What constitutes "marriage"?

That's a non sequitur. The bill of divorcement was a license. It was special permission to do something without which permission would be illegal. It was given because of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, so hard and wicked is the heart of men, that if no concession were made in this case, greater wickedness would result.

But no bill was needed for marriage. Only the permission of the father.

 

A marriage consists of vows made before God and man that two people (man and woman) will come together and stay together until death do them part.
Having said that, the marriage first of all is a God ordainied institution. However, like government (alse a God ordained institution), that does not necessarily means it falls under the umbrella of church authority. God ordained marriage as the building block of our society. Without the family unit our society (as does every society) will break down very quickly. Marriage is absolutely essential to the welfare of the society.

The Lord taught us (Rom.13:1-4) to be subject to the higher powers, that is the government. Marriage is primarily a civil ceremony, not necessarily religious. The laws of the land must be obeyed in marriage. It is not simply the shacking up of two individuals consenting to live together. That is fornication. All illicit sex before marriage is sin in God's sight. There must be [b[a legal[/b] marriage. Otherwise it is fornication.

Many people involve a church simply for sentimental, emotional reasons. I have relative who was recently married, unfortunately in a liberal church by an apostate minister. The bride's mother wanted a beautiful church building with a beutiful atmosphere about it. The ambience had to be just right, etc. I would rather that they would have just gone to the justice of the peace than to be married in a church by an apostate minister.

There are thousands of unsaved that are married every day. They don't believe in God. Are their marriages invalid. Are the marriages of Hindus, Muslims, Zorastrians, atheists, etc, all invalid because they don't believe in the true and living God? Of course not. Marriage is primarily a civil ceremony with promises made before witnesses that the two will stay together the rest of their lives.

Matthew 19:5-6 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?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It is a God-ordained institution. Divorce is not countenanced. Divorce was never condoned by God. Even in the qualifications of a pastor he is to be a one-wife man, the idea being that only one woman was to have been his wife throughout his lifetime.

Marriage must follow the laws of the land. What are laws in your land?
Here if the preacher is not licenced he goes against that law.
The bride and groom must submit to a blood test.
They must obtain a marriage certificate.
They must be married by a licenced minister or a justice of the peace.
And at that time marriage was between a man and a woman

For the sake of Christian testimony is it not better to follow the laws of the land rather than to look like a rebel?
Three are many preachers who don't want anything to do with the government for some reason. They are opposed to being registered with the government and therefore unable to give out receipts for income tax purposes. They are opposed to being licenced by the government and therefore cannot legally marry a couple. They are even opposed to obtaining building permits from the government. I find that such postitions are wrong and unbiblical. Submit yourselves to the higher authorities, that is the government, and that includes in the area of marriage.
God does not countenance: fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.
Thus the marriage institution prevents all such illicit sexual deviancy. It gives the society the building block that it needs for a stable and moral backbone.
DHK

 

Just to throw a wrench in the works, how about Ezra 10? The Israelites married foreign women. There was a big upset over it and the upshot was that the whole lot of foreign women were divorced and sent away with their children. The Bible doesn't say that God told Ezra to order this, but it is depicted as being a righteous decision.

 

Just to throw a wrench in the works, how about Ezra 10? The Israelites married foreign women. There was a big upset over it and the upshot was that the whole lot of foreign women were divorced and sent away with their children. The Bible doesn't say that God told Ezra to order this, but it is depicted as being a righteous decision. </font>[/QUOTE]These were mixed marriages which the Lord always condemned. He continually warned Israel only to marry within her own nation. Remember the wicked cruelty of Levi and Simeon done to the Shechemites because Shechem had taken their sister (although it was probably consensual). The agreement afterward was that the two nations would be able to intermarry one with another. By deceit they agreed, but only to be able to slaughter all the males. They knew God would only allow marriage within the nation.
Be not unequally yoked together.
Different laws were enforced in different dispensations. We are no longer under the law.
DHK

 

Aaron,
I guess people will have to do what they should do anyway. Do their own research to see which one of us is misinformed.

But, for example, the records I referenced in Crawford Co, IL in 1817 were NOT merely records.
They evidenced permission. Also, ministers of the Gospel were licensed by the county to perform valid marriages.

Look up early marriage bonds in Virginia, for example. Other people had to post surety for the engaged couple, to get a license from the state. The surety, in other words, money paid to the govt, was a guarantee that there were no legal impediments to the marriage.
Marriages recorded in the early colonies are not just recording events that the govt had no control over.

Marriage has always been regulated by govt in this country.
Marriage is a fundamental building block of all of society, as DHK said above.

Karen

 

That's a non sequitur. The bill of divorcement was a license. It was special permission to do something without which permission would be illegal. It was given because of the hardness of their hearts. In other words, so hard and wicked is the heart of men, that if no concession were made in this case, greater wickedness would result.

But no bill was needed for marriage. Only the permission of the father. </font>[/QUOTE]Civil laws of "the nation" allowed for divorce and "an eye for an eye" but the "moral law" was still "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18.

It would be unjust to insert moral laws as civil laws in things like "Turn the other cheek". You could not throw someone in jail for failing to turn the other cheek as they were being pummelled.

Neither could "The state" make two antagonists "stay together" no matter how much they endangered their lives.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oops! I don't think I am supposed to post here.

Sorry about that folks.

 

Would not be on record except they obtained a record, these came from Court Records that are recorded, I have for sure a license in 1907 and probably have some older but haven't looked as of yet.

so it is funny you think, well you say only permission from father but there were other things to be made to father such as gifts and a covenant. In case you don't know it a verbal agreement is just a binding as a written one if you have witnesses

Very well put DHK but there are a couple thing I don't agree with. Marriage is a heavenly action;

1 Corinthians, chapter 6
"16": What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Mark, chapter 10
6": But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
"7": For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
"8": And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
"9": What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Also the bill of divorcement DHK
God did condone it for he put Israel away himself!!

Jeremiah, chapter 3
"8": And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

(This is not under the Law DHK and notice the word "except".)

KJMatt.19
9": And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

 

I agree the State couldn't make them stay together but there is a greater Law than the State and according to the previouly posted Scriptures they will be held accountable

 

A marriage license is not permission, per se, so much as simply informing them of your intentions. When I perform a marriage, I am required by law, to fill out the paperwork. It goes into the records. The government does not give you permission. Now, if they find out that you have more than one wife, or you committed some kind of fraud, they do have a paper trail, but they still don't give or deny you permission.

 

Well,
I guess we can quibble about the word "permission". If you don't fall within the boundaries, such as being old enough, or not being under duress, then no, you do not have "permission" from the state.
Your intentions imply that you are meeting legal requirements.

When you fill out the paperwork, you fill it out accurately. Therefore, you are not trying to marry two 13-year-olds, because you are only filling out paperwork on people who are old enough and thus have "permission".

Karen

 

DHK wrote

That is pretty much what I and everyone else said who disagrees with Gina said in our begining post in the begining pages

 

Brother Bob, why are you looking up Hebrew? The NT word was not the Hebrew word. It was as I said. You cannot just look up the word "governor" and pick a definition, you have to look up which word was used in that verse and what it meant. In this case, it did NOT mean a civil authority.

You can argue that a word doesn't mean what a word means, but that doesn't make it so. You can't just go changing what the original word was, and what it meant in the language it was written in.

Well I guess you can, but it seems like a careless way to handle scripture, and isn't accurate.

Why not just concede that you were mistaken on this one small point, and move on? Nobody's going to think less of you for having made a mistake. They might of me, but that's another story. LOL

Even if that part wasn't true, why would a government official go around directing the details of a wedding? How many times does the government not just come to a wedding, but participate right down to hanging out, running the details, making sure the drinks are good and such?

Anyhow, I'm not gonna argue that point anymore. The word means what it means, and if that's not accepted, there's really nothing else I can say.

 

Gina:
Even with Architriklinos it is questionable but most think the NT was in Greek but not absolutely sure for the OT was Hebrew but we both are going on what others have said and not the Scriptures for I don't see no where in there it tells the future of translations. No harm meant. I don't think I made a mistake just wanted to give all opinions on the subject. Strange that just in this one Scripture, "governor" means to take care of a feast. To be honest I think it was when Gershom was giving me a hard time so I was looking up all I could.
BTW, I went to your website and it looks great!!

 

There's a couple other times in which it was used in the same way. Not meaning particularly "of a feast", but in governor meaning the person running the scene, in a non-governmental capacity, such as wedding planner, organizer, etc..

If you go to http://www.crosswalk.com , you will find that not only can you look up verses in many versions of the bible, but they have all kinds of study guides online. Strong's concordance, other concordances, lexicons, commentaries, it's just a wealth of great stuff that you can look up faster than you can leaf through those things at home.
It's free access, and it's very helpful. Plus, you'd pay tons of cash to have to buy all the things they have available for free!

 

Thanks

 

Sure. I probably sounded like a salesperson, but I love that site!

 

The word in John 2:8 is different than the civil ruler, such as that found in Matthew 27:15, which is "hEgemOn", which does mean ruler.

On "architriklinos", Vincent has this to say: Ruler of the feast (ἀρχιτρικλίνῳ)
From ἄρχω, to be chief, and τρίκλινον, Latin, triclinium, a banqueting-hall with three couches (see on Mar_6:39). Some explain the word as meaning the superintendent of the banqueting-chamber, a servant whose duty it was to arrange the table-furniture and the courses, and to taste the food beforehand. Others as meaning one of the guests selected to preside at the banquet according to the Greek and Roman usage. This latter view seems to be supported by a passage in Ecclesiasticus (35:1, 2): “If thou be made the master of a feast, lift not thyself up, but be among them as one of the rest; take diligent care for them, and so sit down. And when thou hast done all thy office, take thy place, that thou mayst be merry with them, and receive a crown for thy well ordering of the feast.” According to the Greek and Roman custom, the ruler of the feast was chosen by throwing the dice. Thus Horace, in his ode to his friend Sestius, says, moralizing on the brevity of life: “Soon the home of Pluto will be thine, nor wilt thou cast lots with the dice for the presidency over the wine.” He prescribed the proportions of wine and water, and could also impose fines for failures to guess riddles, etc. As the success of the feast depended largely upon him, his selection was a matter of some delicacy. Plato says, “Must we not appoint a sober man and a wise to be our master of the revels? For if the ruler of drinkers be himself young and drunken, and not over-wise, only by some special good fortune will he be saved from doing some great evil” (“Laws,” 640). The word occurs only here and Joh_2:9. Wyc. simply transcribes: architriclyn.

 

Thanks Hope of Glory;
But, I guess there are others who wonder the same as I about the word Governor in that particular Scripture.

But the biggest interpretative problem in the canonical text is what can be described as the "Mystery of the Architriklinos" -- which RSV translates as "steward of the feast". Who is this "steward", what exactly is his social status, and why is he ordering about even the bridegroom, of all people? This seems totally Imponderable, and all the commentators seem to be stumped by this...

He seemed to have authority over the groom and all the people. Could be he was just telling them where their seats were, I don't know.

This has been quite a thread though.

 

Why do you call it the "mystery"?

The KJV is the only version I have that translates that word as "governor", but think about the British use of the phrase, and the time that it was translated.

It is simply the steward or the manager. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a government representative.