Betrothal and Marriage in the Time of the Bible

How did people go about getting married in ancient Israel? Did they "date" or have a "courtship?" This video is a fictional story demonstrating what was practiced in the time of King Solomon and throughout most of Israel's history.
Download Free e-book about Betrothal:
betrothalandwedding.com/get-e...
Betrothal Q&A Playlist:
• Betrothal Q&A
Facebook Page:
/ betrothalguys
Instagram:
/ betrothalguys
Website:
betrothalandwedding.com/
#biblicalbetrothal #christianmarriage #betrothalguys #biblehistory

[@mytargetedindividuallifeav3745]

Yes God has been showing me a lot on biblical marriages and says this is what in store for me. Not this particular one but referencing his standard and his way biblically so I won’t be deceived or settle for any other alternative.

[@TazHall]

There's something heartwarming about being able to trust in the wisdom of your parents to pick out a spouse for you. It feels so safe and secure. I don't really have parents that can do that for me but I'm glad I can trust my heavenly father to make such connections when the time comes. I think it's very sweet the parents would ask around and make all kinds of contacts just to find a good match for you. It would filter out so much riff raff.

[@martdel6673]

Great explanation!!!! Thank you.

[@JACcinema]

Very Good.

[@letknowledge_increase]

Beautiful

[@AluahDabarAchhad]

Very good 👍🏾

[@tialynjordan6088]

HES A BEAUTIFUL GIFT FROM GOD

[@gletube3109]

She agrees when she drinks from his cup, and then she covers her hair and face to let all know she is no longer available. Jesus offered this cup at the last supper, and in 2020 we all walk around with our faces covered... what time is it?

[@dvw7205]

Excellently made and informative! Do u mind if I recommend a bit more even timing to read the info not narrated? I appreciate this👍🏼

[@djskeedledoo]

i love the background music. Where can I download it ?

[@betrothalguys]

You can reach out to our composer through his website, www.jealousmusic.net

[@lunaForever2020]

I am a gypsy and we do all these traditions even today

[@user-yk7vp2qw4h]

Beutiful tradition ....

[@childofgod2273]

I'm so happy I that I was born in 2004. But nice video

[@tialynjordan6088]

2013 2015 2 proposals 11 yrs Sanford n Tialyn

[@LoveAimshigh]

Lovely vid accurately explaining the Jewish traditions, but can someone link a vid explaining how a woman/bride prepares herself to be married, similar to Hadassah/Esther did in the Word of God? What are the proper steps to take, what combinations of oils to use and for how long ect. The more accurate detail the better! THANKS!!!

[@betrothalguys]

Hello Aimee, the Bible doesn't go into specific detail about bridal preparations. They probably varied depending on the region and her social status. In Jewish tradition the bride does a mikvah (an immersion in running water) before she marries.

[@leilawilliams8175]

While I was betrothed and preparing for my wedding I did various beauty treatments. I used herbal steams to open my pores and made a natural astringent to dab on my face for cleansing. I moisturized with almond oil as well. I tried to whiten my teeth by rubbing strawberries and banana peels on them. I used essential oil to scent my hair. I also did practical preparations like purging some of my belongings that needed to go and I purchased or made clothes I wanted to have, replacing some worn out items. Most importantly I prepared spiritually by praying, reading and meditating on the Bible verses addressed to wives and memorizing 1 Cor. 13. I wanted to do some sort of fast because my bridegroom was not with me (Matt. 9:15) so I did not eat chocolate until we were reunited! Right before the wedding I took a bath so I would be clean and pure. None of this is specifically mandated by scripture, of course, but doing something mindful paints the picture of how we the "bride" are preparing for our Savior Bridegroom's return! (Rev. 19:7)

[@LoveAimshigh]

@@betrothalguys Ty for replying.

[@LoveAimshigh]

@@leilawilliams8175 Wow CONGRATS and how Lovely!!! I want to incorporate most of these things you've done as well :) Even though I am still single I want to prepare for marriage now by taking care of my body and spirit while waiting for God to Bless me with the bone of my bone flesh of my flesh. TY soo much for your help! I was thinking of taking weekly herbal hot baths full of healthy herbs and oils until then..I just thought I'd get some feed back on which ancient biblical ones to use along with Frankincense and Myrrh. I want to smell like these scents even if I don't wear them everyday, that's how Esther and the other wives did it in the Bible! :D I would LOVE to smell sooo good like they did. She bathed in those oils/herbs daily I believe for 1 yr 6 mons for each! That's what I want to do but that's Veryy expensive and timely but my goal is to do this consistently as I can so that my natural body can smell like those wonderful scents automatically!!! God bless you @Leila Williams

[@tialynjordan6088]

11 yrs

[@berylroberts131]

This can be compared to Matthew 25: 1-13.

[@MrJackTR]

I apologize if this sounds ignorant or silly. But according to what I have seen here and read of marriage from those times, it appears that to get married back then was a lot less commercialized as it is today, or at least here in the US. Please correct me if I am wrong, but tradition was for parents found the bride and agreed with her parents and then a festival was held and both the man and women enter into the house and come out as one at which time they are married..? My confusion is in biblical text of the commandment of fornication. What would separate what they had done (as it’s seems being intimate was the final part of the ceremony) and fornication? Please forgive me if I am off base on this.

[@betrothalguys]

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?

[@MrJackTR]

@@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. 😊👍🏽❤️

[@bibleinsights566]

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?

[@tialynjordan6088]

Hmmm

[@emikoyuki8693]

Did the groom or bride know the time the wedding would happen or was it the fathers decision?

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@emikoyuki8693]

@@betrothalguys thank you

[@brandonhenry8271]

I recently took a woman, and we prayed very much to GOD that we are joined together in Him and do not desire sexual immorality. I called my pastor and a few friends for advice, they say to go to be married by the state. I fear GOD greatly and I am conflicted because on one hand I may have been blessed with a wife, on the other hand I've committed sexual immorality and am in danger of hell. I think it best not to touch her again until GOD shows me if I'm in error or not. Please give me your thoughts on these things, thanks.

[@betrothalguys]

The Bible does not require a government license or a written covenant to marry. A spoken covenant between a single man and single woman is all. However, it's also important if the bride has a father that he does not disapprove of the marriage. You can watch our video called, "Why Do I have to Ask the Girl's Father," for more information. Having your pastor and friends recognize your marriage is valuable. You do not want to appear to be committing sexual immorality even though you are not. So, even though a state marriage license is not required by the Bible, it can help show to others that you are indeed married.

[@marylandgirl9246]

You should follow the laws where you live to make the marriage legal. God gave us governments for a reason, and we should follow them. You will need to do this for filing taxes jointly, medical insurance, and other things. There's no reason to not do it.

[@betrothalguys]

@@marylandgirl9246 We do recommend legal marriage, alongside making a covenant before God, for the practical reasons that you specified. However, a legal marriage is not required to be married in the eyes of God.

[@knightsalmon42]

You don't need to be married by the state. Is there such a command in the Bible?

[@KKKaTTT123]

@@marylandgirl9246 such as the state approving of gay marriage ?

[@free77max]

23,324 views Apr 7, 2019

[@tialynjordan6088]

GOD JOINED US IN 95 SANFORD N TIALYN WOOW

[@someoneofgods2620]

Do you think God divorcing Israel was during a betrothal? Also, isn’t there a verse speaking of kids?

[@betrothalguys]

Yes, we believe that God's divorcing of Israel was during the betrothal period. There are multiple analogies about God/Yeshua with Israel/church as the bride. If we combine the analogies, then the wedding feast is yet to come at the end of Revelation. If we take each instance of analogy as a separate parable (which is probably the most correct approach) then there does not seem to be children mentioned in the particular passage where it uses the divorce analogy. It can be a little difficult to tell since the bride IS a plural and is even made up of God's children in another sense. Overall, the actual statutes, Yeshua's words, and the literal stories seem to be easier places to build up an understanding of divorce from.

[@daughterofthegreatiam]

I believe God has sent me my husband but we are in end times. Do you think its to late for us to get married? I believe he is my husband sent by God. I have been praying about this. I know for sure we are on end times would it be worth it to get married?

[@betrothalguys]

The purposes of marriage stated in the Bible are 1. Teamwork, since it is not good for man to be alone, 2. Reproduction, since God seeks a Godly seed, 3. To avoid fornication, and 4. To show the picture of Christ and the church. All of the above still need to be served right up until the very day we are caught up to meet Him in the air.

[@daughterofthegreatiam]

@@betrothalguys Thank you! God bless❤️🤗

[@ShemaIsrael14]

Even though we are in End Times, it is not the End of the End! When Yeshua returns He will reign on earth for 1000 years and then there is one final war of Gog and Magog which Yeshua wins..then the end will come. God bless your marriage and destiny!

[@cataclysm9279]

@@betrothalguys a righteous man shouldn't be alone. But a non believer yes.

[@TazHall]

Even if it is end times that doesn't mean we stop living. We keep shining our light and being led by the Holy Spirit, living in joy, love and peace as we await the return of our groom, Jesus. We are in end times yet God is still telling me to write exciting stories, make fun cartoons and draw lots of art to reach people. I will keep doing what I was designed to do until the very end and be faithful in it.

[@free77max]

21,201 viewsApr 7, 2019

[@tialynjordan6088]

2 proposals

[@cedricvaz6112]

In case of a bethrotal, which is before marriage, is broken up among Jews it tantamounts to divorce. In contrast among Christians if an engagement is broken up it just means nothing and both parties go their own way as before. N. B. : During the entire period of Jewish bethrotal there is to be no sexual relations between the couple so that the bride remains a virgin and does not get pregnant too. During the period of bethrotal the man sets up his home for himself and his bride or wife to be. 🤔

[@betrothalguys]

Yes. We have a video on the difference between a betrothal and an engagement here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qXvaeYZoot5-jJY

[@stavros333]

“I’m in Love with Yeshua” by Rabbi Guy Cohen (Sung by Rabbi Guy Cohen & Rabbi Steven ( Hertzel) Gooden-Cohen) I'm in love with Yeshua I'm in love with my God. He's the only one who saves us, He's the only one above I'm in love with my Jesus, I'm in love with my God. Thank you Lord for all your greatness Thank you Lord for all your love. I'm in love with Meshiach I'm in love with my God מהיום ועד forever (MEHAYOM VE-AD FOREVER) מעולם ועד עכשיו. (MEH-OLAM VE-AD AKHSHAV) I'm in love with my savior I'm in love with my God אותך אוהב, אתה המלך (OTKHA OHEV ATA HAMELEKH) מולך על איש ועל כוכב. (MOLEKH AL ISH VE-AL KOKHAV) אין כמוך אלוהינו (EN KAMOKHA ELOHEYNU) אין כמוך בעולם (EN KAMOKHA BA-OLAM) מלך, מגן ומושיענו (MELEKH MAGEN VE-MOSHI-ENU) יהוה הוא אל אחד (YEHOVA WHO EL EKHAD)

[@a11an72]

is there any chance deuteronomy 24 can talk about the betrothal period ? it confuses me that Paul says in romans 7 "Those of you who know the law know that a woman is bound for life to her husband" , but in deuteronomy 24 we see that apparently she ISNT bound for life... you guys have a take on this ? in deuteronomy 22 we also see several times "you shall never divorce her for as long as you live"

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@a11an72]

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

[@emmanuelmuma6193]

@@betrothalguys thanks

[@aliciamcdonald7105]

@@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.

[@betrothalguys]

@@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.

[@mugz90]

Tell me if I'm wrong But don't anyone realize that the Indians marriage custom is very identical also majority biblical customs u can also see it as well in the Indians

[@betrothalguys]

You are correct. Many customs surrounding marriage in India are similar to those found in the Bible.

[@mugz90]

@@betrothalguys even the way they live. When you look at biblical description of houses. They would live in their rooftops as well and India they do the same they sleep out side in the rooftops. I am also highly convinced that the Indians maybe the real Jews

[@betrothalguys]

@@mugz90 The prophecy was that all the nations of the earth would be blessed by Abraham's descendants. I expect that significant Jewish blood is to be found in every nation of the world by now making nearly everyone "Jewish." On the spiritual level, Romans 2:25-29 tells us who the "Real Jews" are.

[@mugz90]

@@betrothalguys yes but the jews were particular set of people chosen by God

[@betrothalguys]

@@mugz90 Yes, the Jews were chosen by God for certain purposes in the past and His promises to them are eternal and will be fulfilled in the future as well.

[@tialynjordan6088]

I'm betrothed to Sanford

[@veneroantonio905]

Does one have to write a bill of divorce for a betrothed wife?

[@betrothalguys]

Wives can only be divorced for the cause of fornication, as Christ says. Deuteronomy 24 agrees calling it a "matter of nakedness" that comes out to the same thing, sexual immorality. So, yes, a divorce can only be legitimately given to a wife for fornication and betrothed women are wives. Deuteronomy 24 would apply, so the "bill of divorce" would be part of that.

[@escalus84]

@@betrothalguys Do you folks have additional links or references to show the writ of divorcement applicable to betrothals? I've found a reference or two online, but nothing concrete to support an argument. I've shown the story of Mary and Joseph being called husband and wife in Matthew, and also in Deuteronomy 22:24. But still some argue.

[@betrothalguys]

@@escalus84 As a ministry we usually only focus on betrothal and marriage teaching and do not get into the depths of the divorce topic. However, I think what you are looking for, you might find on the DaringTheology.com website. He has an in depth blog article daringtheology.com/divorce-when-it-allowed and a four part podcast on the subject of divorce from a betrothal perspective.

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

When did the bible times end?

[@betrothalguys]

Depends on how you mean your question. The last recorded narratives in the Bible occurred during the 1st century A.D./C.E. so that would be the end of the "Bible timeline." But if you mean, when does the Bible stop applying to us, then the answer is not until heaven and earth pass away. Matthew 5:18

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

@@betrothalguysyes we know that the cannon of scriptures is closed , I beleive we are still in bible times regardless of the year we are in , I see a lot of "Christians" using culture and times, to change how we follow the Lord it breaks my heart

[@tialynjordan6088]

Betrothed in 2023 2 proposals 2013 n 2015

[@tialynjordan6088]

13 yrs BETROTHED TO SANFORD

[@tialynjordan6088]

2022 Sanford pumpum poo bear n Tialyn cocoa cocoa munchkin

[@mbgodwebsite5272]

Just a few observations: 1. Marriage celebrations in Biblical times happened after their sexual intimacy within the bedchamber, which is where the marriage took place and not before. 2. You emphasize the betrothal, which only occurred when a virgin was purchased from her father. Some virgins were married without a covenant being made with the father. 3. What about women who married and were widows or those sent out with the Bill of Divorce? What protocols were exercised in those cases for marriage, because they were not possessed of their fathers? 4. Do you not realize that women were possessions of men in the O.T.? You didn’t mention that men could betroth and purchase as many virgins as he chose! Since you said this happened “through most of Israel’s history,” are you saying that this was New Testament observance as well?

[@betrothalguys]

Thank you for your comment. We are happy to answer your questions. . . 1. The sexual intimacy of marriage more strictly should be said to occur DURING the wedding celebration. Most ancient cultures practiced a multiple day wedding with often the consummation happening in the middle day of festivities. (look at Athenian weddings for an example.) 2. We emphasize the betrothal because that was the norm, and not only for Biblical culture. Even when a man is sexually intimate with a virgin before marriage, he owes a bride price and her father can either give or refuse to give her. (Ex 22) If a virgin makes a marriage vow without her father's permission, her father can nullify it when he finds out. (Num 30) A girl could be purchased, from her father, as a slave and then later married as a concubine. (Ex 21) The only way we see virgins marrying without their father being involved is when he is dead (Num 36:6) Some assume that a betrothed woman was always purchased as a slave, but this is not true since a betrothed woman receives death in the case of adultery but a betrothed slave does not. (Lev 19, Deut 22) 3. In the case of a divorced or widowed woman, her vows stand, (Num 30) so she could make a marriage covenant (betrothal) independently without the required permission from her father. 4. Betrothal was indeed a New Testament practice. In fact, in Western civilization it's only been abandoned in the last 500 years. (we need to make a video about that, too!) Yes, though the ideal is clearly one wife, according to the Bible men were permitted to marry more than one woman, provided he treat them properly. Usually the taking of another wife seemed to be because the first was barren. Women in Biblical times were no more "possessions" of men than children are "possessions" of their parents in modern America. Yes, her father and then her husband were responsible for a woman. She was to be protected and provided for under God's law, not left vulnerable. We are about to release the "Exploring Betrothal in History" series on our Facebook Page so follow us to learn more! For an in depth study about how betrothal works in the Bible, look for our free E-book on Betrothalandwedding.com

[@mbgodwebsite5272]

Thanks for your response to my observations. However, your answers don't appear to be factually complete and Biblical. YOU SAID, “The sexual intimacy of marriage more strictly should be said to occur DURING the wedding celebration. Most ancient cultures practiced a multiple day wedding with often the consummation happening in the middle day of festivities. (look at Athenian weddings for an example.)” To my knowledge, there is only one marriage celebration found in Scripture whereby any account of activity indicated is with the deceptive marriage of Jacob and Leah. What is revealed is that Laban prepared a feast the day of the “evening” to which Leah would be brought to Jacob, but no celebration beforehand. In fact, it would have been impossible for a celebration to occur or Jacob would have been aware that Leah was to be the daughter given. Then after Jacob unwittingly married Leah - notice no covenants, no vows, or any rituals, just their sexual intimacy, even though conspired - Leah had seven days to celebrate the marriage. Immediately after the seven days with no prior celebration, Rachel was given to Jacob to marry. So, Biblically, marriage celebrations occurred after the marriage in the bedchamber occurred. Athenian marriages were not Biblical marriages. YOU SAID, “We emphasize the betrothal because that was the norm, and not only for Biblical culture. Even when a man is sexually intimate with a virgin before marriage, he owes a bride price and her father can either give or refuse to give her. (Ex 22).” First off, there is no such thing as being sexually intimate before marriage. Biblically that is impossible. It can't happen. The betrothal was never an actual marriage by God, but rather an acquisition of a virgin for an actual marriage. Sexual intimacy is marriage and it is either legitimate or illegitimate (adultery) and can happen and did happen without a betrothal covenant. What you point out in Ex. 22, as well as other Scripture proves this to be true. Yes, Biblically, betrothals for virgins were the norm. However, your reference of Ex. 22 is not a negotiated betrothal, but rather a lawful compensation for depriving the girl's father from being able to betroth her to whomever he chose. She is now married, because of their sexual intimacy, which is why I don't believe that the statement “he utterly refuses to give her” means that the father will or can keep her from him, but rather it means that if the father does not give her to him for nothing or based on an agreed amount, the man must pay the dowry of virgins as the final sum. It says “he must endow her to be his wife.” This same scenario is recorded in Deut. 22:28&29. Here the dowry appears to be 50 shekels of silver and what is very clear is that the man had to take her “because he humbled her” and could not ever put her away, which means the father had no choice, but to let her go. Otherwise, if the father had been able to withhold his daughter from him, he would be forcing the man to put away his wife he endowed, which would be a violation of the law, and she would never be able to marry any other, because from her sexual intimacy, she was married already and no man would want her in order to avoid committing adultery. This is why Absalom killed Amnon. YOU SAID, “If a virgin makes a marriage vow without her father's permission, her father can nullify it when he finds out. (Num 30)” Correct! However, there is the instance where she could defy her father and marry (being sexually intimate with) a man, if he chose to pay the dowry of virgins. He couldn't nullify an actual marriage. Vows and actual marriage are two totally different situations. Marriage is not conditional upon whether a vow or a betrothal is made. YOU SAID, “The only way we see virgins marrying without their father being involved is when he is dead (Num 36:6).” Right, but even then they were restricted by Moses. He commanded their marriage could only be with someone within their father's tribe, which they did. YOU SAID, “Some assume that a betrothed woman was always purchased as a slave, but this is not true since a betrothed woman receives death in the case of adultery but a betrothed slave does not. (Lev 19, Deut 22) 3.” I agree with this and there is a reason for the different outcomes. First off, the “free” betrothed female who was sexually intimate with another male other than her betrothed husband did not commit adultery, since she was still a virgin. Her crime along with the male was against the betrothed contract exclusively, because she was purchased just as a wife by her betrothed husband. It was considered a breach of contract, which the Jews took seriously. Whatever expense the betrothed husband paid to acquire her was completely lost, because now he could not have her as his wife, seeing she had married (sexually intimate) the other. To take her now, he would be committing adultery with her. The bondwoman, however, would only be scourged, because her owner would suffer the loss of a slave if she was put to death. She was different in that she was of and still had value and a probable need to him. The other would have to acquire (betroth) another. YOU SAID, “In the case of a divorced or widowed woman, her vows stand, (Num 30) so she could make a marriage covenant (betrothal) independently without the required permission from her father.” Wow, on this one you completely fabricated a concept that Scripture gives no illusion to, whatsoever. Of course no widow or divorced female would need her father's permission to marry, because she was removed and free from her father's authority in her first marriage. She came under her husband's authority. However, to insinuate that these females made betrothals is counter to what an actual Biblical betrothal consisted of. Biblical betrothals/marriage covenants were not similar to modern secular engagements, which is what you seem to be alluding to. They were contractual agreements between men for the acquisition of a virgin female for marriage, not just an engagement. If there were no man that a widow or divorced woman had to answer to, it is more implied in Scripture that whoever she chose to be sexually intimate with was what was exercised in her acceptance of marriage. Of course, the divorced woman better have a Certificate of Divorcement, because otherwise if any man did marry her, they both could have been stoned for adultery. Marriage vows as is practiced today were not exercised Biblically and are no where to be seen, because marriage happened in the bedchamber, not by a ceremony, vows, pastors, priests, or any ritual. Even you said “Betrothal was indeed a New Testament practice. In fact, in Western civilization it's only been abandoned in the last 500 years.” YOU SAID, “Yes, though the ideal is clearly one wife, according to the Bible men were permitted to marry more than one woman, provided he treat them properly. Usually the taking of another wife seemed to be because the first was barren.” I don't know how you can make this claim! I can only think of one instance, Abraham and Sarah, where the reason of barrenness was valid. That was Abraham, which at the urging of Sarah took Hagar to be his concubinage wife. Rachel was barren, but Jacob already had Leah who was bearing plenty of male offspring. All others, Lamach, Jacob, Abdon, Saul, David, Solomon, Ezra, Gideon, and Caleb had more than one and not for the “usual” reason you stated. Do you know why men in the O.T. could have more than one wife and it not be considered adultery, as it is declared by Christ to be in the N.T.? YOU SAID, “Women in Biblical times were no more "possessions" of men than children are "possessions" of their parents in modern America. Yes, her father and then her husband were responsible for a woman. She was to be protected and provided for under God's law, not left vulnerable.” Are children bought as brides were? No! Are brides bought by men as they were in betrothals? No! Even you said “A girl could be purchased, from her father, as a slave and then later married as a concubine. (Ex 21).” The story of Ruth depicts she being lumped in the purchase of her dead husbands land. And as Boaz said, “Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife...” Was not Rachel bargained for? Do wives today experience husbands determining what they can vow to or not? Did not Laban give Rachel and Leah handmaids to take with them. Is this not ownership? No, they weren't traded as cattle are traded, but they were possessions nonetheless, which is why they couldn't marry more than one man, divorce, make vows without approval, sold as slaves, acquired as brides, and given to a woman's husband to marry as a concubine. Not quite at all similar to what you stated in the above statement.

[@betrothalguys]

@@mbgodwebsite5272 Our basic objection to the scenarios you described is that it leads to believing that a man can “take hold of her and lie with her” and she is forced to be his “wife.” After that, you state that a wife is her husband’s “possession.” We strongly disagree that God’s perfect law says any such thing! If you can find the time we recommend reading, "Betrothal, What is it Biblically" (link provided in the video description) as it should clear up much of your confusion on what we believe. We'll try to address some of your concerns, though. 1. Your objections to the timing of the consummation: The story of Samson, and several of the parables, give hints to marriage celebrations in those days. Unfortunately, none give the detail of exactly when the marriage was sexually consummated. Why does "feast" in your mind not equal "celebration?" Also, what about the verbal agreement does not equal "covenant" to you? If you mean there were no ceremonies with exact wording, then yes, we agree there are no wedding ceremonies seen in the Bible. To be clear, even though our video shows a celebration happening around the consummation it is not because we think a celebration is necessary to becoming fully married. It's just that celebration was normally part of the proceedings when a couple became "one flesh." 2. Your objection to our emphasis on a betrothal covenant: God himself describes His relationship with Israel as that of a betrothal. He is the one who insists on covenants being kept and says, "your wife by covenant." Yes, the physical union is also emphasized, and is the point at which a marriage is fully complete, but a valid, consensual covenant is also required to make a marriage (2 Sam 23:22 “Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar.” Hate is the motivation recorded in scripture, not a desire to free Tamar from a marriage. Notice Tamar went to Absalom’s house after, not Amnon’s. She is also called “desolate,” which Isaiah 54:1 shows to mean unmarried.) The way you see the Law of God a man could force a non-betrothed woman to have relations and she would become his wife. No one could refuse to give her. God did not permit that. She is protected from that by her father being able to, "refuse to give her." ("Give" means “allow the marriage of a daughter” in dozens of passages.) In other words, the man would not get to keep her as a wife even though he still has to pay the dowry (which is what “endow” means.) The difference in the Deut. 22:28-29 scenario is that that is the case where the father DOES give her. A very clear example of this is the story of Dinah and Shechem in Genesis 34. Shechem defiles Dinah. He comes to Jacob promising to pay whatever dowry they demand in order to get them to “give me the damsel to wife.” Their response includes, “else will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.” Until Jacob agreed to the terms of marriage, Dinah was not Shechem’s wife! Both Rahab and Gomer were able to be married even after having been harlots. Given all the above, your emphasis on a union being just physical seems unreasonable. 3. Your idea that physical intimacy makes a marriage : You said: "there is the instance where she could defy her father and marry (being sexually intimate with) a man, if he chose to pay the dowry of virgins. He couldn't nullify an actual marriage. Vows and actual marriage are two totally different situations. Marriage is not conditional upon whether a vow or a betrothal is made." I don't think you understand how protected a woman was under the Law of God. A man could not make a girl be his wife, either by extorting promises from her or by taking her physically, nor by doing BOTH. A father could annul any vow and also refuse to give her in the case of rape or fornication. His approval was required for a virgin's marriage. 4. Your objection to betrothal creating a marriage: According to the Bible to be "betrothed" was to be husband and wife. Read the story of Joseph and Mary, for instance. It is also written into the death penalty for defiling a betrothed virgin, “because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife.” Ezekiel 23 (see verses 3,8,37 & 45) also shows that virgins can commit adultery in the story of Aholah and Aholibah. During the betrothal, the couple are husband and wife and unfaithfulness carries the penalty of death because it is adultery. Even without elaborate vows, there were verbal agreements entered that made someone another's spouse. Yes, sometimes the time between the agreement and the physical intimacy was short or even came afterward, but that does not negate the importance of the covenant. You said: "Marriage vows as is practiced today were not exercised Biblically and are no where to be seen, because marriage happened in the bedchamber, not by a ceremony, vows, pastors, priests, or any ritual." We do not claim a need for vows, pastors, priests or rituals, but the consent to marriage, a covenant, is required. You mentioned that a widowed or divorced woman choosing to have sexual relations makes her married. This is not easily proven or disproven since examples of these situations are few. One example that appears to be of a divorced or widowed woman who was cohabiting without being married is the woman at the well. “He is not your husband.” 5. Your objection to Biblical polygamy: We admit that we can't know for sure that barrenness was the normal reason for Biblical 2nd marriages. The story of the competition between Rachel and Leah is not because of barrenness, but still involves the taking of more wives because Rachel and then Leah had periods of barrenness. Hannah and Peninah may be another instance of a husband who took a second wife because of barrenness. Regardless, we didn't include polygamy in our video because: A. That is not the ideal of marriage set forth in the Bible. B. It is unlikely every man had multiple wives. C. If a man took a second wife basically there would just be a repeat of the events seen in the video. You asked: “Do you know why men in the O.T. could have more than one wife and it not be considered adultery, as it is declared by Christ to be in the N.T.?” We have not seen a clear prohibition demonstrated from the N.T. In fact, since it needed to be stated that a bishop be “the husband of one wife” it appears that N.T. Christians with multiple wives was not out of the question although they could NOT be leaders in the Church. If you have something we are missing, please share. 6. Your objection that wives ARE possessions: Maybe this is semantics. Our definition of a possession is something that you own, that you can sell. Men are not allowed to sell their wives (not even concubines) to someone else. So, in saying that children today are not bought and sold, you make our point! Children are not possessions, but the parents still have responsibility and guardianship of them. In making a Biblical marriage covenant the guardianship of a daughter is passed to her husband, but she is not his possession that can be re-sold! Slaves, like Rachel and Leah’s handmaids, were bought and sold as possessions until taken as a concubine; they were owned and had no autonomy. The difference from a wife is that a concubine was and is a slave and had no say or autonomy in the process. Ruth also was not purchased. The word there can also just mean “got as a wife” and a couple verses earlier it makes it clear that the land was being bought from BOTH Ruth and Naomi. Ruth is not a possession she is a possessor. The bride-price is a foreign concept to modern America, yet Christ paid a bride price for us. It shows how much He values us. We recommend watching our video on that. 7. Here are some questions we'd like to ask you. Would God be more likely to institute a society, like you described, where a man can “take hold of her and lie with her” and she is forced to be his “wife” and becomes his possession, or one we have set forth where a woman is protected by the judgment and provision of her father and treated as something valuable? Are you objecting to our video because it portrays life under the Law of God (which is called perfect) as a positive thing?

[@mbgodwebsite5272]

In the Old Testament, a man could “take hold of her and lie with her” and she is forced to be his “wife.” That is exactly how it could happen and at times did happen. Marriages (two as one flesh) were never and are never made by saying I do, I promise, any rituals or documents, or betrothals between men. All marriages are made through the sexual intimacy of a male and female. I know you will find this unbelievable, but in the O.T. there was no such thing as “raping a virgin.” When the word “forced” is used it never meant rape. It meant to “violate, humble.” Rape only occurred if a female was already married (sexually) or if the virgin was betrothed. If she was betrothed, it was a crime toward the male to whom she was betrothed, which is why the man was stoned to death. If you “object to these scenarios,” males just taking hold of a female and lying with them doesn't equal marriage, then the leaders of Israel encouraged and promoted rape of the virgin daughters of Israelite fathers by the Benjaminites in Judges 21. Read the whole story. I said, in the Old Testament females were the possessions of males. In a very small nut shell, after the fall in the Garden, the female lost her equal status with the male and was regarded as a male's possession, whether daughter, wife, or slave. Hence, why we see men so dominant in the O.T. Christ and His redemption reestablishes the Christian female, as she was in the beginning, spiritually. She no longer needs a circumcised male, because now “circumcision is of the heart.” I read your article on Betrothals and it is everything I thought it would be. Nothing new. It is pretty much everything Christendom now teaches. Unfortunately there are many errors in it, Biblically, which some of them we are discussing now. 1. I have no objections to the timing. Timing is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a consummation of marriage. It only pertains to a betrothal. It is consummating a betrothal - an agreement where a male made an acquisition of a virgin female for marriage. One does not need a betrothal to be married. Marriage happens at the time a male and female are sexually intimate, so no consummation. No “sex before marriage!” Just as when adultery is committed, an illegitimate marriage is made - no consummation. One cannot commit adultery against a betrothal or vow or a paper saying you are married, because until one is sexually intimate, one has not become one flesh with another. Adultery is being sexual (married) with someone who has already been sexual (married) with someone else. Betrothals were between men. This is why you can't find any examples or allusions to a male and female making a betrothal or vows or agreements to marry between them, whether a virgin, widowed, or divorced. Your whole premise of how you interpret betrothals is on unstable ground just from this fact, let alone the many Biblical examples where marriage occurred without any betrothals. I am not sure what you mean about me believing “feast does not equal celebration?” I never said that or alluded to such an idea. Marriages were celebrated with feasts. However, they were always celebrated after a marriage was made in the bedchamber. They didn't celebrate something that hadn't happened yet. Otherwise, I am not sure as to what you are referring to with this comment. A verbal agreement is a verbal agreement and that is all it is. No two people become “one flesh” by having a verbal agreement. I am not against people having covenants, agreements, or whatever. What I am against is when they are considered, Biblcially, married before God by them. If two people, based upon their sexual history, are not Biblically eligible to be sexually intimate together, then their verbal agreement is awash. Because, no matter what agreement they make, their sexual union will be a fornicated union. Hence, why men in the O.T. only betrothed virgins. And she had better be a virgin when he consummated that betrothal. 2. God used the principles of man's betrothals and marriages as a metaphor when conveying a point to Israel. Just as the church is not the bride of Christ. The church is married to Christ now. However, it is not a husband/wife relationship. It is a relationship of connection like unto the connection of a husband and wife, where she is the husband's body and he her head. We are now the body of Christ and He is the head of the church. NOW, not later! Each believer is a member of His body, now! A bride is married, connected to no one. And to believe that the church is not already married to Christ is to believe that the present and past church is not and has not been the body of Christ on this earth. However, Scripture says otherwise. Don't misconstrue metaphors with actualities. See my article “Marriage, Fornication, and Bride of Christ - Part 1 & Part 2. No doubt it was hate that caused Absalom's vengeance. But what was it that he hated? It was Amnon “forcing Tamar.” The Hebrew word translated “force” means to be “bowed down or afflicted.” Tamar's affliction was because Amnon sent her away no longer a virgin, which now, as long as Amnon was alive, she would be incapable of ever having a husband. That is why she said to Amnon“ sending me away is greater than the other thou didst unto me.” Absalom saw, after two years, that Amnon had deserted her to a life without a husband, which is why he killed him. In doing so, it freed Tamar, because now her husband was dead and she was free for another to marry her as a widow. The same with Shechem and Dinah. Now, regarding the word “desolate.” To declare that the word desolate used in Is. 54:1 means “unmarried” is completely inaccurate. That is your inaccurate presumption. The Hebrew word translated “desolate” used here means “to be desolate (deserted) or appalled.” In Gal. 4:27 reiterating Is.54:1, the Greek word used and translated “desolate” means “solitary, lonely,” not unmarried. The Hebrew word used and translated desolate to describe Tamar's condition in Absalom's house means “devastated,” not unmarried. Furthermore, if Tamar wasn't married to Amnon, why did she constantly stay in Absalom's house and not carry on with hopes of finding another man to marry. Yes, they were wives by covenant. Yes, a covenanted wife was a “betrothed wife.” It is not however a married wife. I know you are referring Mal. 2:14. He is rebuking the priests for their unjust treatment toward their wives. In this statement “the wife of thy covenant,” God is reminding them of how once upon a time you had great affections for her to which they were willing to purchase her for a wife. Remember, priests could only have one virgin wife and no other. The statement “she is thy companion” emphasizes his one flesh joining with her. There is a betrothed wife and there is a married wife. This is why in the story of Joseph and Mary, it never says they were married. It always and only says they were espoused.Why? Joseph had not yet “known” (sexually intimate) Mary, until after Jesus was born. It was then that Joseph “knew” Mary making them married and became one flesh.

[@mbgodwebsite5272]

No, “a valid, consensual covenant” is not needed to make a marriage. This is all of your own making. Scripture contradicts you. Jacob didn't have a consensual covenant for Leah, but he knew once he had been sexually intimate with her in the tent, even unknowingly, he was married to her. Where was his covenant with her? Never existed! Then, he had to make another covenant withLaban to acquire Rachel to marry. Why did he have to do this if he already had a covenant for her. Weren't they already husband and wife, as you imply? Where are the covenants with the Benjaminites, I pointed you to. Yet, they called them their wives? Where are the covenants for any of David's wives, or Solomon's? Where were covenants when a woman was cast away by her husband with a Certificate of Divorce in her hand so “she could become another man's wife?” As I said, your ground is unstable. Your perception and thesis is not Biblically supported, but rather contradicted. My theology is completely supported with no conflict or contradictions. No father could refuse to give his daughter to a man she had been sexually intimate with. They were married and to not give her meant that the father would always have her, because she could never be married to any other. No man would want her, because he would be committing adultery with her if they did. The word give in Ex. 22 does not mean “allow.” If what you say is true, then you have just distorted verse 17 and made it contradictory and out of context. Read it again! There is an “if” condition. The true rendering is “if” the father does not just give (pass her to him with no compensation or an agreed upon amount), her to him, then the man had to pay him the “dowry of the virgins.” However, with your interpretation of “give” would mean that if the father did give her to him, then he would NOT have to pay the dowry! That contradicts verse 16, which says that “he shall surely endow her to be his wife, creating a real conflict. The word “if” is conditional and it doesn't work based upon your supposition. It also contradicts Deut. 22, which says nothing about the giving of his daughter, but everything about having to take her and pay the dowry. The man has to take her, because “he humbled her.” This means he took away her virginity, marrying her, and if he doesn't, she will not ever have a husband, as long as he is alive. According to your thesis, the Scripture would be saying that if the father allows him to have her, he does not have to pay the dowry. You have made the statement conditional upon whether the dowry is paid or not, whereas I make it conditional upon whether the father forfeits the full dowry payment, which does not conflict with or contradict the text, as yours does. Don't assume that the father has no say in whether the man has to pay the full dowry or not. He has the option to do as he pleases. Yes, Shechem was willing to pay Jacob for Dinah, because it was the honorable thing to do, as Scripture makes clear, Shechem was a highly honorable man - even though he didn't have to. They were in his land and country, not in Israel. Can you say that you know if they had not agreed to give him Dinah that he would have not given her back to them? Dinah ventured out to where she did not belong - with the daughters (virgins) of the land without an escort making herself susceptible. Shechem,s defiling of Dinah was not because he took her sexually, but because he was uncircumcised. Everything about this story displays the deceitfulness and evil of the sons of Leah, the same sons who cast away their own half brother, which Dinah was her daughter. I ask you, what was the dowry Jacob agreed to? Circumcision, which turned out to be a lie and a scheme to kill and plunder not only Shechem, but every innocent male in the city, after they all agreed to accept that token of faith God gave to Abraham. This is how honorable Shechem and the other males were rewarded. If they had power to take Dinah and leave, why didn't they just do it, since they implied that they could? Why demand them to be circumcised and then slaughter them all? Just because they said what they did about taking her away doesn't mean it was valid or possible. They knew if they did so, she would never have a husband, because she was no longer a virgin, but married and no other man would or could want her. The only way they could set her free as being Shechem's married wife was for Shechem to be dead. But to kill him alone, they would be up against all the men of the city. So, they had to devise a scheme to weaken all the males and slaughter them all just to remove Dinah. Their statement of taking Dinah and leave was as empty as their covenant of all males being circumcised was. So, no, this is no example of your betrothals. Just as Laban's original betrothal of Rachel to Jacob was a sham and deceptive. Gomer was not a harlot when Hosea married her. This is not an accurate interpretation and I write about it in my article “God Told Hosea To Do What?” There is way too much for me to sayto defend this fact in this discourse. Yes, Rahab was a harlot. However, when she converted to being a follower of Israel she was then afforded an opportunity within the Mosaic Law that redeemed her of her harlotry. “And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him” Num.15:27&28 Now,I say, given all the above, your emphasis on a betrothal being necessary to make a marriage is not reasonable or Biblical. In fact, you are at odds with the Apostle Paul. For he stated in 1Cor. 7:34 “There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The UNMARRIED woman careth for..., but she that is MARRIED careth for...” According to you, a virgin is married and a wife when betrothed, correct? Not according to Paul. What Paul only alludes to as to what makes a woman married or unmarried is her sexual experience/history and nothing more - NO BETROTHALS!!! It can't be any clearer than this. Sexual intimacy makes a marriage.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

Like the female actually had any choice😄😄😄 they also left out the bit about the father witnessing the first sex act and the Bloody sheet

[@betrothalguys]

There are multiple indications that in Israel, the bride had choice in the matter of her marriage. Righteous Abraham told his servant he would be released from bringing a bride for Isaac if she was not willing. The picture of Christ and the church is that He first loved us and woos us until we as the bride choose Him. The bloody cloth (Deuteronomy 22) is mentioned in the side text of the video at 4:00. There is no biblical statement that anyone witnessed the first sex act. Traditions indicate that either a midwife would "open" the bride with a cloth just before the wedding celebration or that the cloth was handed out of the bride chamber by the couple. In the middle ages, some kings and princes did have their "beddings" witnessed, but that practice is not found in the Bible, nor does it appear that it was widely practiced in the ancient world.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

@@betrothalguys let's be real. It was about power and land and money. You know good and well that when push came to shove the men had the say in the matter. This persisted even up through the 1800s just about everywhere.

[@betrothalguys]

@@TJ-kk5zf There were certainly individual cases that abused the intent of marriage. Yet God chose the joy of a bride as the example of what we as His people will experience. If brides were generally unwilling or even just making the best of necessity, this is a terrible comparison. The only thing that makes sense is that the rule was brides being willing and happy with their marriages despite the occasional abusive exception. One entire book of the Bible is about the love and happiness of bride and groom coming together and that was clearly the expected norm.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

@@betrothalguys but I've also lived in reality long enough, and I know what it was like 150 years ago for women so I sure as a world know what it was like 2000 years ago. She would have also been a little girl, unable to make intelligent consent to get married. You can dress it up any way you want, but the ancient marriage tradition was barbaric and horrible for women. We still see these very things in the Middle East. I might also note that this is the same God who allowed the Israelites to keep the Canaanite women, read, little girls, for sex slaves.

[@betrothalguys]

@@TJ-kk5zf If you deny the God of the Bible is righteous, just and good, then it is unlikely you are willing to see or be swayed by His word. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests little girls should be, or were, getting married. The only exact age we have of a woman in the Bible is Sarah and it doesn't tell us how old she was when she married. The modern middle east's betrothal practices also have a severe difference between Islam and the Judeo-Christian cultures such as the conservative Jews. Those who do not seek to serve the God of Israel practice many abuses. Those who follow God's law and seek His heart, have a much different betrothal practice. One that may be strange to our western mindset, but hardly is the horrible abuse you are making it out to be. God never allowed the keeping of sex slaves. Only within marriage was sex ever allowed by God. Israel was required by God's law to seek a peaceful solution and only to go to war if the enemy nation persisted. The reality of war is that many men will be killed, leaving "extra" women who will not have a natural protector in husband or father. The women who necessarily ended up without men because of the war were taken captive by Israel and were to be cared for and not abused. (To leave them behind without protectors to inevitably become prey to wicked men from surrounding nations would have been cruel!) Under strict regulation to prevent abuse, a captured woman could be taken as a wife, but again there is no statute saying it is allowed even against her will. Social factors (it would be hard to make a living for herself in the ancient world) certainly would play into her decision, but that is a far cry from permitting forceful rape of sex slaves.