The short answer is no, it would not be moral for her to do so. When it is understood that the betrothal/erusin involves making the marriage covenant, that may be more clear.

As it says in our statement of faith, we strive to serve Yahweh the God of Israel and Him only, we do not claim any other creed or specific denomination. betrothalandwedding.com/statement-faith

@@betrothalguys Interesting -- for what it's worth, I'm Eastern Orthodox Christian & our weddings start with a betrothal ceremony. I've heard a few people wanting to have them be more separated like in the early church & before.

@@betrothalguys in fact, your video caused me to ask about this to my parish family & apparently my priest's betrothal was separate from his wedding and preceded it by some time. It was phased out only as recently as the 18th century & apparently there is a positive reception towards Eastern Orthodoxy returning betrothals back to its original function & it is starting to be correctly practiced again.

@@thernius5786 Yes, betrothal wasn't abandoned all that long ago even in western churches. We think it would be good for all of Christendom to return to the biblical pattern, which is why we make these videos and other resources.

We literally said that a father keeping the bride price and not giving his daughter in marriage is "not possible" in this video.

Did Christ buy our love? If so, I guess you can say the same here. Christ poured out His life for us, that is why we love Him, because He first loved us. The same should be true of a man towards his bride, his love should be manifested and draw her love in response.

@@betrothalguysi disagree Christ didn’t do anything he does not exist dowry date back to slavery stop sugar coating u treating her like a prostitut

Most people seem to be able to understand the video, though it can be hard for people brought up in western and westernized societies to recognize the beauty. They see a transaction instead of an act of love and respect towards the woman declaring her worth.

For those who know God and care about His commands, talking about what the Bible does and does not say about concubinage is an important conversation to have. (Hint: we have posts about it on our Facebook) For those who only want to mock Him, we can only pray for their eyes to be opened. P.S. David did not have anywhere close to 3000 wives or concubines.

@@betrothalguys Why should anyone care?

​@MikeTMike cause you are taking it out of context.

@@Alden-Smith Oldest excuse ever. I bet you haven't even read it.

@MikeTMike I did it. It's one man and one woman. That's the way God always intended it. Even the channel said they have stuff about it to debunk you.

There are several examples in scripture of giving in marriage where no bride price is mentioned, which is why I would say it is, ultimately, just ceremonial. Men who did not give a bride price for their wives are still married, which shows that the bride price is ceremonial, not a critical necessity for marriage. The reason Rebekah's father gave for, "Take her and go," was simply, "This is from God."

@@betrothalguys Right, I think they knew Abraham was a man of God and they trust his words. Thanks. However, bride price is a nessessity for giving a message accross. Similar to women wearing a headcovering when praying or prophecying with men present. It was a sign to the Angles. It had a message. Same with bride price. It gave a clear message that the woman was under man's authority and was given away by the father in marriage.

people arent property...

Exactly. She is a grown woman and can make her own decisions. This is not 1950

That’s just a tad crazy ngl😂

Yes bc islam things the dad owns her until her husband does

I love owning people😂

@mhgg8748 No, it is for the same reason mentioned in the video. A young, inexperienced woman can easily be exploited by men. That's why the fathers consent is needed if she never was married before. The concept of owning people, especially women, really comes from medieval Europe, which was majority Christian. In Islam, women always had their own rights, which was not the case for christian Europe until around 100 years ago.

@@blacksilver9542 blah blah blah😂

The bible is fake, or at least some of it

are you saying you agree with this?

Christ makes us an offer of marriage that we can refuse and not become part of His bride. That is where the scripture most clearly teaches the consent of the woman is required. If read carefully, consent of the woman being needed is also found in Abraham's statements in Genesis 24.

@@betrothalguys father’s usually took into consideration the thoughts of their daughter, but that was seldom the case at the higher cast levels. Kings usually gave their daughter to the man he felt worthy. But yes, Jewish tradition said the woman was offered the cup of wine to drink, if she refused the cup, the marriage was off. It is interesting the disparity between Old Testament scripture, and Jewish tradition in this area.

@@michaelsayen4360 While it is a popular claim, there is no documented Jewish tradition of cup refusal being a refusal of marriage. Jewish tradition has a blessed cup at pretty much every ceremony, but it isn't treated as a proposal or point of refusal. During the Jewish betrothal ceremony, the drinking of the cup comes AFTER several other actions of acceptance, it wouldn't even make sense for that to be the point of refusal. The sharing of food and drink in ancient culture symbolized and celebrated what had just occurred. But there is pretty blatant, overarching case in the OT for the woman's acceptance of the covenant. The prophets liken the Sinai covenant with Israel to marriage over and over. The Sinai covenant was offered to Israel, but was not ratified until Israel accepted it. With good reason, the Jews apply this principle to human marriage as well. There is also the words of Abraham. He told his servant that if the woman was not willing, he was released from taking a wife for Isaac. The Jews will point to Rebecca as an example of a woman's willingness being needed. If Abraham considered it important, it makes sense the Jews since then would as well.

A couple that is engaged but not betrothed (this video clarifies the difference) has not entered a marriage covenant. If they marry other people that is not adultery. However, those who are engaged have given their word to make a covenant and unless that agreement is mutually released, they would be breaking their word if they "break up" and don't marry. Fornication or "lying with her" can occur even short of "the act," so even the type of sexual sin you are asking about might qualify for Exodus 22:16-17. That being said, fornication alone does not enter a couple into a marriage covenant either. It does, however, put the man and woman in a position where they are supposed to marry, once the woman's father approves. If her father does not approve, the man owes restitution, but the man and woman are not in a marriage covenant and can marry other people.

I think we could make a case for the most important bride price of all having been for a non-virgin. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5: 8 We were unfaithful wretches and yet He paid a price for us. Beyond that one, we see Hosea pay a price for Gomer in Hosea chapter 3. It might be well after they were married, to buy her back from debt, but it might be a retelling of her initial betrothal price. We also have a conundrum that doesn't end well if there is not a bride price for a non-virgin. In the law, a man who fornicated with a virgin, had to pay the same amount as the bride price of a virgin. If there isn't a bride price for non-virgins as well (it would have been less) then it essentially leaves a man fornicating with a non-virgin unpunished in the law. I don't think that was God's intent and so I think that like with other commands, we are supposed to extend the statute to other applicable situations. So I believe the implication is that the same principles of marriage, including a bride price, would apply to a non-virgin.

@@betrothalguys thanks for your reply. some very fair points. I only have "pushback" on 1 .... when the man found a virgin who wasn't engaged to anyone, and laid with her, he had to pay a price wether the father refused or not. couldn't there be an arguement, the reason you wouldn't pay a bride price for a non-virigin is because someone who humbled her already did? the reason why the man still had to pay the father the dowry is because now that young woman who was a virgin is now a non-virgin and no man will pay that price again. If the bride price still applies to non-virgins (which i'm not even against) what scripture in the bible can point us in the direction to what that price would of been. It seems like 50 shekels of silver was the price for a virgin in some if not all cases, so what's the price for a non-virgin?

@@lorenzow I can see your reasoning as well. I think the point of the payment, even when the father refuses to give, is more about restitution for the victimized woman. As a non-virgin, she might not be sought for marriage at all and in that case she does need to have a fall back. It is only fair that the man who reduced her marriageablity be responsible for setting her up in financial security. 50 shekels of silver seems to have been the price, at least at the time of Moses. The way Exodus 22:16-17 is phrased, I think that the "going price" may fluctuate based on the wealth of a society. Some cultures, the price has to be a lot less or no one will marry. That being said, looking through scripture for some hints as to what a non-virgin bride price might have been in scripture, my best guess is 20-30 shekels. If we look in Lev 27:3, we see that the evaluation for paying a vow for a man 20-60 years old is 50 shekels, which is what the virgin bride price is. So 50 shekels for a virgin wife is the same as for a man in his prime. It makes sense to me that a non-virgin woman in that age range would be the normal vow assessment, which is 30 shekels. We also have the Hosea and Gomer story where he paid 15 shekels plus an omer and a half of barley. That probably comes out to no more than 20 shekels in total value, but she is also called a harlot, not just a non-virgin, so her "experience" might make her price less than usual.

@@betrothalguys great points. Was the woman really a victim though? a victim seems like what we see when a man, lie down with a woman who's engaged, and she cry out for help and no one saves her. We see he's put to death ... I'd say she's a victim BUT a woman who's "seduced" sort of "sweet talked out of her panies" isn't really a victim ... or is she? Only reason I even say this, is because MANY modern liberal women use this type of excuse for why they are in different situations today. i.e single mothers, baby daddy issues, etc. I digress on that though. I can kinda see your point with the non-virgin still getting a bride price. it makes sense like you said , that maybe she wouldn't even get married at all (maybe no man would want her) hence why the man who humbled her would need to pay the bride price. Maybe she would of become some man's concubine back then?

@@lorenzow I call the seduced woman a victim for a couple reasons. First, as you pointed out, the betrothed wife who cries out, is clearly a victim. Part of the way we know that is because only the man is punished. In Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 again only the man is punished. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 uses the word "taphas" for "seizes" in the passage, and that word can be used towards both a resistant or unresistant recipient. So it covers both seduction and force scenarios for the single woman. Again, only the man is punished. Thankfully, this also heads off some of the ugliest parts of rape cases in our modern systems. There is no need to try and establish the woman's consent or lack thereof, as the outcome is the same either way. Another aspect I see pointing this way is based on how God's law is written regarding sexual misdeeds in Leviticus 18 and 20. The statutes are written solely from the "men don't do this" perspective. In other words, it seems like God places the primary responsibility of adhering to His sex related statutes on the man. As such, the seducing man is the one at fault and the woman is a victim of his predatory advances.

Christ's bride is a composite bride, made up of all of us who believe in Him. He has indeed redeemed us. He did so by paying the price that was required by our Father, God. Once we are His bride, we are not allowed to be anyone else's bride. So when we paint the bride price picture in a physical marriage, it is the woman's father, who receives the bride price and gives the bride in marriage.

@@betrothalguys But in the kingdom of God there is no marrying according to earthly standard nor their standard of giving in marriage. Only the heavenly father dictates the bride price paid to him. Because all found there belong to God alone.

@@gracesolomon7552 If you look at Exodus 22:16-17 we see that in the rules of God's kingdom, there is a standard bride price for virgins that is paid to the father. We all belong to God, but He has granted stewardship of children to their parents, and when it comes to giving in marriage, there is a stewardship responsibility of a father towards his daughter and so he is the recipient of the physical bride price. I suppose we could think of the bride price being paid to God when given to the woman's father, just like we call it giving to God when we give to the poor.

Just saying that they "want to marry" would not make them betrothed. Only if they actually said "I do" (or equivalent statements like "I take you as my wife" and "I take you as my husband") would they be husband and wife. There is no scripture that says the man's parents either father or mother, can annul his vow like a father can for his daughter as we see in Numbers 30. In fact, Numbers 30:2 directly says that a man's vow stands. That being said, men are also told to, "Honor your father and mother." It would be best NOT to enter a covenant without his parent's blessing, but if he has already given his word he would need to keep it. He also needs to honor his parents, and that may involve apologizing and other ways of making things right with them. But still, if the man, the woman and the woman's father have all made an agreement for the man and woman to marry later, (an engagement, not betrothal) it would be wrong for any one of them to back out without being released by the others. Does that answer your questions?

Yes thank you Do you have an email or another way to contact you guys just have one more question thank you

@@seanpowell8218 We have a contact page betrothalandwedding.com/contact

This video talks about what makes a betrothal binding: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGbMnqWQgM6oqLc And this one talks about why one parent's role in particular is critical: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j56Wo5mPr7uEl7M Basically three things: 1. The intended bride's father gives her in marriage and says that she is the groom's wife. (See Numbers 30, Exodus 22:16-17) 2. The intended groom is eligible and says that he is the bride's husband. 3. The intended bride is eligible and says that she is the groom's wife.

For sure!

I think you might be missing how important the betrothal was in Biblical times. At the betrothal, when the man, woman and her parents all agreed that they should proceed to marriage, they would go ahead and make the covenant at that point. It might have been a written covenant (ketubah) or just a spoken one, but the groom or his family would give the bride's father a bride price showing that the covenant was now in place. At that point, they were considered husband and wife, but they would then take a while (probably 1 to 12 months) to prepare for life together before they held the wedding celebration and the couple went into the wedding chamber together. In US culture, the couple generally speaks their marriage vows (which is entering into the covenant) at the wedding itself. It is that covenant of their spoken word that allows the couple the marriage bed so that it is no longer fornication for them to be sexually intimate. In Biblical times, since the covenant was already in place from months before at the betrothal, the couple could just immediately go into the wedding chamber and it would not be fornication since they had become husband and wife back at the betrothal. In the Bible, fornication would only have been committed before there was a betrothal. If another man was intimate with an already betrothed woman, it deserved the death penalty since it was the same as adultery in that he had "defiled his neighbor's wife" as Deuteronomy 22 puts it. Does that help clear up the confusion?

@@betrothalguys Indeed. Thank you very much for clearing that up and explaining to me. I did not know any of the marriage customs from that time and find it all very interesting. Thank you again. 😊👍🏽❤️

Do you @betrothalguys have a response to the conversation on your video “Can I Break Off My Betrothal?,” that for some reason you haven’t responded to for at least a year now? Has your understanding changed upon closer examination of the scriptures?

@@bibleinsights566 Our past conversation from a year and more ago on that video bounced all over the place. Perhaps we missed a question in there, but in general, no, our views have not changed. If you want to have an ongoing conversation where we are sure to receive notifications, you might try emailing us through the contact form on our website.

Hi Jonathan, thanks for the question. I'm interested to hear which country you are from. Engagements and betrothals do have a lot in common because engagement is a relatively modern replacement for biblical betrothal. In the case where, as you describe, the man gets permission from the woman's father before asking her to marry him it really comes down to a question of whether they are speaking in present tense or future tense. 1. Does the woman say that she is already the man's wife? (Not just that she will become his wife later.) 2. Does the man say that he is already the woman's husband? (Not just that he will become her husband later.) If they are calling each other husband and wife now, rather than making a plan to become husband and wife in the future, it is a betrothal, but if they do not already call each other husband and wife, that is an engagement for now. Another good indicator that it is a betrothal rather than an engagement is if it requires a divorce (or annulment) in order for the couple to break up.

@@betrothalguys Hi, i'm from Romania. All the questions are in present tense. When you ask the parents, i'm not sure but it sounds like that ''can i take your daughter as my wife?''. When you ask a girl you ask the question '' do you want to be my wife?'' and then she answers '' yes'' or ''no''. If she answers yes, he gives the ring(not sure if the man will get a ring too, tho i saw that there is such a thing, maybe in some cases he does), they don't consider each other husband and wife, they call each other fiance. To break the engagement, as far as i know, you don't need a divorce or annulment(if that would be a sinonim for divorce), you just cancel the plans. Even if the questions are in present tense and it sounds like he asks her to be his wife in the moment she says yes, it is not so. He clearly asks the parents and her girlfriend for a future day, to engange her and then after a while (wedding day)to enter in to a covenant with her and they anwer having that understanding . To make the question more detailed, he would have to ask something like that '' do you want to be my wife in the near future?'', but i guess we don't ask like that because it doesent sound so rithmic as '' do you want to be my wife?'', or because there is no need to explain the questions with more detailes because the intention is clear, to enter in to a covenant in the future (wedding day), not when the girl asnwers '' yes'' and they get engaged. Does the meaning and the intention of the question outweights the way we phrase or not? Because the man asked and she answered in present tense bonds them toghether even if they yet not intended yet? Even if all this elements: reciving the parents blessing, reciving a positive answer from a girl and the engagement rings makes it look like is actualy a betrothal, does this still outweigh their actual intention? On comparison, on the wedding day, they are asked in present tense '' do you take [name] as your wife?'' or '' do you take[name] as your husband?'' and they answer '' yes'' or '' no', then they get the rings . Another question on the subject i have. you said our modern engagement is a replacement for biblical betrothal. I have read that at some point in history, betrothal was moved in the same day as the wedding, they are initiated in the same day and the period we call it today '' engagement'' is considered shiddukin period. But again, coming back to the intention and meaning of our questions, in biblical times, when the girl would say ''yes'', the shidukkin is over and they were imidiately consider husband and wife but we today, when the girl say '' yes'' on the engagement day we don't consider ourselves bonded because we don't intend yet, doesn't it just looks like we made betrothal not binding by introducing changes over the history and considering ourselves bonded only from the wedding day and not on our engagement day? Doesen' it looks like we've just put a sticker that says '' modern engagement'' over the biblical betrothal, thus in God's eyes would stil be bonding even if our sticker says not yet even if it's logical, the intention is for a future day not in that exact moment?It looks like we just have modified betrothal by making it and not considering it binding.Would God respect our intention, our ''tradition'', our modern way of getting married, or He consider the covenant to have been taken the moment she says yes(with the intention for the future) on the engagement day?In history, things have been confusing as it is today, Luther belived that which might be the right way , other pope belived the cotrary, but in God's eyes, all it matters is the covenant and the intentions, it doesen't matter if we moved it in another day and switching and confusing terms and methods and history, am i right? Two more question, if we call ourselves fiancee when we are engaged and in the bible they were also called each other fiance when they were betrothed, wouldn't that make the two things the same thing? or again, is about the intention more than the terms we use and the way say it. If that's the case, by biblical standards, we should't even call ourselves fiance in the period we call ''engagement''. What is your opinion on that? Also, i've read some article that among others, at one point was considered that the wedding day at the curch is just a ceremony of what happened in the engagement day, when the father agreed to give his daughter and her saying '' yes''. But this is clearly steping over your intention if the engagement day, you clearly ask the parents and the girl for a future day. Also, another question😅, the Bible sais we should keep our promises, if the covenant of marriage is unbreakable, does the promise (engagement) to enter that covenant one day would have the binding power? there is a difference between a promise and a covenant, right? Sorry for the long comment, this is a very confusing topic for me.

@@JonathanK-m8j Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the details. I will try to answer your questions, hopefully I understand what you are saying and asking. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. If a man and woman don't consider each other husband and wife and call each other "fiance" meaning future spouse, then that is not a betrothal. The covenant has not been entered. Maybe another way to think of it that might help would be when the question is, "Do you want to be my wife?" then when the answer is, "Yes" it means, "I do want to be your wife." That is different from saying, "I am your wife," or "I take you as my husband" which would be the equivalent of a betrothal. As far as intentions, I think it does matter, especially when both parties understand it the same way. Words ultimately have whatever meaning that the people speaking and hearing them understand them to have. (It would only get tricky if one person thought they were immediately husband and wife while the other thought they were speaking of becoming husband and wife in the future.) So overall, I would still say it sounds like the Romanian tradition you describe is an engagement on all counts and not an inadvertent betrothal. As far as the historical versus modern way. Yes, in Biblical and ancient times, they would enter the covenant at betrothal. That is the key factor. In the modern system, couples get "engaged" which means they give their word to make a covenant with each other later, but they do not actually make a covenant then. At the Council of Trent the Catholic church made a ruling that true betrothal ("sponsalia de presenti") would not be allowed until the wedding day and only engagement ("sponsalia de futuro") which they now call "betrothal" was allowed going forward. So I don't think the Council of Trent just put a stamp over "betrothal" and called it "engagement," instead what it did was add a new step to the process and shorten the betrothal time frame to a single day. The old process we see in the Bible and up to the early middle ages was to make the actual covenant as soon as everyone agreed the marriage should happen and then months later have the wedding and consummation. The modern process is to at first just make an engagement, then wait to make the actual covenant on the day of the wedding and consummation. In that way, engagement isn't really replacing betrothal, since there is still a betrothal, - it just happens on the wedding day. This video kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqmad6GNjbx3mJo has some more details and may be helpful in understanding. In the Bible betrothed couples were not called "fiance." I'm not sure how it is translated in Romanian, but if you look at the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, they called betrothed couples "husband" and "wife" just like fully married couples. Our downloadable e-book goes through the scriptures showing this. betrothalandwedding.com/get-email-updates-and-free-e-book I think it is fair to call an engaged couple "fiances" since in the modern meaning of "fiance" it means someone who will later become spouse. If someone wanted to avoid the word for clarity's sake, I would respect that. There is a difference between a marriage covenant and an engagement promise. A marriage covenant makes the couple husband and wife which causes all the instructions in the Bible that apply to husbands and wives to also apply to them. An engagement promise does not make them husband and wife, so in that respect it is different. If someone leaves a marriage covenant and goes to another, it is adultery. If someone breaks off their engagement without it being a mutual agreement to do so, then they are breaking their promise (which is a sin and should be repented from.) But since they were not in a covenant, if they do go on and marry someone else, it is not adultery. So it is still a sin to break an engagement promise without being released, but it is not as serious as breaking a marriage covenant. Hopefully the above helps explain. If you have more questions, then feel free to ask them and we'll give you the best answer we can.

We appreciate the compliment! Life has been busy lately but we post still occasional videos. Be on the look out for our next one which should be finished soon!

I would not say that betrothal is mainstream today by any stretch, but we personally know of maybe 200 couples who have practiced it and at least that many more singles who are interested in taking that path to marriage. So there is a reviving interest in going back to the biblical ways, but it is still in the beginning stages. That is part of the reason for this channel - to get the word out and support those who are seeking this path.

Is it a sin if you don’t do it? Is betrothal the vows, and then the wedding would not have vows in it?

@@Kefalonia31 Sexual intimacy with someone you have not made a covenant with is a sin. Betrothal IS that covenant or "the vows" as you seem to be putting it. The couples we know who have practiced betrothal said their vows to one another at the betrothal. Some repeated those same vows at the wedding as a reminder, but others did not (there isn't really a need as the vows have already been made.) Does that answer the question?

@@betrothalguys Yes. Thank you!!

As we talked about some in this video and in kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYmmip-oodWqkLM a betrothal is the point at which an eligible couple declare that they are, in the present tense, husband and wife. If they have only agreed to become husband and wife at a future time, that is an engagement. (Even a certificate of engagement would only certify that you are engaged, not that you are betrothed.) You can have a biblical betrothal without a legal marriage, but if you have entered a legal marriage you would be betrothed (as long as the woman's father has not annulled for his daughter.) Witnesses other than God are also are not strictly necessary (consider Adam and Eve). Witnesses would be good to have at a betrothal, but they are not required. A couple who gets betrothed without witnesses should still tell other people that they are husband and wife now, and that does in effect make all those who are told witnesses. The agreement of the woman's father (or at least his passive acceptance) is required for a betrothal. However it is also possible to have the woman's father's permission to get betrothed in the future, but still not be betrothed yet. The criteria for a biblical betrothal as I teach it are: 1. The woman must say that she is now the man's wife. (Not just that she will become his wife later.) 2. The man must say that he is now the woman's husband. (Not just that he will become her husband later.) 3. The woman's father must either give his direct blessing or not object and nullify her commitment the day he hears of it. (Once the day her father hears has passed without annulment, the woman has a husband and the responsibility for nullifying any rash commitment she makes now falls on the husband. See Numbers 30 in the Bible.) In most cases, someone who was in a modern engagement was never betrothed in the biblical sense. It would not be the sin of adultery to marry them. However, breaking an engagement (at least without mutual release) is still breaking one's word and that is a separate sin that needs to be dealt with and repented from. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask more questions here or even contact us via our contact form or on Facebook.

@@betrothalguys i face a similar dilemma, i like this girl that has been engaged with someone at one point, but at one point after their engagement was she rejected by her boyfriend's parents, they tried a second time to fix their relationship but it didn't worked, biblicaly is she binded to that man or not? free to marry anybody else?

@@Andrew-tm5yl Hi Andrew, thanks for the comment. As you probably saw in the comment above and in this video, nearly all modern engagements are a promise to make a covenant later, not a covenant themselves. As such, they should deal with that promise properly, either keeping it or getting mutual release, but as it is not a marriage covenant they are free to marry someone else. As a side note, being rejected by her boyfriend's parents is not really relevant to her freedom to marry. The story of Esau and his wives shows that a wife who is taken contrary to the husband's parents' wishes is still a wife anyway. It is the covenant that makes someone a wife, not just engagement.

@@betrothalguys You are very right. The refusal of the male parents does not nullify marriage as the case of Esau's wives married against his parents wish. Its also good to note betrothal is a more spiritual thing than mere engagement. Its is mainly approved by both spouses families ( mostly spiritual parents). Spiritual parents here,refers to parents who are godly and understand the purpose of spiritual union with spiritual families to raise spiritual seed( godly seed). Even scripture warned us that the whole purpose of God's plan of arranged marriage is to raise godly seed. Malachi 2:15. But we are in a generation of distorted picture of reality, so we must depend on God's direction to choosing a spouse connected to our divine family line to ensure a betrothal and not mere engagement. This may require new birth to be returned back to that spiritual family as the whole house of Israel is scattered from their spiritual order of arrangement as the dry bones of Ezekiel. Until one is restored to their original bone to bone,their can be no kingdom marriage ( God's kind of marriage). Betrothal is a spiritual term for God himself joining together that no one can put asunder. But mere engagement does not necessarily have spiritual joining from God if not endorsed by the father God. God's arranged marriage starts from spiritual betrothal to physical ceremony.

Good question! There isn't a lot of historical or biblical evidence to say. We do see a wedding and several parables of weddings in the Gospels and it seems that the time of the wedding is known, at least within a short time frame. The angel commanded Joseph to go take His betrothed bride, so in that case it was his decision. The typical practice in the time of King Solomon was probably similar so we think it likely the wedding time was known and could be planned for by all involved.

@@betrothalguys thank you

Yes, the divorce in Deuteronomy 24 that is for fornication ("a matter of nakedness") we see as being only during the betrothal period. I think Romans 7 is speaking of an *innocent* (betrothed) wife being bound by the law, because (as Romans says) if she had sex with another man, she would be called an adulteress. If she hasn't had sex with another man, then she can't be divorced and thus "she is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives." Another explanation, since Romans 7 directly addresses the woman's perspective, is that it merely reflects that the law doesn't have a wife divorcing her husband provision (even though it does have a husband divorcing his wife provision.) In both places in Deuteronomy 22, the man who is not to "divorce his wife all his days" has A, married her and B, had sex with her. This fits Christ's declaration that "what God has joined together, let not man put asunder." Those statutes reflect that and close loopholes that the husbands in the statute might otherwise have tried to use to unfairly divorce their wives.

@@betrothalguys right ? Yeah you make alot of sense here , im leaning in this direction aswell 👍 Keep up the good work, live free from sin 💪👍

@@betrothalguys thanks

@@betrothalguys Sir/Sirs, you are wrong on this. Deuteronomy 24 refers to a FULLY married couple not one in the bethrothal period. The Hebrew word for married as in full marriage is ba'al and the Hebrew words for bethrothed are 'aras mainly and ya'ad (less used) they DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING( Deut. 22: 22, 23; The word married in verse 1 is ba'al which in every case that it is used referencing marriage, speaks to a fully consummated one.

@@aliciamcdonald7105 I appreciate the comment! Your objection is a fair one, but I believe it ultimately fails to account for the full flavor of the Hebrew language. Let me explain. In Hebrew it is common to use two forms of a word to emphasize it. One instance of this that is often brought over literally into English is "Holy of Holies" (See 1 Kings 6:16 and others) meaning the place is very holy or extra holy. Another example is when murderers are commanded to "surely be put to death" in Lev 24:17 while in Hebrew the phrase is literally the word "mooth" (put to death) used in two forms. In Deuteronomy 22:22, we have this aspect of Hebrew grammar with a double use of the root ba'al. It could be thought of as "married married," or "surely married" but since you used the phrase, and I think it fits nicely I'll suggest another way of bringing it across to English is "fully married." So, you are correct that Deuteronomy 22:22 contrasts the situation there with the betrothal situation in the next verse, but that is because the Hebrew grammar double-for-emphasis is in use there. On the other hand, you are incorrect that "ba'al" is only used of fully consummated marriages. When it is not double emphasized "ba'al" means "husband/married" and is used for relationships that are still betrothals. A great example is Joel 1:8, "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband (ba'al) of her youth." A virgin is of necessity still only in the betrothal stage and has not fully married and we see here that "ba'al" has a meaning that encompasses this state. (Another is Isaiah 54:5 which speaks of Christ's (thy Redeemer) marriage and we know that "the marriage supper of the Lamb" is a future event. As of now, we are only betrothed.) So I agree that "eras" and "ba'al" are not synonyms. "Eras" only refers to betrothal while "ba'al" means married in a general sense and can be used both of husbands who are betrothed as well as of husbands who have gone beyond that and have consummated. When we see "ba'al" in Deuteronomy 24, it is not the double emphasized version of the word. As such, it can refer to a betrothed state, where the couple have not yet consummated - just like we see the usage in Joel 1:8. I hope that helps explain what I am seeing when diving deeper into the Hebrew.

Where did you get this quote from? "My Gods words says only can you divorce during the erusin." This is not a quotation from any scripture, but from your own mind and imagination. lol

@@BennettJonWayne-xw9vi While I disagree with @leroijr407 that Moses allowed divorce for any cause (the law actually only allows divorce for "uncleaness/fornication" also.) They are correct regarding God's words. I believe they refer to Matthew 19:6, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Marriages where the couple has become "one flesh" through consummation are not to be put asunder. Which comes out to, you can only divorce during erusin. (And even then only for fornication.)

Thanks! We love to hear that our resources and videos are blessing people!

The bride price/mohar should be paid to the bride's father if he is alive. (We use "bride price" to refer to what the husband pays before marriage and "dowry" to refer to the wealth a father gives his daughter when she enters marriage. In past cultures it was often traditional that those be of about the same value. So, in some ways it might seem to be one price paid to the bride, but that is not technically what happened.) The value will probably vary greatly depending on where you live in our modern time, some countries that are relatively poor might have a lot lower price expectation than the affluent ones in the west. We can approach it several ways, first would be to ask ourselves, what are the purposes of the bride price? 1. It seems to be to proclaim the picture of Christ redeeming His bride from sin. (See passages and themes in the NT such as Acts 20:28 and Ephesians 5:25) 2. It seems to be useful in marking the point at which a father has given his spiritual guardianship over to the husband. (See Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30:3-15 along with many passages that mention a daughter being "given" in marriage.) 3. It seems to be a way for the husband to set aside a portion of his wealth as belonging directly to his bride through it being returned as her dowry. (See Genesis 31:14-15 where Rachel and Leah apparently felt that the bride price that was paid for them should rightfully have been given to them, rather than kept and spent by their father. The implication is that the bride price became the woman's property that she brought into the marriage. Then, in the case of divorce, she would take it with her, but otherwise it would be used to further the interests of her and her husband. It was thus a type of insurance against being divorced. If that was practiced, then charging a large bride price would not be a problem for decent men who would never break their word and divorce.) Now pretty much any sized bride price will do for number 1 as we are painting the picture, not actually dying for our brides. The same goes for number 2 as whatever the size of the price, the point at which it is accepted, becomes a clear marking point of the transfer of the spiritual responsibility. With modern civil law usually granting around half of the joint property to the wife anyway, number 3 has also become relatively unimportant in western society. Without the dowry being practiced, where the bride price is returned to the new family as a gift to the bride from her father, it does seem that charging more than a token bride price could be seen as an abuse, especially in any case where the new couple could really use the money and the father already is well off. At the very least, that would seem to violate the principle of "love your neighbor as yourself" and "do unto others as you would have them do to you." Jacob was certainly taken advantage of by Laban regarding his bride price, yet Yahweh blessed Jacob and punished Laban in the end. The above leaves us with any size price making sense. However, if you want to try and get as close to the Biblical value as it translates to our modern economy, here are a few ways I have researched the comparison. Comparing Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:29 the bride price was 50 shekels (~20oz) of silver when the law was given. The value depends on how you calculate it from ancient times. The 20oz of silver itself would be worth about $500 today. Leviticus 27:16 places 50 shekels as the value for a full Jubilee lease of a piece of land suitable for planting 1 homer of barley in. The numbers I found online are that an homer is about 6-7 bushels and that you would plant just over 2 bushels per acre in decent farmland, so leasing a 3 acre piece of land for 42 planting years would be comparable. Farmland lease rates per year average near $80 an acre, so that puts the 50 shekel bride price being worth $10,000 today. The (apparently cheap) cost of barley in 2 Kings 7:1 comes out to about 1 shekel per ton. A ton of barley today costs about $130 dollars which would make the 50 shekel bride price $6,500. There is not a whole lot in the scripture to know what the difference would be between virgin or non-virgin, rich or poor. The price that Hosea pays to redeem adulterous Gomer in Hosea 3:2 is significantly less than what is paid for a seduced virgin in Deuteronomy 22:29, but what Hosea paid might not be reflective of the bride price, but just paying off Gomer's accumulated debts. Laban (probably asking for more than was fair) wanted 7 years savings (he was receiving room and board) for a moderately skilled laborer. Depending on the figures used for those things, that could well come out to $75,000 in modern money. Ultimately, somewhere between $500 and $50,000 is the likely answer for a fair bride price. I suspect somewhere in the $5,000 to $10,000 range would be the most reasonable for young men who are ready to marry, but haven't reached their full income potential. -Joshua