Sunday, January 25, 2026

Ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony: “No man knows the day or hour, only the Father”

 The Ancient Jewish Marriage Rite: A Detailed Exposition of Betrothal, Preparation, and Consummation

Dr. Maxwell Shimba

Shimba Theological Institute

Within the cultural and religious framework of ancient Judaism, the institution of marriage was a meticulously structured covenant, rich with symbolic action and profound theological implication. The process, far more elaborate than a single ceremony, unfolded in distinct, legally and ritually significant stages, creating a powerful narrative of commitment, expectation, and union. This exposition delineates the traditional sequence, from initial arrangement to final celebration, as understood in the historical context of the Second Temple period and its surrounding centuries.

The foundation of a marriage was typically established not by the couple alone, but within the broader familial and social structure. It was customary for parents, with particular authority vested in the father of the prospective groom, to initiate and arrange the union. This practice finds resonance in scriptural injunction, such as that recorded in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, where the divine exhortation is given: "Take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands" (Jeremiah 29:6). Upon the identification of a suitable bride, the young man, aspirant to the role of bridegroom, would undertake a solemn journey to the dwelling of the bride and her family. His approach was marked by four tangible tokens of his serious intent: a skin of wine, a substantial monetary sum known as the mohar (commonly referred to as the bride-price), an assortment of gifts intended for the bride herself, and a meticulously composed marriage contract termed the ketubah. The arrival of a suitor bearing these items rendered his purposes transparent and formal.

The initial encounter was one of negotiation and covenant. The parents of the maiden would be formally summoned, and the suitor would seek their express permission to pursue their daughter’s hand. Should their consent be granted, the bride would be presented. At this pivotal moment, the ritual moved to its first libation. The hopeful bridegroom would pour a cup of wine, specifically designated the “cup of betrothal” or the cup of covenant, and present it to the young woman. Her acceptance of this cup—consuming the wine set before her—constituted her affirmative response to the proposal. This act was not a casual promise but a legally binding commitment. Upon her drinking of the cup, the state of betrothal (erusin or kiddushin) was immediately and irrevocably established. The contractual phase of the marriage was thereby initiated.

Following this solemn acceptance, the stipulated mohar was transferred to the bride’s parents, formalizing the economic aspect of the covenant. Subsequently, the ketubah was executed. This document was far more than a simple contract; it was a legally binding instrument detailing the groom’s solemn pledges and responsibilities toward his bride, most notably his unwavering commitment to provide for her material welfare and protection throughout their lives. The signing of the ketubah solidified a legal marriage bond. It is critical to understand that from this point forward, the betrothed couple were considered legally husband and wife. Dissolution of this bond could only be achieved through a formal divorce (get), despite the fact that cohabitation and the full physical expression of the marriage had not yet commenced. This legal nuance illuminates the New Testament account of Joseph and Mary, who are described as being “betrothed” at the time of Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus. They existed in a state of complete legal matrimony, awaiting only the final stage of the wedding process to commence their life together in one household.

Having established the covenant, the bridegroom would then bestow upon his bride the gifts he had brought, which served as a tangible pledge of his fidelity and a foreshadowing of his eventual return. His subsequent departure was a necessary and expected phase of the custom. He would leave his bride at her father’s house and return to his own paternal home. His primary mission during this interval was to prepare a dwelling place for his new bride, most specifically to construct or substantially adorn a bridal chamber, known as the chuppah, within or adjacent to his father’s estate. This chamber was intended as the sanctuary for the second and culminating act of the wedding: the consummation.

The duration of the bridegroom’s absence was indeterminate and subject to a single authority. The task of preparing the chamber was undertaken with diligence, but its completion and suitability rested not with the bridegroom’s own assessment. The final approval belonged exclusively to his father. Only when the father had inspected the accommodations and deemed them fully satisfactory, complete, and worthy of his son’s bride would he grant his son permission to depart and retrieve her. This patriarchal prerogative gave rise to a common idiom within the culture regarding the uncertainty of the bridegroom’s return: “no man knows the day or hour, only the father.” For a contemporary Jewish audience, this phrase carried immediate and specific connotations—it directly referenced the imminent, yet unpredictable, moment when the bridegroom would go to retrieve his bride.

Meanwhile, the bride entered a period of vigilant anticipation and preparation. From the moment of her betrothal, her status in the community was transformed. She was considered set apart, consecrated to one man. In public, she would often be veiled, a visible symbol of her new identity and sequestration, embodying the principle articulated in the apostolic writings: “not [her] own, [she was] bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Her days were spent in readying herself for her future life, often by sewing and embroidering her own wedding garments, ensuring that she would be prepared for the sudden summons that could come at any moment. She lived in a state of constant expectation, perpetually watchful for the signs of her bridegroom’s approach.

When the father of the groom at last signaled his satisfaction, typically within a year of the betrothal, the climactic events were set in motion. The return was never a private affair but a communal celebration heralded with great festivity. The bridegroom’s close friends, acting as his attendants, would sound the shofar (a ram’s horn trumpet) and proceed through the streets of the town, proclaiming jubilantly, “Behold the bridegroom cometh!” This announcement served as the final, public warning of the imminent procession. The bridegroom, accompanied by his retinue of friends and torchbearers, would then form a joyous and noisy procession leading from his home to the house of the bride. This journey frequently occurred at midnight, enhancing the drama and suddenness of the event. The arrival at the bride’s home and the subsequent “abduction” of the bride from her family was a customary and expected element of the ritual, a symbolic act of claiming his own. It is from this cultural practice that the metaphor of the bridegroom as “the thief in the night” derives its meaning—his coming was sudden, at an unknown hour, requiring the bride to be in a perpetual state of prepared readiness.

The conveyance of the bride from her paternal home to her new dwelling was a ceremonial transition of great importance. She would be placed in a palanquin, a covered litter, which would be borne aloft on the shoulders of four men. This procession, known as the nissuin (the “taking” or “elevation”), represented her formal translation into the household and lineage of her husband. The way was illuminated by a procession of ten virgins, each carrying tall, brightly burning torches, casting light on the path and symbolizing purity and celebration. The entire company would wind its way back to the bridegroom’s father’s house, culminating at the entrance to the prepared bridal chamber.

At this threshold, the second cardinal ritual libation was performed. The couple would share the “cup of consummation,” a cup of wine that sealed and celebrated the commencement of their physical union. Having drunk from this cup, the bride and groom would then enter the chuppah, the bridal chamber, and remain there in seclusion for a period of seven days. This week-long interval was dedicated solely to the consummation of the marriage, a time of intimate communion and joy, sheltered from public view. Throughout these seven days, the wedding guests would celebrate in the home, awaiting the couple’s emergence.

Finally, upon the completion of this sacred week of seclusion, the friends of the bridegroom would take their place at the door of the chamber. As the couple prepared to step forth, these attendants would announce their emergence to the assembled family and the multitude of guests who had gathered and waited in anticipation. This announcement signaled the commencement of the grand and celebratory wedding feast, a week-long festival of food, wine, and rejoicing that marked the full, public inauguration of the couple’s new life together as a fully united household.

Thursday, January 22, 2026

Why did Jesus say, "No one knows the day or the hour, only the Father"?

Why did Jesus say, "My Father is Greater than I?

Muslim Women wearing perfume is haram and makes you a prostitute

The Islamic claim that Jesus, Isa bin Maryam, practiced Islam is FAKE an...

Jesus Christ, True Worship, and the Problem of Mechanical Religion

 

Ritual or Relationship?

Jesus Christ, True Worship, and the Problem of Mechanical Religion

By Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute


One of the clearest distinctions between the teaching of Jesus Christ and later ritualistic religious systems lies in the very definition of worship itself. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of the Most High God, did not institute a choreographed, bodily ritual as the essence of devotion. Instead, He consistently redirected worship away from outward performance and toward inward transformation.

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explicitly warned against empty, repetitive prayer: “When you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the pagans do” (Matthew 6:7). He further instructed His followers to pray privately rather than publicly, emphasizing sincerity over spectacle: “When you pray, go into your room, shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret” (Matthew 6:6). The prayer He taught begins not with formulaic postures but with intimate relationship—“Our Father” (Matthew 6:9).

This theology of worship centers on the heart, not the body; on obedience, not performance; on transformation, not display.

The Rise of Mechanical Worship

Seven centuries after Christ, a rigid system of ritual prayer—Salah—emerged within Islam. This practice mandates specific bodily movements (standing, bowing, prostrating), precise verbal recitations, fixed times, and a mandatory geographic orientation toward Mecca. While Muslims regard this system as an act of devotion, from a biblical and theological perspective it raises a fundamental question: Can mechanical ritual substitute for moral transformation?

Jesus directly addressed this issue when He warned against religious performance designed for public recognition: “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others” (Matthew 6:5). Worship that becomes public theater—especially when used to signal religious superiority—misses the very essence of what God desires.

The prophet Isaiah captured this problem centuries earlier:
“These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me” (Isaiah 29:13).

Can Ritual Erase Moral Failure?

Perhaps the most troubling theological claim within some strands of Islamic teaching is the idea that ritual prayer itself can erase even the gravest moral offenses. According to this framework, a person may commit serious sins—violence, dishonesty, injustice—and then perform the prescribed prayers correctly, thereby securing forgiveness.

This concept stands in stark contrast to biblical theology.

Scripture never teaches that bodily posture or verbal precision can cleanse moral corruption. Instead, God demands repentance, justice, and a transformed life:
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:1–2).

Forgiveness in the biblical worldview is never detached from repentance, accountability, and ethical change. Ritual without righteousness is meaningless.

True Worship According to Jesus

Jesus summarized authentic devotion in unmistakable terms:
“God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

True worship is not measured by the number of bows, prostrations, or public demonstrations of piety. It is measured by mercy, humility, obedience, love, and moral integrity. Jesus consistently emphasized care for the poor, forgiveness, self-sacrifice, and holiness of life—not ritual performance.

Christian worship, therefore, is not choreography. It is transformation.

Conclusion

God is not impressed by repetition, posture, or public display. He seeks hearts renewed, lives changed, and righteousness practiced. Any religious system that reduces forgiveness to physical movements or verbal formulas—while leaving the heart untouched—fails to meet the standard of true worship revealed in Jesus Christ.

If one truly seeks closeness with God, the path is not through mechanical ritual, but through repentance, obedience, love, mercy, and faith grounded in truth. Only a transformed heart defines authentic worship.

Islam asserts Jesus was Muslim—but the Quran does not demonstrate it

 

FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS (TEXTUAL SILENCE)

  1. Where in the Quran is Jesus (ʿĪsā) shown performing salat in the Islamic form—with rukūʿ (bowing), sujūd (prostration), and tashahhud?

    • No verse.

  2. Where does the Quran say Jesus faced the Kaaba in Mecca when praying?

    • No verse.

    • Qibla toward Mecca was commanded only to Muhammad (Quran 2:144).

  3. Where does the Quran state that Jesus fasted Ramadan?

    • No verse.

    • Ramadan fasting is commanded only in Quran 2:183, centuries after Jesus.

  4. Where does the Quran say Jesus kept Islamic dietary laws (halal/haram meat regulations)?

    • No verse.

  5. Where does the Quran say Jesus performed wudu (ablution) before prayer?

    • No verse.

    • Wudu is legislated in Quran 5:6, again for Muhammad’s community.


HISTORICAL & LOGICAL QUESTIONS

  1. If Jesus was a Muslim in the Muhammadic sense, why did Allah wait 600 years to reveal how Jesus supposedly prayed, fasted, and worshiped?

  2. Why does the Quran never command Muslims to pray “the prayer of Jesus”?

  3. Why does the Quran never say: “Pray as Jesus prayed”?

  4. If Islamic prayer is eternal, why is it absent from all prophets before Muhammad in Quranic detail?

  5. How could Jesus practice Islam when Islam’s legal system (Sharia) did not yet exist?


CHRISTOLOGICAL QUESTIONS (QURAN VS ISLAMIC CLAIMS)

  1. Why does the Quran call Jesus “Kalimatullah” (Word of God) (Quran 4:171) — a title never given to Muhammad?

  2. Why is Jesus called “Rūḥun minhu” (a Spirit from Him) while Muhammad is not?

  3. Why was Jesus born of a virgin (Quran 19:19–21), yet Muhammad was not—if both were merely “Muslims”?

  4. Why does Jesus create life from clay by Allah’s permission (Quran 3:49), an act reserved for God alone in the Old Testament?

  5. Why does Jesus speak as a baby (Quran 19:30) but Muhammad does not—even though Muhammad is said to be the final and greatest prophet?


WORSHIP & AUTHORITY QUESTIONS

  1. Why does the Quran never record Jesus commanding people to follow Muhammad?

  2. Why does Jesus say, “I am a servant of Allah” (Quran 19:30) but also performs divine acts?

  3. Why does the Quran never accuse Jesus of shirk, yet repeatedly accuses Jews and Christians?

  4. Why does Allah defend Jesus against accusations (Quran 4:157–158) but not Muhammad in the same miraculous way?

  5. Why is Jesus alive with Allah (Quran 4:158) while Muhammad is dead and buried?


CLOTHING, CULTURE & RETROACTIVE PROJECTION

  1. Where does the Quran describe Jesus wearing Islamic clothing (thawb, kufi, turban)?

  • No verse.

  1. Is dressing like Arabs from the 7th century equal to obeying God—or is that cultural imitation?

  2. Why do Muslims project Arab culture backward onto a 1st-century Jewish Messiah?

  3. If Jesus was a Muslim, why does the Quran never call his followers “Muslims” during his lifetime?


FINAL LOGICAL QUESTIONS (THE CORE ISSUE)

  1. If Jesus practiced Islam exactly as Muhammad taught it, why is the Quran silent about it?

  2. Is Islam claiming continuity—or rewriting history?

  3. Is Jesus being honored—or absorbed and redefined to validate a later religion?

  4. If Islam is the original religion, why does it need to retrofit Jesus into Muhammad’s system instead of deriving Muhammad from Jesus?

  5. Why does the Quran affirm the Torah and Gospel (Quran 5:46–47) yet contradict their central message about Jesus?

  6. If Jesus never prayed like a Muslim, fasted Ramadan, faced Mecca, or followed Sharia—on what basis is he called a Muslim?


CONCLUSION (IMPLICIT, NOT ASSERTED)

Islam asserts Jesus was Muslim—but the Quran does not demonstrate it.
What Islam provides is theological assertion without historical or textual evidence.

Ancient Jewish Wedding Ceremony: “No man knows the day or hour, only the Father”

  The Ancient Jewish Marriage Rite: A Detailed Exposition of Betrothal, Preparation, and Consummation Dr. Maxwell Shimba Shimba Theological ...

TRENDING NOW