money changes hands, and the sale is registered as having occured. In my view, this would be equivalent to the wedding ceremony.
In the real estate world, it can involve 2 people exchanging cash and a bill of sale. It can be hugely elaborate involving a gaggle of lawyers on each side. So, in marriage, it can be as simple as David taking Abigail to his tent, standing outside the door and, presumably, announcing that today he takes this woman as his wife. Or it can involve that big cathedral and the gaggle ... *grin*
Finally, in real estate, the property is occupied. Guess we can all figure out what is the parallel in marriage. The two become one flesh.
Now, here is where it starts to get interesting in theory: What if the proper order of events is ignored?
What if the property is summarily occupied without the offer and the closing? Or what if, between the acceptance and the closing, someone ELSE occupies the property?
As best as I can tell, THIS is what scripture is attempting to address.
Scripture specifies that it is talking about a situation where there is a virgin of marriageable age. In this comparison (agreeing again that it is not perfect, but works for purposes of parable), the property IS for sale.
The bride price is specified by scripture. It is the amount that must be paid if proper order is abused. So price is not the issue.
The issue is "who" and "under what conditions".
Simply put, if one moves in and takes possession without having purchased the property, one must go back and complete the other processes. One must make an offer and obtain its acceptance, and one must have a closing.
In another scenario, if an offer has been tendered and approved, and someone else summarily moves in, they have in fact engaged in serious wrong and are subject to severe punishment.
Worse, if the sale is complete, with the new owner having taken possession, and someone else comes along and begins using it while the owner is out working in the fields, we now have the complete definition of adultery.
What about Paul's talking about joining ourselves together with prostitutes? Once again, this paradigm shed's some light: In this case, one has made temporary use of the property with NO INTENT of completing the process. He has taken possession but without any intent of purchasing, maintaining, protecting, etc. The transaction has a built-in divorce. And while God has no particular complaint about the creation of relationships, specifying only that all steps must be completed, He has a SERIOUS problem with divorce.
Ok. There's my 2 cents for the day. *grin*
Cecil
