What constitutes a Biblical marriage?

What constitutes a Biblical marriage?

Are these people married in the eyes of God? Has God bound these satan worshippers together in holy matrimony?

Example #1

The minister was, and is, a false convert. It was found out later that he was living a life of complete evil…drugs, adultery and abuse…you name it he was doing it. He had many deceived.

The bride is a professing atheist.

The groom was on drugs during the ceremony and does not remember say “I do”, or even hearing any of the statements.

They got married to qualify for a trip to Mexico that was for married couples only.

Example #2

The Vegas Marriage

Preacher got his license from the back of a Rolling Stone magazine and has never professed Christ. (He dresses like Elvis)

Bride and Groom never went to Church and have lived their lives devoted to the work of satan

Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:Matthew 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Is the marriage vow more important to take than the very words of Christ? Sometimes traditions overrides the word of God.

Have you ever wondered WHY Jesus said those words? Is it because he understood human nature? Was he thinking of Israel’s history – like what they promised at Mt. Sinai, after Moses gave the commandments: Everything the Lord said, we will do’ or after Joshua read the law : < i> “Whatever you have commanded us we will do.” Josh. 1: 16
Joshua, essentially said, Right!!! Oh, sure!!! when he told them: “You are NOT ABLE to serve the Lord.” But the people said, “NO, we WILL serve the Lord.” Josh. 24

You know the story! Can we expect those in our highly dysfunctional, messed up culture to do better than the Israelites?!

When I see the lovely young couples standing at the alter making their wedding vows in a church full of happy people, my heart always grieves. I know that these young folk have no idea of what’s ahead. They have no idea of what they CAN do and CAN’T do. Like most of us, when we were young, they think they can manage life. They have yet to face the reality that, just maybe they CAN’T keep their vows, and they CAN’T make their spouse keep them, and they can't make their marriage happy, let along change their hair color: "And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black." Matt 5:36 (Okay, maybe that's not the best illustration for our culture - but you get the point!)

In spite of our horrendous statistics re marriages, etc our culture continues to play a game by rules (vows, hopes) it CAN’T keep. I call this gross denial. And when we Christians expect more of people than they can do, we are no better. We are playing by the same useless rules.

So why did Jesus say that it is EVIL to make vows beyond the simple yes and no. Is it because that sets people up to live a lie, or to think they can control their future, or trust in something besides God

Thankfully Christ knows that we are totally incapable of managing life, keeping vows, and keeping the law. That’s why we need the new life he has offered us. Why would we insist on anything else?

Diane

tjservant wrote:
What constitutes a Biblical marriage?

Are these people married in the eyes of God? Has God bound these satan worshippers together in holy matrimony?

Example #1

The minister was, and is, a false convert. It was found out later that he was living a life of complete evil…drugs, adultery and abuse…you name it he was doing it. He had many deceived.

The bride is a professing atheist.

The groom was on drugs during the ceremony and does not remember say “I do”, or even hearing any of the statements.

They got married to qualify for a trip to Mexico that was for married couples only.

Example #2

The Vegas Marriage

Preacher got his license from the back of a Rolling Stone magazine and has never professed Christ. (He dresses like Elvis)

Bride and Groom never went to Church and have lived their lives devoted to the work of satan

Hi TJ,

I'd say those people are married. The Bible is full of cases were there are people that weren't following God, but it still says they were husband and wife.

Ahab and Jezebel are examples of this. Even though they were idolaters they were still married.

If you think the people that in the two examples you gave should get remarried or married for really, then all those who marry before coming to Christ should.

Jordan

TJ,

I forgot to give you this sermon link,

http://www.charityministries.org/msg_detail.a5w?vlast_index=2913

If I got the right one, this talks about the definition of a marriage and talks about the question you asked.

Blessings,
Jordan

I'd say those people are married.

So a man that is a confirmed satan worshipper can perform a marriage that God views as good, just, and binding?

If the minister doesn’t matter…what does?

I thought I should say a few things to clarify my reasoning for asking such questions. I am not looking for excuses or trying to find reasons to permit ungodly actions.

I have often faced questioning at work or different locations about the topic of marriage and it seems that many people attribute the Godliness of their minister to their marriage. This is from the same crowd that thinks they are saved because they are members of the Church.

It got me to thinking about some of the situations I have seen or heard about in my life. I am simply looking for the insight of others.

I have heard that the whole idea of a minister performing a marriage is residue from Catholic priesthood. Does anyone know if this is true?
What do people here think of marriages that are recorded in a family bible, but do not use a state license?
I think everyone agrees that what a marriage should be is an agreement between two individuals to live their lives together as a new family. This agreement should be made before God, their families, and everyone else.
But what do we think of marriages that aren't as they should? Like the examples tjservant mentioned?
Well I think that a person should be completely aware of the fact they are getting married (ie: not drugged up). They should also get married for the sake of being married (not for some other reason like a discount cruise as in the example). But a man and a woman who enter a marriage together, aware of what they are doing, for the purpose of starting a family (even if a 2-person family) then they are married. Otherwise we wouldn't have the question of newly saved women leaving or staying with their husbands.

I believe both examples are real marriages.

In the first example, if you groom did not want to get married or know about it, I would say it is not a marriage. As you stated it though, he wanted to get married and agreed to it.

The motives for getting married don't affect whether it is a marriage or not. If it did, hardly any non-believers would be truly married.

The minister doesn't matter at all in my opinion. I don't believe you need a minister at all.

I believe the bare essential of a Biblical marriage is this:

***
If a man and a woman both agree to be married, then they are married at a time they both agree upon.
***

That is the [b]bare necessity[/b] of marriage. I believe God will recognize any marriage that has this component. The ceremony, the minister, the approval and recognition of the government, family and friends - these are all secondary things. Let me give some examples which I believe are all marriages in the sight of God.

Example #3

Two people are planning on getting married on June 20th. They are on a plane together on June 19th when the plane crashes in the middle of the ocean. By the grace of God they survive and end up on an island. The islanders don't speak English. There is little of hope of getting off the island anytime soon. With just a private ceremony between the two of them and without the knowledge of the islanders, the government, the family or friends, the two people take each other in marriage as planned on June 20th.

Example #4

Two atheists of different race want to be married. All the families and friends involved except for the two people are extremely racist. They plan the wedding. None of their families or friends attended the wedding. None of their families or friends recognize the marriage as legitimate. Even so, the atheists marry and are seen as married by the government.

Example #5

Two Jews want to be married in an anti-semitic nation. The two Jews have been living in the mountains with other Jews to hide from the government. They have been there 5 years. The families, friends, and elders agree that the marriage is a good idea. Without the approval of the government, the two Jews are married.

Please don’t take any of this the wrong way. I just want to discuss things that have arisen when I talk to people.

They should also get married for the sake of being married (not for some other reason like a discount cruise as in the example).

This is one of the big problems today. Why get married? I have heard many people say why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.

The way the government is set up, it’s financially smart to get married. Couple discounts are found on everything from hotel rooms to steakhouses. I believe this can affect many areas of the couple’s lives and is a compelling factor to marry.

But a man and a woman who enter a marriage together, aware of what they are doing, for the purpose of starting a family (even if a 2-person family) then they are married.

What do they need to be aware of? That they are entering into an institution ordained by a God they don’t believe in? That they will be held accountable whether they believe or not?

It’s hard to get the unsaved/unspiritual to understand the things of God.

I think it's interesting to note that though godless people reject pardon through Christ, many still feel impelled to marry. Why is this? Societal norms? Pressure from parents? Government? I don't know of [i]any[/i] ancient civilization or tribes of people alive today that have not inaugurated some kind of marriage vow/covenant system...no matter how primative or paganistic it may be. The ancient Chinese, Greeks, Polynesians, Aztecs. They all had their covenant ceremonies. Even so-called "atheists" get married. When these men and women underwent their vows, did God see them as truly [i]married[/i] according to their official system? I certainly believe so. And God saw it when they [i]broke[/i] those covenants as well, violating their own consciences, storing up even further wrath for themselves on the day of judgment.

I can only speak from a 21st century western Judeo-Christian platform, a civilization to whom the cross of Christ and God's free redemptive pardon has been shown. We are a blessed people to whom the Bible has been given, and, in it, the express will of God for every man and woman, saved or unsaved. The fact that people fulfill their vows before the Justice of the Peace here in the USA, or are married by an Elvis Presley impersonator does not, I believe, invalidate the covenant in God's eyes. For if they [i]break[/i] the covenant they made in Las Vegas, God shall hold such in the balance of His justice. If God is able to bring unrenerate men and women together (which He does) and they opt to get married in underwater scuba gear while diving in the Caribbean Sea, what does it matter? A covenant has still been erected, one which is validated and officiated by the powers and state authorites put in place by God - and such an act is legally binding in the courts of law, as well as, I truly believe, in the eyes of God.

As for those that have legally come together in matrimony while in the flesh for monetary reasons or for purely lustful intentions, I believe God will still hold such accountable. If I, unsanctioned by God, take out a large bank loan to start a questionable buisiness, and lose it all...am I still accountable [b]by God[/b] to pay back the loan? Of course I am! I realize this strange example may not square with many people, but I think the principle is the same: God holds us all morally accountable, even when the original intention of our actions may not have been of Him.

My two cents anyhow. I didn't feel I had any type of divine inspiration while writing this post; just sharing some of my personal convictions, and such are very much open to critique and/or gracious adjustment.

Brother Paul :-)

did God see them as truly married according to their official system? I certainly believe so

According to THEIR official system.

Is this the same as God's system?

If the Godliness of the minister doesn't matter, and if the participants need not have accepted Christ…what criteria is there?

Are there any requirements for entering the holy institution of marriage?

If the minister doesn’t matter
If their ideals don’t mater
If the paper documentation doesn’t matter

What makes a marriage?

Is it just a decision two consenting adults can make…regardless of there beliefs?

And when two people make this decision, God puts his binding stamp on it whether they understand it or not?

Aren't God's establishments of justice and law set up on earth and entrusted to the ancillary governing agencies of men (often unsaved)? Since the banker is unsaved do I still have to pay back the loan? I took a vow of surety to pay it back, and God holds me accountable. If I took my wedding vows before an unsaved minister or someone who got their credentials from a box of breakfast cereal, will it alter my future accountability in God's eyes? If such is not the case with marriage, God then must repudiate each and every marriage outside the evangelical Christian church. Not one ancient Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Babylonian, Aztec, Chinese marriage was ever validated in his eyes and every man and woman who was and is not of the Judeo-Christian faith was and is a fornicator, regardless of their marriage vows and enduring fidelity.

Pilate's wife who had the bad dreams about Jesus was not really Pilate's lawful wife in such a case - at least, not in God's eyes - as they had been married in a pagan ceremony, yet the Bible says that she was Pilate's [i]wife[/i].

I posted the below scenario on a number of forums a while ago. The majority of replys were of the 'legal' marriage doesn't matter variety. I would appreciate some more replys from this forum.

ontheway

It is common for people here in Thailand to live together, as it is in the West. There are many believers in Church that are living together and have done so for many years. Some are active in church and even have positions of ministry. It is quite possible that they might have a wedding ceremony in front of the church but they do not get legally married. They do not sign a legal register at the county office and therefore the wife does not take the husband's name. The believers in their local body recognise them as a couple/family.

I would appreciate comments on the following questions, also scripture relevant to the topic would be good.

1. What does God think of their union?

2. Are they married?

It is common for people here in Thailand to live together, as it is in the West.

If it's anything like in the West, this is wrong. Those involved are fornicators and will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

There are many believers in Church that are living together and have done so for many years.

If this "living together" is the same living together that happens in the West, it is wrong. There is no question.

Some are active in church and even have positions of ministry.

Entirely irrelevant.

It is quite possible that they might have a wedding ceremony in front of the church but they do not get legally married. They do not sign a legal register at the county office and therefore the wife does not take the husband's name.

Why not? Unless they have good reason, such as Christian persecution, I believe this is wrong. Marriage is always a legal agreement if at all possible. God has made this clear in His word.

The believers in their local body recognise them as a couple/family.

A "couple/family" is not a marriage. Even if the believers recognize them as married, I do not think this alone is grounds for marriage, unless governmental approval is not possible.

Nile

EDIT: Some of my comments were undeservedly harsh and I've removed/changed them.

I like the term you used...vows. Is a minister needed?

Is a minister needed?

When two children of God are united, this question is not really an issue. They get married in the church, usually with their Pastor officiating. But what happens when two irreligious people desire to marry? Can the marriage only be validated in God's eyes if a minister officiates? This, I think, would be a trite, weak, legalistic notion. Almost like a formula, akin to Roman Catholic infant baptism. What does the obligatory minister matter if God is out of the equation in their personal lives?

How can someone make a conscious covenantal vow under a God they do not know or have never met? They make vows of fidelity toward each other, and if a mention of accountability to the unknown God is included, so be it. But because they may not fully understand the seriousness of what they are entering into, does this automatically disqualify their lawful union in the eyes of God? When they consumate their marriage vows will they have committed fornication? Adultery, perhaps. But if neither were previously married...will their bed still be defiled? I believe that if the land they live in recognizes their marriage as legally and morally binding, and if the minister or judge has the state's authority to pronounce them "husband and wife", then God also records their vows and holds them legally to the covenant, even if they don't acknowledge Him or were married by an Elvis impersonator. The state recognizes it, and God also does, as he has established the legal custom of marriage in every land and tribe and tongue throughout history. Even genuine Christians who marry in the church are required by the state of Texas to go to the Justice of the Peace where you raise your hand and swear for the legal filing of your certificate.

We must obey the ordinances of men, put in place by God. I believe that if a couple refused to go to the JP after leaving their church, they would be in disobedience to God. Their marriage would remain unofficial. I'll leave it to you to decide whether God would also see it as such!

Thoughts? :-)

Brother Paul

I think I’m starting to form an understanding. You can say you don’t believe in the devil, but still be one of his followers. Not believing in the Godly institution of marriage does not mean you have not entered into it.

Okay, what about the young couple (18 ish) that pledge their love to each other forever and ever before they sleep together. Have they entered into a “marriage”?

that pledge their love to each other forever and ever before they sleep together

"They gave each other a [i]pledge[/i]? Unheard of! Unthinkable!"

Sorry, TJ. Couldn't resist quoting Rev Tevye from "Fiddler on the Roof". One of my all-time favorites. Have you seen it?

Well, I think you know the answer to this question. If these two 18 year-olds (what is the significance with age, btw?) gave each other a "pledge" to love each other forever and ever, then they shouldn't have any problem waiting for marriage. Lust wants sex before marriage; love is honorable and pure and longsuffering and desires only the best for the other person. If the guy truly loved his girlfriend he would wait for marriage and honor and cherish her with a pure, undefiled bed. To have her before marriage is a selfish, sinful, defiling act - fully illegal - no matter how many earnest pledges they gave each other. Prisoners pledge and plea and swear oaths before judges on the bench. They sweat bullets when the gavel is in the judge's hand, and are, for the most part, deadly serious [i]at the time[/i] when they pledge to clean up their lives immediately if the judge deigns to grant them clemency. But what usually happens?

If they are granted clemency, they may fly straight for awhile, but the moment is over. The gut-wrentching, immediate danger is gone. People normally give pledges in heated of moments of desperation, only to inexorably cool off when they achieve what they pleaded for. God is no fool, and He'll never bend his standards pertaining to pre-marital carnal knowledge on account of the emotion-driven pledges of wicked men.

What do you think? Boyfriends and girlfriends give each other similar pledges a trillion times over. Even as I type this, some boy is giving a gullible girl a pledge right now and they will sleep together...and break up in a matter of months.

God's marital law is perfect and He is right and good. Any person who tries to enter into sexual relations otherwise is a thief and a robber, climbing over walls, eschewing the only narrow way leading to safe, blessed, carnal pleasure - which is to be found [b]only[/b] through the doorway of marriage.

Oops! It looks like another thread has snuck up, and my last post was meant to link to the other thread. Sorry.

Anyway, I noticed that no one has yet offered scriptures that define what God would accept as a proper procedure or circumstance by which a union is authentic. This is crucial! The absence of that “procedure” is the bases by which the partners are deemed fornicators - and thus judged as rebellious against God. But as I stated earlier, without clear indication of a divine LAW which is being violated, their accusers are no different than the Pharisees who accused the apostles of breaking the law (really THEIR law). I see that one poster even claims that those who don’t have a “proper” ceremony are hell-bound. Please offer clear scriptures to warrant such a verdict! Otherwise you are merely transferring your personal cultural values onto a foreign culture.

In my own search I was drawn to the following verses: (Notice that they tell us nothing other than that marriage is a fact of life. God and Jesus seem to acknowledge that. Maybe we should too.)

”For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;” Matthew 24:38

Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.” Luke 20:34

There’s nothing here about what God would recognize as legit or not. From what I can see in scripture it seems that God is most concerned with how we (the saved ones) live out our daily lives TODAY. It’s not about how the relationship got started, but how it is lived out: fidelity, love, submission, etc etc. Let’s admit - among the early Christians, probably most of the unions did not begin from a godly base. Maybe they were united under the pagan deities. (I need to research this) And then, often one would become saved and the other not. The biblical response to that dilemma had more to do with relational than legal issues: ie – if the unbeliever accepted it or not. Please note the biblical RATIONAL: “God called us to live in PEACE” 1 Cor. 7:15

If I understand correctly, according to God, relational peace is a higher virtue than just sticking together for the “legal” sake of it. (no mention in the word about legal marriages)
This sounds scandalous, I know. But then, God’s ways are not our ways.

PS: I noticed also, that biblically, the partners must both consent – even the woman (not normal in most cultures – even some today) 1 Cor. 9:39 So, from that point of view the only union that is NOT valid (or acceptable to God AS a marriage) is where a partner is forced into it. (besides those where one is already joined to another)

Am I tracking right????
Diane

gave each other a "pledge" to love each other forever and ever, then they shouldn't have any problem waiting for marriage.

Waiting for what marriage? What makes it a marriage? A minister that doesn’t matter? A document that means nothing? A ceremony? Are these things necessary in God’s eyes?

Is obedience to governmental law part of it?

Waiting for what marriage? What makes it a marriage? A minister that doesn’t matter? A document that means nothing? A ceremony? Are these things necessary in God’s eyes?

Yes, I believe they are. I utterly reject the notion that a boy can give his girlfriend a mere relational fidelity pledge and then legally sleep with her in God's eyes. They are not married, and God is not fooled. Why are we complicating this? What is wrong with the traditional, God-sanctioned vows of marriage of the old paths? The vows that Spurgeon took, Ravenhill, when they married their wives? If you could ask David Wilkerson or Keith Daniel or Poonen if "giving a private fidelity pledge" is a valid substitute for holy matrimony, what do you think they will tell you?

Nothing is hidden with this issue. God has kept nothing cryptic or ambiguous in terms of marriage. The current way, as practiced by the great saints of old has obviously been set up by God and I don't feel it is open for debate. Quite simply: No carnal relations before marriage, and the marriage is to be official, legally binding, and acknowledged by the authority of the land where the couple lives. We are to do all things legally, and not give rise to the heathen to blaspheme the name of our God. Let all we do be legal in the eyes of man [i]and[/i] God. Any aberation from this custom, I believe, espouses confusion, rebellion, and sin.

Call me old-fashioned and narrow-minded, but, hey, this is something I'll stand for and defend...even if I'm all alone here. What's going on with this forum?

Brother Paul

If you had read my earlier posts you would see that I said I was only trying to get replies to questions that had been asked at work or other settings. Sorry to have bothered you. I feel you are lumping me into a category in which I do not belong with your “What’s going on with this forum” comment.

They are just questions that I have encountered from others. You do not have to answer any of them. Just trying to learn so I can serve others better.

Quite simply: No carnal relations before marriage, and the marriage is to be official, legally binding, and acknowledged by the authority of the land where the couple lives. We are to do all things legally, and not give rise to the heathen to blaspheme the name of our God. Let all we do be legal in the eyes of man and God. Any aberation from this custom, I believe, espouses confusion, rebellion, and sin.

this is something I'll stand for and defend...even if I'm all alone here

You are not alone. I hope all agree with these statements. Like I said I am simply looking for ways to explain these matters to others.
:-)

You are not alone. I hope all agree with these statements.

Sorry for the misunderstanding; I was really beginning to get scared! I was getting ready to shoot you a PM! My apologies for not catching that earlier post. Can you imagine what something like:

"Waiting for what marriage? What makes it a marriage? A minister that doesn’t matter? A document that means nothing? A ceremony? Are these things necessary in God’s eyes?"

...looks like without a disclaimer?? I wasn't getting bothered - just [i]suprised[/i] that it was coming from you. Couldn't believe what I was reading.

Bless you, dear brother. Let all things be done in purity and in God's righteousness.

Brother Paul :-)

It’s okay. I haven’t went emergent…I mean crazy or anything. I often ask questions that may have people wondering about me, but I really just want to get responses. Many here on the SI forum have a gift of explanation and some are very skilled at turning a colorful phrase or two.

At times I try to think like I did when I was lost. It’s all (well, most anyway) so clear to me now that I forget what it was like to try and make heads or tails of it as a sinner.

That was my desire with this line of questioning. I…we…need to keep in mind that other people are reading our posts. Who knows, maybe this one did some good.

Grace and peace brother.

What's going on with this forum?

Hey! I’m asking this question too!!! Here we have a topic about a biblical subject, and I don’t see much scripture yet. …. What’s going on???

I quoted some verses, but I haven’t seen any Amen’s. I'm wondering why.

I fear that some rather unfortunate jargon has crept in our christianeze rhetoric – like the phrase “living in sin”. Of course we all know what “living in sin” means: it means living with a materialistic foundation, or it means embracing humanism, it means being the master of your life, or trusting in works, or self-righteousness , ….. …

Not! …. There is only one kind of “living in sin” and we ALL know what it is. And if the offenders remove that ONE condition, then they make things right. THIS is where we go off the rails, badly. Regarding marriage, we assume that getting the certificate removes the status of “living in sin”. All those people who are married “properly” assume that they are NOT living in sin. You don’t find this distinction in the Bible, and that’s why the dearth of scriptures here. Such a narrow definition leads to a false sense of righteousness among those who “did it right”, and finger pointing at those who are “doing it wrong”. By the way, aren’t all legally married unbelievers living in sin. Whatever is not of faith is sin.

rebellion..

If rebellion, is the sin problem then rebellion must be dealt with. And THEN correct actions will result: including submitting to the laws of the land.
First submit to Christ, then the godly life as HE enables.

And about all those sinners who are shirking legal marriage because they want to do what they please and when they please – are they not merely following their elders. Why, even the top gov’t leaders are practising immorality - ie making unethical decisions, and doing what pleases THEM…. Even our modern churches operate by the principle of expedience.

It is tempting to scapegoat those “living in sin” for sin that is really OUR sin (I speak collectively). This is hypocrisy. ”He who is without sin cast the first stone..”

Might I suggest that we give up trying to figure out who in our population are “really” married and who are not, and instead focus on God’s word for us:

So how does scripture describe a biblical marriage?

Diane

Why not? Unless they have good reason, such as Christian persecution, I believe this is wrong. Marriage is always a legal agreement if at all possible. God has made this clear in His word.

The Scripture references where God had made it clear that marriage must be a legal commitment (sanctioned by the government/ county registry office, etc.) would be very useful.

What are they please?

The Scripture references where God had made it clear that marriage must be a legal commitment (sanctioned by the government/ county registry office, etc.) would be very useful.

Romans 13 (NASB)

Be Subject to Government

1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

If the government says you need a piece of paper to be legally bound…then you need a piece of paper to be legally bound; the scripture is very clear on this.

Romans 13 (NASB)

Be Subject to Government

The following is taken from the [url=http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomer/guide/section-08.html]Canada, Citizenship and Immigration [/url] site:

Marriage, divorce and the law

Canadian law views marriage as a legal agreement or contract between a man and a woman. Married people are considered equal partners. Marriage laws apply to all Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Many unmarried couples live together. In most provinces, unmarried heterosexual couples who have lived together for a certain period of time have legal status as “common-law” couples. They may call each other “husband” and “wife,” or they may simply say “my partner.”

Either the wife or the husband can ask for a divorce. This request will normally be approved by the courts if both people have agreed to end the marriage. Divorce will also be approved if one partner has been harmed through cruelty, adultery or a similar injustice.

I'd be curious to know if the US laws are different.

Would it be wrong to take that scripture in, I think Corinthians, that says that he who sleeps with another woman becomes one flesh? (paraphrased)

In the light thereof, God sees sex, as a union of 2 people. What is marraige? It is two people becoming one flesh.

That is why the adulterers are punished for that sin.

What are they please?

I do not think marriage [u]must[/u] be a legal commitment, as I made clear in a previous post. I do believe it should be whenever reasonable possible.

In looking them them up scriptures, there are not as many as I had thought, but I believe there are enough to support my position.

There are OT laws about marriage. Not specifically in the giving of marriage, but the fact that marriages are something there are governmental laws about implies that the government views them as marriages. One law states that a man and women who are married and sleep together must be married. The law gives no place for letting these people turn around and say: "Oh, but we married before we went to sleep last night in a private ceremony!"

TJ pointed out scripture in Romans about submitting to the government. I think this is an excellent point and cannot be lightly dismissed.

Also:

1 Timothy 3:2&7
An overseer, then, must be above reproach...And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church

Having a non-legal marriage is certainly not above reproachsurely and it doesn't put you in good reputation with law-abiding citizens outside of the church or the government.

Considering all of these things, I strongly believe a legal marriage should be sought if at all possible.

Love,
Nile

Having a non-legal marriage is certainly not above reproachsurely and it doesn't put you in good reputation with law-abiding citizens outside of the church or the government.

Romans 14:12-13 (NASB)

12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

I think we can all agree that being outside of “governmental” wedlock is a huge stumbling block to most of the saints. This scripture reminds us that even if we are convinced otherwise…it’s not for us to put stumbling blocks in the paths of others.

Paul in the book of Romans is clear about following the laws of the land in which you reside, and equally clear that if you don’t obey them…you don’t obey God.

Paul also makes it clear that in lesser issues we are not to do anything that could even possibly be a stumbling block to others.

All in all...I would say the Bible is very clear on this matter

It seems quite apparent that we cannot condemn common-law relationship based on EITHER Biblical law OR civil law. We cannot ask that Christian lady (in the other thread) to leave her husband BASED on the violation of a matrimonial law, and we cannot convict her of the sin of fornication (unless she is unfaithful to her husband, or has lustful THOUGHTS in her heart towards another man – and by THAT law, how many can throw the first stone)

Neither can the church appeal to this lady’s husband to get a “legal” marriage based a law! The church has no leg to stand on, and merely acts like religious powers have done for centuries: usurp authority that is not given them from God… go beyond the Word.

Here’s where we apply Romans 14 (I’m happy to see these scriptures posted!) If this husband were a mature Christian, he WOULD get their marriage “sanctified” for the sake of his wife – to remove her shame (in the eyes of man, NOT God) That would be the sensitive, loving, submissive thing to do. However, he is NOT even a Christian, so you can’t impose Romans 14 on him. You have to impose it on yourself – as a Christian onlooker.

Romans 14:12-13 (NASB)

12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

To superimpose MAN’s convictions onto this lady would be putting a huge stumbling block in HER life: putting her in a state of condemnation for a "sin" that is beyond her control. It would be putting a barrier between her and her precious Saviour who set her FREE from condemnation.

I think we can all agree that being outside of “governmental” wedlock is a huge stumbling block to most of the saints.

Am I tracking right?

Diane

It seems quite apparent that we cannot condemn common-law relationship based on EITHER Biblical law OR civil law

we cannot convict her of the sin of fornication

The church has no leg to stand on

To superimpose MAN’s convictions

putting her in a state of condemnation for a "sin" that is beyond her control

Brethren, I am speechless.

TJ wrote:

I was only trying to get replies to questions that had been asked at work or other settings.

Tj, what I learned in counseling females involved in immorality is that their arguments against what consitutes a marriage appears to be a defense for their own behaviors. They will try to argue away what the Holy Spirit is telling they should do. They know they should marry and that it is wrong to 'live in sin' so the devil gives them a lot of creative ideas on why it is not necessary. So, in dealing with these questions from ungodly people, I would suggest you go for the heart issue and that is about their concept of God and how man is to relate to Him. Their argument against marrying is merely a smoke screen to divert you away froom this heart issue. So if you get the heart issue right, get them to walk with the LORD, meaning to confess their sins and ask the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then repent, the LORD will teach/lead them so they may have the spiritual power and will to conform to his image.

In short, it is [usually] futile to argue with ungodly people about these issues because they will not want to understand BECAUSE a greater issue blocks this process.

My thoughts...

ginnyrose

ginnyrose wrote:
TJ wrote:

I was only trying to get replies to questions that had been asked at work or other settings.

Tj, what I learned in counseling females involved in immorality is that their arguments against what consitutes a marriage appears to be a defense for their own behaviors. They will try to argue away what the Holy Spirit is telling they should do. They know they should marry and that it is wrong to 'live in sin' so the devil gives them a lot of creative ideas on why it is not necessary. So, in dealing with these questions from ungodly people, I would suggest you go for the heart issue and that is about their concept of God and how man is to relate to Him. Their argument against marrying is merely a smoke screen to divert you away froom this heart issue. So if you get the heart issue right, get them to walk with the LORD, meaning to confess their sins and ask the Lord Jesus for forgiveness and then repent, the LORD will teach/lead them so they may have the spiritual power and will to conform to his image.

In short, it is [usually] futile to argue with ungodly people about these issues because they will not want to understand BECAUSE a greater issue blocks this process.

My thoughts...

ginnyrose

ginnyrose,

You are so right! I often forget this fact concerning the understanding of the un-saved. I always want to be prepared to answer whatever is thrown my way. Thanks for reminding me. This is very important to remember.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 (NASB)

13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised

Thanks ginnyrose! :-)

It seems quite apparent that we cannot condemn common-law relationship based on EITHER Biblical law OR civil law.

I believe the vast majority of Christians would say that the "common-law relationship" is of the world, not of God.

not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

The "worldly relationship" is the stumbling block. The Church (Christians) is the brother.

I believe this issue is abundantly clear to the body of Christ.

not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

The "worldly relationship" is the stumbling block. The Church (Christians) is the brother.

Are our "worldy" people responsible to keep the church from "stumbling"?

Are our "legal arrangements" less worldy??

Does it change the heart?
What might be the motive for insisting on "legal marriage rites" as a godly virtue? Is it an attempt to polish the "outer cup" in our society? our church?
Does it make spiritually healthier churches or just healthier-looking churches?

Remember, we are dealing with culturally expected norms not founded in the Bible, nor based on modern civil laws. (In fact, some of our wedding traditions have pagan origins!)

Substitute circumcision for "legal marriage" in these verses:

"12Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.

14May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God."

What "rule" is Paul speaking about?

Diane

Are our "worldy" people responsible to keep the church from "stumbling"?

I’m not sure what to say. Paul was not talking to the members of the Mad Dog Biker Gang…warning them not to place stumbling blocks in front of members of the Church. Non-Christians are enemies of Christ; they will always, by their very nature, be against the Church.

Paul was speaking to Christians. Christians, whether long term or recently converted, are not to place stumbling blocks before other Christians. They will desire to follow the teachings of the elder saints. Rebellion and disrespect are not of the Lord.

Sister Diane, it would seem that we are nowhere near the same page on this. I don’t believe I have anything else to add. The scriptures speak much more clearly than I on this issue.

God Bless.

The scriptures speak much more clearly than I on this issue.

It seems we have made a big circle. Tj, in all sincerity, I am thankful that you posted this thread, because it has made me examine what the word does indeed say, and also I’ve had to face some rather ugly hypocrisy in my own heart and repent of my arrogance.

I was just now discussing this topic with a Christian lady, and she told me about a lady in her church who has been with a man for 15 years. Some time ago they became Christians. The lady really, really, really has wanted to get married, but he doesn’t seem to follow through. The church wasn’t letting her have any of the rights and privileges associated with fellowship since she was “living in sin”. She loved the Lord, was growing in her faith, and was eventually quite able to teach and lead. The church recognized this, but could not allow her to as long as she wasn’t married to the man. She would plead and plead with him. She even left him a few times, requiring marriage as the condition for returning to him. He just wouldn’t get out of her life. He loved her. He would send flowers, apologies, and letters of promise. He was a gentle, humble man, but for some reason was terrified of the request put on him. Finally the church realized that they couldn’t convince him, so they let her teach Sunday school. She is a godly lady, violating no law.

Imaging the pain and shame she has been enduring through for years – being the “unclean” woman.

There are countless women in this situation. Clearly the challenge for them is to have FAITH and realize that they are entitled to a few “crumbs”; they can touch the robe of the Master; they can sit at the feet of Jesus; and even put perfume on his body. Man (esp religous man) will always condemn these women, but they must learn to hear the quiet words of Jesus commending them for their great faith.

And really, that’s all that counts. “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Gal. 5:6 Is that not what pleases our Lord?

The church has no leg to stand on

Diane

Am just trying to track here having gone back through the last 6-8 replies ...

Diane I am a bit concerned with this while recognizing the inherenrt difficulties. Reading the body of that main paragraph. This man, who is described as gentle and humble ... 'terrified'? I am inclinded to recall;

[i]But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.[/i] Revelation 21:8

And that the church later capitulted in effect throwing up it's hands to the whole matter ... Obviously it is not the woman who is at 'fault' here and the concentration ought to be both on the 'man' and the church for having no fortitude. Both of them (the man and the church) know what they ought to do and are guilty of the sin of omission. My question at this point would be, why would she want to marry a coward? It pains me somewhat to say that but indeed;

Why not stand on the firm foundation?

This is a question which I have been discussing for years... and still not much closer to a conclusion...

The Roman Catholic priesthood was supposed to have special powers. The properly ordained priest had powers that made it possible for him to conduct miracles. He had the power to transubstitute bread into flesh and wine into blood. He had the power to absolve sins. He also had the power to conduct a ceremony in which two people were 'joined together by God'. This is why older Catholics would only accept Catholic weddings; no other groups had these magical powers.

This priescraft produced a vicious and closed circle. Only the priest could perform this miracle, but the priest would only perform it for Catholics. If a Catholic 'married' outside the church the marriage was invalid and the pair said to be 'in sin'. Such a 'sin' prevented them from confession, absolution and the mass and consequently determined their immortal destiny. The Mayflower pilgrims would not allow 'ministers' to conduct weddings. They saw that this was often a tool of priestcraft. They were determined to separate church and state; wise folk!

Increasingly, at Protestant weddings, I hear that we are not to 'separate what God has joined together'. The implication is that the marriage ceremony has been the vehicle by which this miracle was accomplished. The minister has said the words, the partners have made their promises, the civil requirements are fulfilled... and this constitutes a miracle in which the 'two become one'. This sounds suspiciously like that old 'priestcraft'?

philologos wrote:
This is a question which I have been discussing for years... and still not much closer to a conclusion...

The Roman Catholic priesthood was supposed to have special powers. The properly ordained priest had powers that made it possible for him to conduct miracles. He had the power to transubstitute bread into flesh and wine into blood. He had the power to absolve sins. He also had the power to conduct a ceremony in which two people were 'joined together by God'. This is why older Catholics would only accept Catholic weddings; no other groups had these magical powers.

This priescraft produced a vicious and closed circle. Only the priest could perform this miracle, but the priest would only perform it for Catholics. If a Catholic 'married' outside the church the marriage was invalid and the pair said to be 'in sin'. Such a 'sin' prevented them from confession, absolution and the mass and consequently determined their immortal destiny. The Mayflower pilgrims would not allow 'ministers' to conduct weddings. They saw that this was often a tool of priestcraft. They were determined to separate church and state; wise folk!

Increasingly, at Protestant weddings, I hear that we are not to 'separate what God has joined together'. The implication is that the marriage ceremony has been the vehicle by which this miracle was accomplished. The minister has said the words, the partners have made their promises, the civil requirements are fulfilled... and this constitutes a miracle in which the 'two become one'. This sounds suspiciously like that old 'priestcraft'?

philologos, you have whet my appetite. I would love to hear more of your thoughts and understandings on this issue.

How did we go from:

He also had the power to conduct a ceremony in which two people were 'joined together by God'. (Roman Catholic)

“By the power invested in me the by the [United States] …., I now pronounce you husband and wife."

Does this not imply a divine power given by the state?

Diane...sister how can you say the things you are saying. Let me reply to some of your post.

I was just now discussing this topic with a Christian lady, and she told me about a lady in her church who has been with a man for 15 years.

Was it wrong for her to initially be with this man? If so, when did it become right?

Some time ago they became Christians.

Not if they didn't repent of their sins, such as fornication.

The lady really, really, really has wanted to get married, but he doesn’t seem to follow through.

This is another sign she is not a Christian. What fellowship can darkness have with light? Moreover, to marry him would be directly contradicting an explicit command in scripture (assuming she is a Christian).

The church wasn’t letting her have any of the rights and privileges associated with fellowship since she was “living in sin”.

They were doing the right thing. The scripture is clear on this as well.

She even left him a few times, requiring marriage as the condition for returning to him.

Conversion should have been the requirement.

He just wouldn’t get out of her life. He loved her. He would send flowers, apologies, and letters of promise.

So she returned to sin because he kept bugging her.

Finally the church realized that they couldn’t convince him, so they let her teach Sunday school.

What a wicked church!

She is a godly lady, violating no law.

That is the whole point in contention. I would say she is not a godly woman and she is violating the law. Her actions show this.
Being religious does not make one godly. Having talents and gifts and knowledge and wisdom does not make one godly. Holiness makes one godly.

And really, that’s all that counts. “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” Gal. 5:6 Is that not what pleases our Lord?

Are you in favor of love-filled gay marriages? Should gay couples separate?
What if they have been together for 20 years and 2 10-year old adopted sons?
Should polygamists get rid of all but their first wife?

Love does fulfill the law, but not any love. Pagans love, but they do not fulfill the law. The love that fulfills the law is a love for God above all else...and then a love for your neighbor that points them towards Christ at all costs. Any love that is not Christ-centered does not come from God.

Diane, let my finish by saying that I understand your position and where you're coming from. However, I think there is a false dichotomy in your arguments, setting up leaving the man ("Following the letter of law") and loving the man ("Following the spirit of love") as opposites. I do not believe this so. I believe the New Testament tells us how we are to love God and others best. The reason why both the woman we've discussed should leave their male partners is this: love.

With love of my own,
And downcast eyes,
Nile

roadsign wrote:
How did we go from:

He also had the power to conduct a ceremony in which two people were 'joined together by God'. (Roman Catholic)

to:

“By the power invested in me the by the [United States] …., I now pronounce you husband and wife."

Does this not imply a divine power given by the state?

I don't know if it's a divine power or not, but it's certainly not a God given power.

Hello Nile,

Would like to emphasize something here. We are dealing with a situation we do not have all the facts on only that which was brought forward by our sister. Even my own comments need a garrison around them. However I would like to draw back to what I believe is something of a common problem and would reach farther beyond this particular situation.

Men. Us "guys". What it is that this society has done to ... there is a word a brother here used elsewhere that I am reluctant to bring to bear but the point is true... Something in the last couple of decades is fading into the background. Integrity. Character. Fortitude. Laying down our lives for our Lord as Christians but for our wives and families as well. Men have been sucked down into the same pleasure seeking pit of self-gratification that will not give way to true suffering and surrender in exchange for that which cannot be bought. "Cowards" is a difficult word to hear for a man and why I was\\am somewhat reluctant to speak of it lightly, it gave me pause the rest of the day having written it earlier at lunch.

What I am a bit surprised at is how often in these marital discussions and there has been quite a few going here recently, but even in a general sense it is the woman who is being ... spoken about. I am asking out loud, just where are the [i]men[/i]? Christian men, men who do not have to have their 'toy's' to define what they are. What is the 'prosperity gospel' but just another avenue to feed more of the same?

We do not have to become angry, unruly, obnoxious brutes to counteract it .. pardon the little divergence here, but it seems to keep rearing it's head. There is a verse that is often used and spoken about, but there is one word in it that seems to go by the wayside;

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1Co 6:9,10

[b]Effeminate
EFFEM'INATE[/b], a. [L. effoeminatus, from effoeminor, to grow or make womanish, from foemina, a woman. See Woman.]

1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.

The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor.

2. Womanish; weak; resembling the practice or qualities of the sex; as an effeminate peace; an effeminate life.

3. Womanlike, tender, in a sense not reproachful.

Websters

[b]Nor effeminate[/b] - μαλακοὶ malakoi. This word occurs in Mat_11:8, ([i]But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.[/i]) and Luk_7:25, ([i]But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts.[/i]) where it is applied to clothing, and translated “soft raiment;” that is, the light, thin garments worn by the rich and great. It occurs no where else in the New Testament except here. Applied to morals, as it is here, it denotes those who give themselves up to a soft, luxurious, and indolent way of living; who make self-indulgence the grand object of life; who can endure no hardship, and practice no self-denial in the cause of duty and of God. The word is applied in the classic writers to the Cinaedi, the Pathics, or Catamites; those who are given up to wantonness and sensual pleasures, or who are kept to be prostituted to others. Diog. Laer. Luk_7:5, Luk_7:4. Xenoph. Mem. Luk_3:7. 1. Ovid Fast. 4:342. The connection here seems to demand such an interpretation, as it occurs in the description of vices of the same class - sensual and corrupt indulgences - It is well known that this vice was common among the Greeks - and particularly prevailed at Corinth.

Albert Barnes

Would only add that it is striking to note that this is listed with all the others, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers.

It may be a hunch but I believe a great deal of the problem with today's 'Christian man' is that they are not being told just what it is they are 'signing up for' when they "accept Jesus into their heart" ...

[i]The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.[/i] Joh 7:7

[i]Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.[/i] Mat 10:34-39

WOW! Mike! What a wonderful good-morning blessing! I say, when we Christians - begin to acknowledge OUR sins, rather than “their” sins, we are on the path to revival. As a woman, it is a warm blessing to hear a man acknowledge the failure of his gender in their role of nurturing godly husband/wife relationships in the church. Your inclusion of the meaning of “effeminate” is quite revealing. In several other versions the word "homosexual” is translated or added, but the Greek doesn't seem to support that.

This would be a good time to include GOD’s definition of a Biblical (godly) marriage. – taken from scriptures:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Eph. 5:21-33
These verses are drawn from an Epistle that focuses on the theme of being “one”. They cannot be “divorced” (no pun intended) from the rest of the verses, such as:
21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.” Eph. 1: 21
In view of God’s standard, aught we not to admit that ALL marriages that fall short of this standard have missed the mark (the definition of sin!)

When we realize how incapable we are of creating this perfect standard of “oneness”, we realize that we are just as needy as the “sinners” out there. Oh, how we need Christ to complete us and enable us. We cannot get it from the church, our spouses, the constitution, the JP's, the priests, pastors, rites, ceremonies, or social traditions. We need Christ to be our spiritual husband - his sufficiency is enough! Nothing in this world, no lot in life can stop us from being united with Christ!!!!!

Meanwhile, the world will continue marrying and being given in marriage (according to their social mores)… even as in the days of Noah… (from Matt. 24:38)

Nile and Tj, I hope this post clarifies your concerns.

Something to think about:
Can two become one apart from Christ? Can this scripture be applied to unbelievers?

Diane

Philologos: Increasingly, at Protestant weddings, I hear that we are not to 'separate what God has joined together'. The implication is that the marriage ceremony has been the vehicle by which this miracle was accomplished. The minister has said the words, the partners have made their promises, the civil requirements are fulfilled... and this constitutes a miracle in which the 'two become one'. This sounds suspiciously like that old 'priestcraft'?

I have hesitated to ask this but I think I need to. Why is it that men have taken it in hand to do things that are expressly God's to perform? I think of how we have witnessed folk repeating a sinners prayer and then being declared as children of God. What is the difference? If this is God's working then it seems that we are missing a huge element of understanding here. If marriage is a picture of the mystery of the relationship between the Church and Christ- has the 'issuing of vows' by ministers cause them to believe they could join man to woman and in turn they carried this over to believe they could join God to man? I often hear almost parallel type statements made in discussing coming to Christ and getting married.

I read an excerpt from Adam Clarke a long time ago that I think about from time to time. He writes... [i]Those who form a matrimonial connection in the fear and love of God, and under his direction, will never need a divorce. But those who marry as passion or money lead the way, [u]may be justly considered adulterers and adulteresses as long as they live.[/u][/i]

It makes me think about how folk do not rightly come to Christ and yet still believe they are 'saved'. And not just saved, but some believe they are eternally secure in this state. What is Adam Clarke saying here? Can a person come into marriage in such a way that God views what they are doing from the start as sin? They married not the man- but the money? They married not the lady- but the lust? And why are we often so adamant about God joining such folk together - when under the [i]exact same circumstances[/i] we would in no wise regard a person as being saved who merely said a prayer and made a promise to God?

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

"honourable"

In the RV;

Heb 13:4 Let marriage be had in [u]honour[/u] among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Mr. Barnes once more;

[b]Heb 13:4 -
Marriage is honorable in all[/b] - The object here is to state that “honor” is to be shown to the marriage relation. It is not to be undervalued by the pretence of the superior purity of a state of celibacy, as if marriage were improper for any class of people or any condition of life; and it should not be dishonored by any violation of the marriage contract. The course of things has shown that there was abundant reason for the apostle to assert with emphasis, that “marriage was an honorable condition of life.” There has been a constant effort made to show that celibacy was a more holy state; that there was something in marriage that rendered it “dishonorable” for those who are in the ministry, and for those of either sex who would be eminently pure. This sentiment has been the cause of more abomination in the world than any other single opinion claiming to have a religious sanction. It is one of the supports on which the Papal system rests, and has been one of the principal upholders of all the corruptions in monasteries and nunneries. The apostle asserts, without any restriction or qualification, that marriage is honorable in all; and this proves that it is lawful for the ministers of religion to marry, and that the whole doctrine of the superior purity of a state of celibacy is false; see this subject examined in the notes on 1 Cor. 7.

[b]And the bed undefiled[/b] - Fidelity to the marriage vow.

[b]But whore mongers and adulterers God will judge[/b] - All licentiousness of life, and all violations of the marriage covenant, will be severely punished by God; see the notes on 1Co_6:9. The sins here referred to prevailed everywhere, and hence, there was the more propriety for the frequent and solemn injunctions to avoid them which we find in the Scriptures.

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps in this is some of what Philologos is alluding to and which I also am welcoming and waiting to hear him more fully explore.

One of the things that consistently happens in our discussions is a lack of proper definitions at the outset, it seems we have to keep drawing back to them as they run away on us. We start mixing up our metaphors somewhat, confusing the worlds practice up against the Christan and vis versa. There is a bottom line that keeps pressing in to all these marital discussions, especially for the Christian that they know underneath, even without having to go through all the questions and reasonings, even to appeal to scripture ... very carefully do I put that ... there is a [i]ought[/i] that is understood beyond words and I do believe a great deal of the problems are like so many others ... Rather than obeying this inner voice that speaks and pricks the conscience, there is a bob and weave and search for excusing, justifying or rationalizing away what is known in this Holy [i]ought[/i].

The [i]world[/i] pragmatises
The Christian is to be faithful

Can two become one apart from Christ? Can this scripture be applied to unbelievers?

It is something to think about and my first inclination is to say no and yes, the [i]joining[/i] of the two makes 'one' but there is a whole plethora of disclaimers attached to all this ... One of these is that which drops into my hearing from an old sermon by Jim Cymbala ... "[i]Who cares what the world does[/i]", there is that and it needs to be taken in the right sense.

What I think needs to be interjected into a lot of this is ... family. What has become of this God ordained unit, for both [i]sides[/i] if you will? I always fear this jumping to ... aberrations and hypotheticals, especially as it applies to a great deal of this particular posting. The launch is too often to, "What constitutes a 'family'" without fixing the definitions at the source, primarily for us, the question begged is always, 'what sayeth the scriptures' ... [i]to the law and the testimony[/i].

I am dropping bit's and pieces here, randomly but want to mention again a couple of matters. Diane, there is some things you mentioned further back that has a few of us quite concerned. Knowing you from your great contributions here, I do not know that it is necessary to excerpt them, some of them have already been done by others ...

Perhaps this might help somewhat. It is usually my tendency to carry multiple conversations around in the thoughts and often find correlations cutting across them. We again have another thread on 'womans' roles and places in teaching and preaching for instance. There is the aforementioned appealing to other threads on marriage; marriage and remarriage, the one that started with [i] ...of one wife[/i] and went on to a variety of diversions, nothing wrong with that.

What keeps oozing through the cracks is the matter of authority and order. These are God ordained attributes and they are honorable in their own rights. What we [i]feel[/i] or what we [i]think[/i] ought to be the very last of our considerations, but how often are they the starting point?

Something came up in prayer this morning that I wanted to share with all the godly woman who congregate here, who give a great deal of insight, encouragement, share their heart and often their [i]guts[i/]. I must put this in general terms as it is an observation of no one in particular and is framed somewhat in the form of a question. A lot of this can be gleaned by something not yet posted on "Back to Bethel", an excerpt;

[i]I want to speak for a moment to women. I want to ask whether in God's sight they are using for God that holy, religious influence which should pervade the home and mold the husband and the children. I want to ask girls to begin their relations with men upon such a basis that their influence over them may always be for good. If only girls would build up sweet and noble lives and refuse to do things which God would not approve, they would surely have an influence over their brothers and future husbands in all after time. Pledge yourself to God in all purity and chastity. Build up in good works a life so full of the jewelry of heaven that men will be compelled to seek you for your intrinsic worth. If any woman has idols--the idol of morphine, of worldliness or any other idol--in God's name put it away! Can you allow filthy novels to eat out the very core of your heart and blast the purity and virtue which are your chief graces? In the name of God, I ask you, whatever secret idols you are worshiping, that you tear them from their throne and open your heart to Jesus Christ, so that you may have no influence for evil, but every influence for good.

Rachel ought to have been Jacob's good angel. She should have said:

"Husband, don't go there! Remember the children!"
But they drifted together, and for four or five years they lived near that prosperous, idolatrous city.[/i] ~ F. B. MEYER

I am concerned of much talk of our women as 'prophetess' as 'reverend' as ... 'pastors' and as 'teachers'. A huge qualifier here. The point is in securing titles for ourselves and this carries perhaps even more weight for the men. There is far too much ... usurping and assuming, possibly even ... coveting of these titles underneath or understanding, it is drawing attention to [i]ourselves[/i]. I know precisely the verse that might be interjected here regarding the gifts of the spirit but am trying to get under all this.

A large part of my musing has to do with things that are known without their speaking or drawing attention to them by name or 'title'. Authority I believe is something given by God alone in [i]order[/i] male\\female relationships, submission of all under the Headship of the Lord all these things we already know and understand. But I am also saying that it oozes through the pores of the words, it bypasses and understands, gives understanding on it's own merits. Character bleeds through unannounced. Integrity sneaks past. A humble and contrite spirit, the beauty of a woman as Mr. Meyer put it ... shines of it's own brilliance when it is truly Godly. I pray this is making the sense I would have it to ...

Another comparable, the long debated and confused matter of 'prophets\\prophecies';

[i]Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.[/i] 1Co 14:29-32

An interesting side note in digging this back up;

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Something here seems worthy of even more study. The point for the moment that had my musing was the 'two or three' prophets would have a mutual understanding spiritually and would stop and allow the others that had the same understanding to express, they are sharing a common, spiritual ... 'naturalness' that easily gives place to one another. I believe Paul here was doing less explaining or rather instructing as he was pointing to how things [i]are[/i].

Must leave his thought dangling as I have get going to work ...

Why is it that men have taken it in hand to do things that are expressly God's to perform?

Hi Robert, I am well with you here, this is what was needed to be said and you did it well. The joining of the two in both instances is Gods doing and only His, the comparable to salvation is precisely the same, this has been my long ... beef that it is absurd for [i]us[/i] to be pronouncing conversion\\salvation when it should be the converted telling us so, the thought crossed my mind the other day that we ought to be telling them [i]'go get yourself a testimony'[/i].

Baptism was another that fit right into this whole matter in my musing as well. It is 'symbolic' but far much more, it, like marriage, like salvation has been ... watered down (no pun intended) to ... what? an alternative? a theological wrestling match? Should we have 'prenuptials' for these things as well, just in case they "don't work out"? All of these are distinctive, marks ... branding's might be a better word. [i]Forever[/i] is the point made on the day of decision and there is no rescinding. You cannot undue a watery death or a spiritual rebirth anymore than you can ... divide that which the Lord has joined together. But it happens and keeps on happening and the very problem is the aberrations and exceptions are now the norm and all that anyone ever can talk about.

"[i]From the beginning it was not so ...[/i] that carries a lot more weight than I think we really know in quite a few matters.

Can a person come into marriage in such a way that God views what they are doing from the start as sin?

I believe so absolutely, Adam Clarke there;

[i] Those who form a matrimonial connection in the fear and love of God, and under his direction, will never need a divorce.[/i]

Brother, the more I think on this the more it is plain that you are making a very important distinction. How well does all that you have spoken here flesh itself out in exact replication of the high divorce rate amongst "Christians"?

a few of us quite concerned

I am reminded of past years when many Christians started to realize that the institutionalized church was not the “means to grace” (after all). What upheaval! Those who left were considered rebellious, and yet that wasn’t always so. A few of them were truly seeking to separate themselves for God, and even some of the rebels found Christ eventually. …. And – oh, yes - not all those who stayed IN it have turned out to be “worldly”. I suspect that we will see a close parallel regarding the marriage institution.

There is hope in all this: While the hordes look for any excuse to justify their self-wills, there are always those whom God is calling out for himself – even through these very upheavals that our society is facing on this issue of matrimony.

Let’s admit, people really have little control over their circumstances in life, their place of birth, their national religion, their customs, their family members – and, yes, even their spouse! Yet, God is sovereign. He rules the nations (Rom. 13); the governments. He is also sovereign over marital unions. “What God has joined together…. “

Regardless of one’s lot in life, those who find Christ are given an instruction:
“If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” Rom. 12: 18

(I meant this to be only one paragraph,…oh dear…. Sorry for the recent verbosity – much thinking going on… )

Blessing,
Diane

Dear Diane,

For me it’s been a time of grief the last couple days - sadness over yet more losses, illusions shattered, long-cherished values challenged. I have again been reminded that revival is not what WE want or even expect. We buck it. Yet, God relentlessly drives us towards a radical departure of our set-in ways. I suspect that upcoming posts by Robert and Ron will continue to remind us that we can’t always “have our cake and eat it too”.

Sorry for the recent verbosity – much thinking going on… )

It has been a long observation and rather common experience that I am well acquainted with that we tend to carry much more of our ... present situations, dealings with the Lord, circumstances what have you into our thoughts and words expressed in these things. And a lot of that goes unnoticed or is 'behind the scenes', actually 'unnoticed' is probably not the right term here. We cannot know what all else is going on, in and through each of us ...

Oh ... I didn't want to write much either as I am a bit fatigued ... tried to go back to the beginning of this whole discussion to see if I could track with the usual ebbs and flows, the places where we turn to different expressions and considerations. I thought our brother Paul made some very distinct points early on, those that I would agree with wholeheartedly. Marriage is honorable and we of all people on this planet should be the very ones to show the world how it is to be done, lived and died for ([i]Till death do us part[/i]) seems I have been a broken record here repeating that ... Ginnyrose as well, some very distinct points.

What did come to mind as something of a timeout to regather ourselves perhaps was to look to one of our own and the example he is leading with. Our brother Aaron, he is still in need of all our prayers and I too humbly ask them for my own marriage.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13148&forum=44&143]Please pray for my wife...[/url]

I want to go back to the very beginning of his plea and read it all afresh again, I think it is very important to these discussions on marriage.

Mike,

Just want to say I agree with you and I am a female! And I also agree with Nile's post just a few posts back.

BTW: one cannot be spiritual apart from what the the Word of God says. If, when we say, believe something contrary to it, we are guilty of idoltry. One cannot argue with God and win.

ginnyrose

Does this not imply a divine power given by the state?

I am referring to the statement that a human event authorises someone to say 'God has joined these two into one flesh'. I don't believe a US judge has the right to use these words, nor a catholic priest, nor a protestant pastor.

I do believe that God joins two together into one but I can't get a clear sight of the point at which God does what only God can do.

RobertW on 2007/6/5 13:52:36
It makes me think about how folk do not rightly come to Christ and yet still believe they are 'saved'. And not just saved, but some believe they are eternally secure in this state. What is Adam Clarke saying here? Can a person come into marriage in such a way that God views what they are doing from the start as sin? They married not the man- but the money? They married not the lady- but the lust?

We have had folk on the site here who claim that their marriage was not legitimate because it was 'out of the will of God' and that consequently their 'divorce' was the will of God to get things back to the state he wanted. This is very dangerous territory and will become the grounds for all kinds of specious reasoning with relationship to marriage.

I disagree with Adam Clarke in this. I do not believe that all marriage, other than that in the fear and love of God and under his direction, is a lifelong act of adultery. I don't believe there is a biblical basis for that statement. It would have necessitated the remarriage of almost every couple in the 1st century, which plainly did not happen.

However, I do not believe that a wedding can sanctify an immoral relationship. If the relationship was sinful it will require repentance, otherwise they are just adding a sacrament to a sin.

What constitutes a Biblical marriage?

By 'biblical' do we mean as found in the Bible? Is the 'marriage' of Isaac and Rebecah 'biblical' and if so should we use it as our model?

This was an arranged marriage, with a bride-price paid to the bride's family and conducted by an intermediary. The bride's consent is sought and granted. She meets Isaac for the first time who simply takes her into his mother's tent.

Is that a 'biblical marriage'?

On the other hand, does God automatically endorse every culture's method and form of marriage? Does a culture have the right to define 'marriage'?

Ron's: This was an arranged marriage, with a bride-price paid to the bride's family and conducted by an intermediary. The bride's consent is sought and granted. She meets Isaac for the first time who simply takes her into his mother's tent.

Is that a 'biblical marriage'?

I have an Ancient Bible Culture lecture given by Dr. Marvin Wilson on this subject in which it is stated that the ancient Jews [i]father[/i] was responsible to his sons for 4 things:

1) Circumcise them
2) Teach them the law
3) Find him a wife
4) Teach him a trade

The concept of love before marriage is said to be relatively new. Love came [i]after[/i] the marriage and is not said to be rooted in the emotions. The purpose of the marriage was to create a sort of mini-sanctuary for God to reside. The 'love' was based on the commitment and pledge. This is a decision to love as opposed to an emotional love. So it would be impossible to say, "I don't love you any more" as they did not have an emotional love to start with. This is a completely different concept of love than the whole false 'fall in love' thing. In fact, there is no such thing as falling in love if you think about it. What you have is an initial setting aside of certain rules of life in an unreal and perfect environment and the consequence is a sense of emotional 'love'- but it is false because the conditions are not real life. When reality sets in many couples wonder where there love went.

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; [u]and[/u] he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

No falling in love and then having a ceremony. No dating (oops). No trying them on for size. No 'baggage' coming into the marriage. they never knew a anyone till they knew each other. Protecting the premarital years I think is one of the most important things we have all but lost. How awesome would it be for a man and women to have come together and never even as much as kissed some other man or women (save innocent family affection)?

There is no Hebrew word for bachelor or any Hebrew curse words (just as a little factoid). The first of the 613 Commandments is to be fruitful and multiply. The negative approach to marriage was the result of platonic dualism. A home was supposed to be Mikdosh (kadesh means holy). The father was to be the 'priest' of the home. The home was expected to be filled with the presence of God. Hospitality was the rule. No expense was spared to exhigit hospitality. It was not considered a sin to eat an expensive meal as this was also considered neo-platonism. The home was a place where the word of God was taught:

1) By word of mouth
2) memorization
3) intense study
4) music

I disagree with Adam Clarke in this. I do not believe that all marriage, other than that in the fear and love of God and under his direction, is a lifelong act of adultery. I don't believe there is a biblical basis for that statement. It would have necessitated the remarriage of almost every couple in the 1st century, which plainly did not happen.

I agree. I think he was looking at it from an angle that taken wrong would be very very dangerous indeed. I once heard a man tried to put away his wife saying that the former was the 'old covenant' and the new was the 'new' covenant. Trying to sort things out like that are highly dangerous. I think of Paul's words:

Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. (I Cor. 7:20)

My pastor says that folk have to start right where they are when God calls them and go forward from there- forgetting those things that are behind and reaching forth to those things that are before. I don't 100% agree- but I think generally it is quite true.

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

1. he took her
2. she became 'his woman'
3. he loved her.

I know we may be uncomfortable with this in our current age but there is definitely a sense of a man 'owning his wife' throughout the scripture. It is seen in the instructions for a woman's vows in particular.

We sometimes say that 'marriage' is God's idea but that demands this definition of 'marriage' which I personally find so difficult, biblically. If we look at the general statement of [color=0000FF]Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24 KJVS)[/color] we can plainly see the 'leaving and cleaving' and I think that has to be a part of 'marriage'; this is a new 'entity' which has replaced the old 'entity' of the original family. I think that these steps are integral to any definition of God's plan for the union of a man and a woman.

Our Lord attributed these words to God...
[color=0000FF]And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6 KJVS)[/color].. it is the creator who said these words. The separation from the old and the adhering to the new is foundational but I still struggle to know the point at which it could be said that 'God has [u]joined them[/u] together'.

The separation from the old and the adhering to the new is foundational but I still struggle to know the point at which it could be said that 'God has joined them together'.

Would the 'joining' be the same as the joining of a covenant? It seems that God's original design was a blood covenent?

saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant that God enjoined unto you,' (Heb. 9:10)

This is why I think the tokens of the covenant were so vital for the parents. It was proof that the deal had been 'sealed'. Just as circumcision was a 'token' of the covenant, etc. I know the implications of this are horrendous and even challenging to consider, I am really just trying to understand what God's perfect will was. We know His permissive will has made allowances for things. I suspect my question would be to wonder how that played out.

Any thoughts?

[color=0000FF]Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. (Hebrews 9:20 KJVS)[/color]

The word translated 'enjoined' here is really 'commanded', [url=http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1781&Version=kjv]entellO[/url] so the image is a little different. The word translated 'cleave' in Gen 2 is to 'glue' things together...[url=http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H01692&Version=kjv]dabaq[/url]