What's the difference between "betrothal" and "engagement?"

Is there a difference between being "engaged" and being "betrothed?" Find the answer in this video. Are you searching for a Biblical approach to matrimony? Subscribe to see future betrothal-related videos and leave a comment with your question you want to see answered!
#biblehistory #getmarried #christianmarriageadvice #betrothalguys
Betrothal Q&A Playlist:
• Betrothal Q&A
Facebook Page:
/ betrothalguys
Instagram:
/ betrothalguys
Website:
betrothalandwed...

[@jamesharris37]

I know a woman who was not married to her boyfriend, but she kept bragging and bringing to my attention that she lived with him and was bragging about going on her honeymoon with him. Both bragged about being Christians. He later proposed to her and she said "Yes". Since she kept on bragging about it all and bringing it to my attention, I asked her if she was married and she said "No". Two months later, they broke up. In the eyes of God, would they be considered divorced?

[@betrothalguys]

The father of a woman who has slept with a man can refuse to give his daughter to that man in marriage. So in the case you describe, we would need to know what her father has done as well. However, given that it sounds like they were only engaged and not betrothed, I believe that they would not be divorced despite their fornication together. Certainly there is plenty of wrongdoing in the situation, and to be righteous, the man should probably seek to marry her, but since it seems like he has not yet married her, they would not be considered divorced at this point.

[@jamesbeardsley9406]

thank you your explanation help me understand what the difference between the two were it makes it easier for me to understand why it was such a big deal when a woman came pregnant while being betrothed.

[@betrothalguys]

Glad you found it informative!

[@gracesolomon7552]

So true. Betrothal is the first covenant agreement before God by both spouses and God recognizes the union as sealed even before public ceremony. It could be arranged by parents of the couple in advance before they are mature to live together. It means once betrothed they are not permitted to marry another, except one party default in covenant ( like Mary pregnant and not by her betrothed husband), then can be put away( term for those already married and divorcing). The holy spirit told Joseph to take in Mary to live with him as wife so he's seen as responsible for the pregnancy, as he's the only one with such right as betrothed husband. The original Jewish culture is the culture of heaven if rightly interpreted with the intent of God.

[@betrothalguys]

Thanks for the comment and questions! There are quite a few factors that might play into the situation you describe. Feel free to email us from our contact form betrothalandwedding.com/contact if you want a more person-to-person answer. 1. I would agree that a promise made before witnesses and a promise made privately are both promises in the eyes of God (who sees either way.) 2. I would agree that marrying someone who is currently betrothed to someone else is adultery as Matthew 5 and 19 indicate. 3. I think you are wrong to limit Numbers 30 in this way. The passage is specifically about "men" and "women" in Hebrew, not children. The Hebrew word for "youth" there when used of the feminine gender is associated with virginity and never having been married moreso than a specific age. I would think that her father, unless he has fully disinherited her, would have the authority to annul her vow/promise when he is told about it. 4. Many people call things "betrothal" that are actually only engagement. A betrothal is a statement that amounts to, "I am your husband/wife now" while an engagement is a promise about the future that amounts to, "I will become your husband/wife someday." If this is the case here, there is still a promise and she should ask release from the man (or get her father to annul it) so as not to be guilty of breaking her word, but adultery is not at stake. 5. If the man who left her is an unbeliever, it is possible that 1 Corinthians 7: 12-15 is applicable. This section is written "to the rest" (which is those who are betrothed) and says that if the non-believer departs, the believer is not under bondage. I read this as release to marry another given the context later in verses 25-28 where a virgin man who has been released from a wife (e.g. a release during betrothal) "has not sinned" when he marries another. 6. This is not as clearly stated in scripture, but I also think that if a believer abandons a betrothal and will not return when reprimanded, (See Matthew 18: 15-17) he would ultimately be counted as a heathen and as such I believe the abandonment release of 1 Corinthians 7 would apply as well. Ultimately, you are on the right track when you say that you are praying. There are enough factors that often only God knows the answer to a tricky question, but He can reveal it to you! Seek Him and His wisdom and submit yourselves to whatever answer He gives. May you be blessed! -Joshua

[@cedricvaz6112]

Thanks guys for the nice explanation which I would call more of a clarification between the two terms. Bethrotal is a Jewish concept and Engagement is a Christian thing. After weighing the pros and cons of both my vote is definitely for the Jewish one. Looks more complete and makes a lot more sense as it treats the marriage covenant or contract very seriously unlike the Christian one. By the way I am a Roman Catholic which is as good as Christian. Thanks once again. 😊

[@betrothalguys]

We would call it the Biblical concept rather than the Jewish one. Modern Judaism now does the same as modern Christians and has the betrothal and wedding feast on the same day. In the past, both Christians and Jews practiced a longer period of virgin betrothal, but this was changed in the middle ages to only allow making marriage covenants (that had previously been made at the time of betrothal) on the same day as the consummation. The Council of Trent was when betrothal ("sponsalia de presenti") was forbidden until the wedding day and only engagement ("sponsalia de futuro") which they now call "betrothal" was allowed going forward.

[@ashleykeith4064]

Roman catholicsm has bethrotal ceremony

[@betrothalguys]

@@ashleykeith4064 The Bible teaches betrothal is the point when the couple become husband and wife. The Catholics have a ceremony that is, in name, a "betrothal." However in it they merely promise to become husband and wife in the future. (Which is technically engagement.) In history, Catholics used to follow the biblical model, but over time the "sponsalia de futuro" a breakable engagement, became common as an alternative to "sponsalia de praesenti" betrothal. At the Council of Trent, it was codified that only "sponsalia de futuro" would be allowed and "sponsalia de praesenti" could only be promised on the day the couple was to consummate their marriage. This led to the modern "sponsalia de futuro" to be called "betrothal," even though it no longer matches the biblical examples of betrothal.

[@LorenSuJa]

Eeeerm... In judaism a bethrotal comes WITH a contract(called "Ketoobah",please research properly)...hehe...a VERY BINDING CONTRACT...if canceled,the man HAS to fullfill certain statutes without fail,even todays day... This happens before the actual wedding, even MONTHS in advance... A bethroted is considered a huband/wife agreement from the get go...

[@betrothalguys]

It is true that for a long time Judaism has required a ketubah for a betrothal. (The Talmud places that ruling as having been enacted in the second century BCE.) However, this video is intended to share what the Bible teaches in regard to betrothal without adding in the traditions of Judaism. The other items you raised, that a betrothal makes the couple husband and wife and that it can be months in advance of the wedding feast and consummation, are found in the Bible as well as in Judaic tradition. We explore some of these topics further in our other videos such as "At What Point is a Betrothal Binding" kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGbMnqWQgM6oqLc and "Betrothal and Marriage in the Time of the Bible" kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWeuiat-msSXpLM if you are interested.

[@gracesolomon7552]

@@betrothalguys The comment on ketuba is still not wrong or contradict bible. Theirs might require physical contract,but God also sees that union as signed contract before him. Which is greater,a vow before God or the one documented in paper? The consequences God mets to any who breaks a betrothal vow should be greater than the Jewish law states. Betrothal is a serious contract before God. That's why even a child can be betrothed and the husband or his family takes responsibility of the child from then,knowing they are one family already. Just like Tamar of Judah had right to all male in that family and God fought for her when she was denied her right. God marriage standard is different from current world standard of marriage. That's why he said,in the kingdom of God there is no marriage ( world's standard) or giving in marriage ( their standard of engagement). The kingdom is all about marriage,but the standard of heaven. Back to God

[@JonathanK-m8j]

In my country, engagement has a few elements similar with betrothal: before the man asks the girl if she wants to marry him, he asks her father first, if the father gives the blessing, then the man asks the girl if she will marry him. If she accepts he will give her a ring and then they start planing for the wedding. Having this elements similar with betrothal, do you think is the engagement has the same binding power as betrothal or they are two completly different things?

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@JonathanK-m8j]

@@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.

[@betrothalguys]

@@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.

[@bobbyo1760]

Great video! It might just be me but it seems like the audio is really low on this one

[@betrothalguys]

Thanks for the feedback. We are trying to ensure future videos have better audio.

[@Kefalonia31]

What about if an engaged couple did some sexual sin(not really the act) and now they want to break up. Are they “married” because of that? Or would it be adultery if they went and got married to other people?

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@tialynjordan6088]

Yup yup

[@amkr186]

This is very valuable. Thank you!

[@tialynjordan6088]

Amen

[@grethe1952]

What makes an bethrotal a bethrotal? Legally sending in a certificate? Witnesses? The womans father agreement to it? Would you as a woman be living in sin if married to a man who has been engaged before? With or withour legal certificate of engagement? Or what are the criterias for lawfull marriage in your eyes?

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@Andrew-tm5yl]

@@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?

[@betrothalguys]

@@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.

[@gracesolomon7552]

@@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.

[@tialynjordan6088]

2022😘

[@tialynjordan6088]

COMMANDS SUBMIT CALLING EACHOTHER HYSBAND N WIFE

[@lordskorpion7769]

Is there anyone that would maybe wanna talk...?

[@betrothalguys]

We're happy to help in any way we can. Feel free to message us on our Betrothal Guys Facebook Page or send us an email via the contact form on betrothalandwedding.com

[@tialynjordan6088]

SANFORD PROPOSED TWICE 2013 N 2015

[@tialynjordan6088]

DATE??

[@tialynjordan6088]

2023 still SANFORD N TIALYN

[@tialynjordan6088]

HE SAID IT AGAIN THIS WEEK I AM YOUR HUSBAND

[@Godsgift2mee]

What if you you were dating someone and spoke about the future or even said “one day we will come back together “ speaking hopefully or even really believing it ... are you betrothed to that person ?

[@betrothalguys]

Thanks for the question! In the scenario it sounds more like the person made a prediction rather than a promise. Predicting that you will marry someone, would not be a betrothal, marriage or even an engagement. The prediction may turn out to be true or false, but it isn't a promise. If it was a promise, however, an important point of difference between betrothal and engagement, is whether the statement refers to the present or the future. Saying, "I do take you as my husband/wife," is a betrothal (if reciprocated and the woman's vow is not annulled.) Saying, "I will take you as my wife one day," is an engagement. While breaking an engagement is still usually breaking one's word (a sin), it isn't adultery which is what breaking off a betrothal and marrying another person would be. To have a betrothal: 1. The woman needs her father's active or passive permission. 2. The woman needs to say she accepts the man as her husband now (not future.) 3. The man needs to say he accepts the woman as his wife now (not future.) Consider a marriage pact, where two people promise to marry each other if they reach a certain age and are still both single. Are they betrothed? No. Are they engaged? Trickier, but still we would say no. At least not until they reach the agreed upon age. At that point, since they have given their word to marry each other, they are engaged, but since they still have not kept that word they are not betrothed. Once they both say, "I take you as my husband/wife," they would be betrothed, but not until then. Ran a little long here, but we hope that answers your question!

[@Godsgift2mee]

@@betrothalguys thank you sooo much ! That was very well explained. It’s sad but true that I’ve been soooo anxious wondering if I had accidentally became betrothed to someone due to at the time being in strong like or whatever as a young adult and even teen. It got to the point that even now I stress wondering if even idle words I spoke when I was 6 and married a boy on the playground counted as a true covenant in Gods eyes because my then 6 year old self probably believed I was married (which at 6 I probably equated marriage as just having a boyfriend 🤦🏻‍♀️)

[@Godsgift2mee]

I know my scenario mentioned is silly but what would that be considered ? A child hood wedding /marriage of the kids believed it ? Are they then betrothed although not being fully aware mentally what they were doing at that young age ?

[@betrothalguys]

@@Godsgift2mee Can a child make a valid covenant at all? Galatians 4:1 indicates that a child does not differ from a slave while he is not yet of age. It doesn't seem logical to believe that a child can make a valid vow any more than a slave could have in the ancient world. Thus, I don't think scripture supports the idea that children could accidentally betroth themselves.

[@Kefalonia31]

As someone Said, in my language we say “do you want to be my wife” thinking about the future, and the answer is “yes”. So it’s not a promise. At that point in time it’s what I wanted, to marry that person(someday). But we don’t say “do you want to be my wife in the future” because we only have that option, I mean the past is not possible, and we don’t ge married on the spot. What do you think about that? Is that breaking someone’s promise, if they break up then? What about if you find out your fiancée wants to do something that is considered a sin by many Christian’s but it’s not stated in the Bible. What would it be better? To stay and not break your word(if that counts) and maybe live in sin(according to some Christians), or break your engagement?

[@tialynjordan6088]

2021💋

[@ActionJackson334]

Is being betrothed still popular today?

[@betrothalguys]

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.

[@Kefalonia31]

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

[@betrothalguys]

@@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?

[@Kefalonia31]

@@betrothalguys Yes. Thank you!!

[@tialynjordan6088]

SANFORD ALWAYS SAY I AM YOUR HUSBAND N YOU ARE MY WIFE LOL

[@tialynjordan6088]

Amen me n Sanford betrothed

[@tialynjordan6088]

I BETROTHED TO HIM SINCE HE PROPOSED LOL JULY 13 2013 N MAY 19 2015 HMMM

[@tialynjordan6088]

COMMITM SINCE 2011 LOL

[@annaatthepiano9884]

Great explanation, but i kept thinking how dirty your facial hair would be when you ate. I felt sick in my stomach constantly, but anyway great video!

[@penttimuhli9442]

So you would say the same about Jesus then as he had a beard ?