Where is this marriage covenant doctrine taught in the Bible?

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Not dismissing it. Thats an example of it being implied. I actually agree with you. The marriage is a covenant wether or not it is expressed, written, or implied. The intention needs to be there. The passage in question gives specific steps that are to be followed and those steps indicate intent to make her a wife. Then the sex seals the deal. In that case the husband was also the master and he made the decision to enter into the covenant for both himself and the woman.

My point is that sex alone does not make them married. There has to be intent to marry...

Amen.

So, reading this this morning I was struck that we (I?) are missing something simple but important here.

It has ONLY EVER been about intent.

Covenants, spoken or not, sex, etc... it all comes back to intent. It always has. Hence the 'looking at (another man's wife) with (intent to commit adultery with her) is the same as actual adultery'. The actions (saying the words, doing the deed, etc...) are largely irrelevant. Probably because it looks so different from person to person. What matters is the heart intent, which is what God sees and judges by

 

[Cap]

This is part of the misunderstanding I think. It’s not a covenant between “equals” the woman does not have that authority to enter into the covenant. Her father does. Basically the maintenance of the “covenant” is dependent on the husband. When God makes a covenant with a man I cannot remember any instance where the man has a choice in the matter. The man or nation is simply informed of the covenant. God has the role of both father and husband.

The old covenant was entered into by both the people and God, but the people failed to do their part. They had free will. The new covenant is a made by God alone. God alone will save us, all we have to do is have faith. Again, free will, the choice is ours.

 

[Pacman]

The old covenant was entered into by both the people and God, but the people failed to do their part. They had free will. The new covenant is a made by God alone. God alone will save us, all we have to do is have faith. Again, free will, the choice is ours.

I agree Gods people could have refused the covenant and faced death because of it. Yes free will is present for us today and the exact same result will happen for those who reject him. The law commands that children in rebellion be stoned. The girl has the free will to disobey and face the consequences... she doesn’t have a choice other than obedience or consequences... she is not free to decide who she will marry her father is... and God decides what his covenant is with his people and informs them of it. Our only choice is to accept it or face the consequences...

 

[The Revolting Man]

Jacob made a contract but was unaware of the terms completely.

Then it wasn't a contract. It was a swindle.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Amen.

So, reading this this morning I was struck that we (I?) are missing something simple but important here.

It has ONLY EVER been about intent.

Covenants, spoken or not, sex, etc... it all comes back to intent. It always has. Hence the 'looking at (another man's wife) with (intent to commit adultery with her) is the same as actual adultery'. The actions (saying the words, doing the deed, etc...) are largely irrelevant. Probably because it looks so different from person to person. What matters is the heart intent, which is what God sees and judges by

I'm not ready to agree to this but I find it very persuasive. I still struggle with the fact that sex outside of the context of marriage is never dealt with in scripture. If it were possible it seems to me that God would have regulated it and commented on it somehow.

 

[Pacman]

I'm not ready to agree to this but I find it very persuasive. I still struggle with the fact that sex outside of the context of marriage is never dealt with in scripture. If it were possible it seems to me that God would have regulated it and commented on it somehow.

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...

 

[Cap]

Then it wasn't a contract. It was a swindle.

Doesn't appear that way to me.

caveat emptor

I have some land here in Florida I would like to sell you real cheap.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

I'm not ready to agree to this but I find it very persuasive. I still struggle with the fact that sex outside of the context of marriage is never dealt with in scripture. If it were possible it seems to me that God would have regulated it and commented on it somehow.

Well, I mean I agree with you that it isnt and I think if we are defining marriage the way the modern world defines it (ceremonies, laws, promises, etc), then no, I am 100% behind you that sex without those things is perfectly acceptable.

Of course, we also would agree I think that sleeping around with random women you then never see again is most probably not what God likes, and although I cant lost them off the top of me head I believe this is a pattern that can be seen through scriptures.

So the question is, what makes the difference? And I would argue from scripture, especially Jesus' words on the Mount and to the Pharisees, that the difference is intent/heart attitude. Why have sex? What do we intend or feel towards this person? Etc. Sex is the ultimate expression of oneness we humans are capable of. "What God has joined together let not man separate" and all that. Divorce, as intent, is also about intent, and God hates divorce, right? So we can reverse logic and determine:
God hates the separation of two who are one
Sex creates ultimate oneness
IE, if you have sex, you shouldn't separate.

But all of that has, IMO, nothing to do with any of the worldly definitions of marriage. If a teenager and his girlfriend are in love and, one night, he can say honestly that he wants and intends to be with her forever, he can have sex with her with a clear conscience and nothing more is required. Obviously we could argue about whether teenagers of ANY era are capable of such intent and dedication, or thinking things through, but I maintain that what God is looking at in that moment is solely the 'why' of the heart.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

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...

I dont mean to be antagonistic, but 20:17 has nothing to do with anything.

22:16 I think is fairly obviously intended as a protection to make sure the girl is provided for and not just abandoned. It has no bearing on the outward marriage status of the couple. Just means God doesnt want some random traveler deflowering a girl and then never seeing her again, while meanwhile she is technically his through sex and so can never marry again, which I think we can all agree would absolutely suck

 

[Joleneakamama]

I knew a man that wanted to divorce his wife not because of fornication/adultery but rebellion. She just did not agree on the issue of polygamy, so he divorced her without cause. At least not the only cause for which Jesus seemed to make an exception.

That really depends on the definition of fornication.
Long ago I realized there was more to this word then the average churchgoer comprehends.

I believe one aspect is "making foreign" to one's true head or authority. A man who sleeps with a maid makes her foreign to her father.
I believe if a woman chooses to rebel against her husband he can put her away, and/or divorce her if she does not repent. To me this shows clearly that she is not willing to be under that man.

Abraham's wife Sarah was asked to do some very hard things, yet she never rebelled or failed to submit/obey.

If rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, it is a bigger deal then just a difference of opinion for a wife to be rebellious. Certainly one reason for divorce is so the moral do not have to remain yolked to a wife who is not. That wife is either listening to another man, or listening to self, either way she is Not being a wife to her husband. Separating might shock her into repentance, but if it doesn't at least the record is clear that she is acting on her own.

 

[Pacman]

I dont mean to be antagonistic, but 20:17 has nothing to do with anything.

It absolutely does. Lust = covet Romans 7:7 and if there is no intention to marry her then you are coveting her prior to sleeping with her...

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

It absolutely does. Lust = covet Romans 7:7 and if there is no intention to marry her then you are coveting her prior to sleeping with her...

I agree lust = covet, but covet = desire/intend to steal. She/it has to belong to someone else first for covet to come into play. Hence 'covet your neighbor's....(stuff)'. That would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that desiring to have her (before OR during sleeping with her lol) is somehow coveting. Otherise nobody would ever hook up with anyone ever :/

 

[Pacman]

I agree lust = covet, but covet = desire/intend to steal. She/it has to belong to someone else first for covet to come into play. Hence 'covet your neighbor's....(stuff)'. That would be utterly ridiculous to suggest that desiring to have her (before OR during sleeping with her lol) is somehow coveting. Otherise nobody would ever hook up with anyone ever :/

Covet equals desire or scheming to unlawfully possesses. The law says that if you sleep with her you must marry her. So if you have no intention to marry her but you sleep with her anyway you have desired to unlawfully possess her... and her father owns her until marriage so she is her fathers possession.

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

Covet equals desire or scheming to unlawfully possesses. The law says that if you sleep with her you must marry her. So if you have no intention to marry her but you sleep with her anyway you have desired to unlawfully possess her... and her father owns her until marriage so she is her fathers possession.

Mmm, I've always understood it to mean less 'possess what isn't mine' to 'possess what is actually someone else's'. There's a big difference, in my mind.

Where does the law say that if you sleep with her you must marry her? Although perhaps the better question is how are we defining 'marry'?

I also disagree about the father's ownership, but that's a whole other discussion.
EDIT: Actually, specifically I believe the father's ownership ONLY extends as long as the father is the provider for the daughter. As soon as the daughter is her own provider, he no longer has that authority over her. A parent/child relationship (of hierarchy) is VERY different from the husband-wife one in several ways, and that is one.

Either way, you are still ignoring the logic break: if desiring to have a woman who is not mine is wrong, how the hell do any of us get married? I sure as hell am not going to marry someone I don't desire :/

 

[mystic]

covet | ˈkəvət |
verb (covets, coveting, coveted) [with object]
yearn to possess or have (something): the president-elect covets time for exercise and fishing | (as adjective coveted) : he won the coveted Booker Prize for fiction.

(Source: Dictionary app in macOS 10.14 Mojave)

 

[The Revolting Man]

Sex is the ultimate expression of oneness we humans are capable of. "What God has joined together let not man separate" and all that. Divorce, as intent, is also about intent, and God hates divorce, right? So we can reverse logic and determine:
God hates the separation of two who are one
Sex creates ultimate oneness
IE, if you have sex, you shouldn't separate.

Fireworks and laser shows and a Queen style rock opera are going off in my head right now!

 

[DeathIsNotTheEnd]

covet | ˈkəvət |
verb (covets, coveting, coveted) [with object]
yearn to possess or have (something): the president-elect covets time for exercise and fishing | (as adjective coveted) : he won the coveted Booker Prize for fiction.

(Source: Dictionary app in macOS 10.14 Mojave)

Yyyyyeah but that isnt the Biblical definition. That is the English definition of covet that has turned up over time. Which, if applied literally, makes no sense. I can't yearn to possess a hot girl who is marriageable? Jesus 'coveted' a drink when He was thirsty, was that wrong? So, there has to be a difference in the way we distinguish covet vs desire. Desire is good and normal. Covet is something unlawful.

 

[Pacman]

Either way, you are still ignoring the logic break: if desiring to have a woman who is not mine is wrong, how the hell do any of us get married? I sure as hell am not going to marry someone I don't desire :/

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...

Where does the law say that if you sleep with her you must marry her?

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.

 

[mystic]

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.

I can't yearn to possess a hot girl who is marriageable? Jesus 'coveted' a drink when He was thirsty, was that wrong?

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)

 

[FollowingHim]

I knew a man that wanted to divorce his wife not because of fornication/adultery but rebellion. She just did not agree on the issue of polygamy, so he divorced her without cause.

For a man who wants to be a polygamist to start by getting rid of a wife seems to be the ultimate stupidity, at least from a mathematical perspective...