Eristhophanes
Member
The question of covenant marriage arises and what follows is what I have. If anyone thinks I've got it wrong, please feel free to shoot holes in this.
The two key, and only two passages, are Leviticus 21:13-15 and Malachai 2:13-15. Both of these passages are instruction to priests (Specifically sons of Aaron in Leviticus 21) and the common theme connecting these passages is Godly offspring, which is tied to the marriage of a virgin.
Malachi 2:14 is the only mention in all of Scripture of a covenant marriage, but it does not explain what the covenant marriage actually is or how it comes about or who it applies to. That brings in a study of covenants and the initiation of covenants with the shedding of blood and now we're back to virgins, but we haven't addressed the point that the mention of covenant marriage was contained within the instruction to priests that tied to instruction to the sons of Aaron.
Based solely on Scripture, we could assume that marriage to a virgin is a covenant marriage for descendants of Aaron, but that's all we can say and that's *still* an assumption. The question is, how far do can we or should we extrapolate from there? Given that the instruction was to priests and specifically to the Sons of Aaron, what about everyone else? There is plenty of room to argue this in different ways but the fact is, we don't know much of anything.
There are some really interesting issues involved with genetics, sexual intercourse, the microbiome and virginity that hit pretty hard and focus on issues that modern ideas about sexuality don't want to touch. This is problematic because of one word and the implications it engenders. Verse 15 of Leviticus 21 says "that he MAY NOT PROFANE his offspring" and the word that translates into English as "may not profane" is the Hebrew word yə·ḥal·lêl. That particular form of "chalal" (Strong's Hebrew 2490) is only used 3 times: Leviticus 21: 12, 15 and 23.
The question becomes whether the offspring is automatically profaned by the priest taking a wife who is not a virgin or whether it is a case in which it only *might* happen. The use of the word in verse 23 is more definitive, stating that the blemished priest is not to pass through the veil in order that he not profane the sanctuary. In other words, the blemished priest will profane the sanctuary with his presence. In that context, the children of the wife who was not a virgin would be profane offspring.
However, this was instruction only to those of the line of High Priests- not general instruction to everyone.
Many try to extrapolate from there to all people, forgetting that the instruction was only to the priests. (Please set aside the whole priesthood of believers thing, please, that's an apples to oranges comparison when looking at the Aaronic priesthood) God's purity regulations for the priests and in particular for the sons of Aaron (the Aaronic priesthood only) are far stricter than for others. There is nothing in the text to indicate that marrying a woman who was not a virgin would profane the offspring of people who were not in the line of Aaron.
What I see is that only the descendants of Aaron were required to marry only virgins. That was not a requirement of the Levitical priesthood or a requirement for anyone not of the tribe of Levi. In terms of all others, the only requirement for marriage was that she be eligible for marriage (not already married, not a case of incest or miscegenation).
Yet, what I constantly see is this desire for God's Best™ and the various teachings that misapply Scripture based on that. Things like "Well, polygyny was allowed, but monogamy is God's Best™ for marriage" or something like that. With that in mind, this is what I see based only on what Scripture actually says:
1) It is possible that only a descendant of Aaron can have a covenant marriage and all other marriages are "just" marriages in which God joins the two as one flesh.
2) It is possible that only by marrying a virgin that one can have a covenant marriage and all other unions are marriages in which God joined the two as one flesh, but they weren't "covenant" marriages (which really begs the question of what a covenant marriage is...)
3) It is possible that only the sons of Aaron can have a covenant marriage and after that, God only joins the two as one flesh when the woman is a virgin... and the other marriages are a civil union that is marriage but not the union of one flesh. That's a nightmare to discuss, I only include it here for purposes of being complete.
4) It is possible that with both husband and wife in Christ, with the washing away of sin, that there is a becoming of one flesh that joins the two as one flesh as members of the body of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit in ways different from marriage between unbelievers that we don't comprehend. This is particularly interesting because in 1st Corinthians 7 Paul says the believer married to the unbeliever sanctifies (makes holy) the children, which would negate all other issues of the marriage.
_____________________________
If anybody has anything for me or can add anything (especially any Scripture I've missed) I'd love to hear this. I'm kind of dealing with a Christian MGTOW argument against marriage right now (No Hymen, No Diamond) along with other stuff.
On another note, I can see this being a contentious issue but I'd like to have a rational discourse. This forum used to have a debate function (I see a debate team) so is there a way to do contentious stuff such that the discussion doesn't get turned into a train wreck?
The two key, and only two passages, are Leviticus 21:13-15 and Malachai 2:13-15. Both of these passages are instruction to priests (Specifically sons of Aaron in Leviticus 21) and the common theme connecting these passages is Godly offspring, which is tied to the marriage of a virgin.
Malachi 2:14 is the only mention in all of Scripture of a covenant marriage, but it does not explain what the covenant marriage actually is or how it comes about or who it applies to. That brings in a study of covenants and the initiation of covenants with the shedding of blood and now we're back to virgins, but we haven't addressed the point that the mention of covenant marriage was contained within the instruction to priests that tied to instruction to the sons of Aaron.
Based solely on Scripture, we could assume that marriage to a virgin is a covenant marriage for descendants of Aaron, but that's all we can say and that's *still* an assumption. The question is, how far do can we or should we extrapolate from there? Given that the instruction was to priests and specifically to the Sons of Aaron, what about everyone else? There is plenty of room to argue this in different ways but the fact is, we don't know much of anything.
There are some really interesting issues involved with genetics, sexual intercourse, the microbiome and virginity that hit pretty hard and focus on issues that modern ideas about sexuality don't want to touch. This is problematic because of one word and the implications it engenders. Verse 15 of Leviticus 21 says "that he MAY NOT PROFANE his offspring" and the word that translates into English as "may not profane" is the Hebrew word yə·ḥal·lêl. That particular form of "chalal" (Strong's Hebrew 2490) is only used 3 times: Leviticus 21: 12, 15 and 23.
The question becomes whether the offspring is automatically profaned by the priest taking a wife who is not a virgin or whether it is a case in which it only *might* happen. The use of the word in verse 23 is more definitive, stating that the blemished priest is not to pass through the veil in order that he not profane the sanctuary. In other words, the blemished priest will profane the sanctuary with his presence. In that context, the children of the wife who was not a virgin would be profane offspring.
However, this was instruction only to those of the line of High Priests- not general instruction to everyone.
Many try to extrapolate from there to all people, forgetting that the instruction was only to the priests. (Please set aside the whole priesthood of believers thing, please, that's an apples to oranges comparison when looking at the Aaronic priesthood) God's purity regulations for the priests and in particular for the sons of Aaron (the Aaronic priesthood only) are far stricter than for others. There is nothing in the text to indicate that marrying a woman who was not a virgin would profane the offspring of people who were not in the line of Aaron.
What I see is that only the descendants of Aaron were required to marry only virgins. That was not a requirement of the Levitical priesthood or a requirement for anyone not of the tribe of Levi. In terms of all others, the only requirement for marriage was that she be eligible for marriage (not already married, not a case of incest or miscegenation).
Yet, what I constantly see is this desire for God's Best™ and the various teachings that misapply Scripture based on that. Things like "Well, polygyny was allowed, but monogamy is God's Best™ for marriage" or something like that. With that in mind, this is what I see based only on what Scripture actually says:
1) It is possible that only a descendant of Aaron can have a covenant marriage and all other marriages are "just" marriages in which God joins the two as one flesh.
2) It is possible that only by marrying a virgin that one can have a covenant marriage and all other unions are marriages in which God joined the two as one flesh, but they weren't "covenant" marriages (which really begs the question of what a covenant marriage is...)
3) It is possible that only the sons of Aaron can have a covenant marriage and after that, God only joins the two as one flesh when the woman is a virgin... and the other marriages are a civil union that is marriage but not the union of one flesh. That's a nightmare to discuss, I only include it here for purposes of being complete.
4) It is possible that with both husband and wife in Christ, with the washing away of sin, that there is a becoming of one flesh that joins the two as one flesh as members of the body of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit in ways different from marriage between unbelievers that we don't comprehend. This is particularly interesting because in 1st Corinthians 7 Paul says the believer married to the unbeliever sanctifies (makes holy) the children, which would negate all other issues of the marriage.
_____________________________
If anybody has anything for me or can add anything (especially any Scripture I've missed) I'd love to hear this. I'm kind of dealing with a Christian MGTOW argument against marriage right now (No Hymen, No Diamond) along with other stuff.
On another note, I can see this being a contentious issue but I'd like to have a rational discourse. This forum used to have a debate function (I see a debate team) so is there a way to do contentious stuff such that the discussion doesn't get turned into a train wreck?
