Biblical Marriage

I really don't understand why one would not want to get a marriage license. Before a couple is married, they obtain a marriage license. The minister who marries the couple signs it and then it is recorded in the county/State of residence.

After my first marriage, the only time that anyone wanted to see my marriage license was after my husband died and I applied for Social Security Benefits. There may have been other times, but it was after his death.

The state did not interfere with our marriage. It was as Pastor Bob says, simply recorded.

When applying for a marriage license, the application does ask questions to be sure that a person is eligible to be married.

I'm not aware of what a covenant marriage means, but there may be problems in receiving certain benefits such as insurance, social security, ownership of property, etc.

I know this is not exactly on the subject as to a Biblical Marriage, but it is things to think about.

The way I understand it "Common-Law-Marriages" are legal marriages in certain states, but even those have to meet state guidelines and be recognized by the state.

I personally think that the marriage license protects the rights of the married couple, especially the woman.

It seems that there are many misconceptions concerning marriage licenses, covenant marriage, common-law-marriage, civil ceremony and religious ceremony. Some are legal and some are not. I have no doubt that a couple that is in one of these relationships may be just as devoted, committed, loyal to each other as one who obtains a marriage license and then has a marriage ceremony.

I do not know if all these marriages are recognized by God, but I for one have the marriage license and the religious ceremony performed by our pastor to be sure that my marriage is recognized by God. And further our marriage is recognized by the State and we are entitled to certain benefits and responsibilities.

 

Apparently I have been missing an interesting thread which (if this 'Murphy' is telling the truth) is to be shut down.

'Pastor Larry' clearly had a flaw in his argument--> claiming that failure to obtain a state-issued marriage license before consummating an agreeement to live as husband and wife is a sin against God because of the obey-the-government provisions of Romans 13. The flaw is that the state does not require anyone to get married. If a couple "gets married" without such a state-issued license, whether is has recognition as a valid marriage depends on the state the couple lives in. But the Word of God has no explicit requirement to get a license, and the state may not require a license in order to have legal recognition as marriage.

The only way PL's argument has merit would be if the state requires a license for a couple to live together 'as husband and wife.' There is no such requirement in any state I am aware of.

And frankly I do not believe Pastor Larry has absolutely never broken a traffic law or any type of government regulation whatsoever.

 

Actually, you are incorrect and completely missing the point of Rom 13. First, God does not set out stipulations about what the say may or may not regulate. It only sets forth what our response to state regulations is to be. So your last line is missing the mark by a wide margin.

The state does not require a lot of things, but does set out requirements if you decided to participate in some things. For instance, the state does not require you to drive; but it does demand that if you drive, you obtain a license, and drive on the right side of the road, and drive a certian speed. To fail to do so is to break the law. The believer cannot drive without a license, even if he loves God and is going to church, which God has ordained. I drew the comparison between God ordained marriage and God ordained church. Both are very similar in this argument. To say that man has no jurisdiction over something God ordained is clearly wrong. You cannot break the traffic laws just because you are going to a God ordained church.

Several days ago, I pointed this out, and thus already answered your argument. Just coming in at the last minute has put your behind a bit in this. Your argument here is not even close to what is being discussed. The issue in Rom 13 is not even closely related to what you are saying.

It is true that there is no requirement for license to "live together as 'husband and wife.'" It is called fornication in Scripture ... living together without the benefit of marriage. But in every state that I am familiar with (which is not all of them), a license is required for actual marriage. Two people can certainly live together as husband and wife without a license; they cannot be a husband and wife without a license in the states that I am familiar with.

The believer, in obedience to the command prohibiting fornication, must obtain a license where necessary to be married.

On this, you would be right. But I carefully follow the traffic laws and other government regulations so as to fulfill my duty of obedience to God. I certainly have failed from time to time, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes for other reasons. But I make a concerted effort to follow the law. Therefore, when I got married, we got a license. Why? Because I wanted to be obedient to God and there was no other way.

However, this is irrelevant. I often deal with people in counseling who like to blame their own sins on someone else -- the classic finger-pointing: "He did it too." I always remind them that they are responsible for themselves. The fact that someone else did something does not excuse their own poor choice.

 

I have a question. Can a couple have a covenant marriage and have a state marriage license?

Interesting Link http://www.covenantmarriage.com/templates/cuscovmarriage/details.asp?id=20786&PID=34215

 

Actually, I think the exemption for a hunting and fishing license in most states is only if you are hunting on your own property. I cannot hunt on your property without a license. But that is somewhat irrelevant since it doesn't really apply.

You are right that in some cases, the state has made exemptions for some things. To my knowledge (and no one here has shown contrarily), there is no state exemption for marriage wihtout a license. As I pointed out to Alcott, two people may live together as a husband and wife without a license, but that does not make them married. In most states, common law marriage is not invoked until after a specified time of living together. In which case, even common law marriage involves fornication for a period of time. I am not sure what that law is in all states.

Where are the provisions for marriage without a license?? Please explain them to us.

Second, the fact that covenant in mentioned 272 (I actually got 316) times in Scripture without a license is irrelevant to this discussion. In Bible times, submission to the state did not require more than the state requires. Today, submission to the state does not require more than the state requires. If in Bible times, a license was not required by the state, then why would it have been mentioned?? The command to obey state laws is not limited to the laws that we like. Paul makes that clear.

But you have provided no Scripture that shows a marriage license to be in violation of God's command. You have provided no answer why you should not obey God's command to subject yourself to the laws of the state. That is why we are unconvinced.

And my response to this trivialization of the issue is John 8:11: John 8:11 Go. From now on sin no more."

This type of response is unfortunately all too typical of those who, when confronted with issues, do not wish to change to conform to Scripture. It is an unfortunate day in Christianity when it is thrown around cheaply. The thing that Christ was addressing was "hypcrisy," those who insist that some live by a standard they themselves are unwilling to live by. I don't qualify for that.

 

Betty, I apologize in advance, I'm about to head to work and don't have time to read the link but I wanted to quickly answer you.

Many states now offer covenant marriages which are an extra paper where the couple engaged to marry sign making it harder for them to divorce. I think it's good and bad. We should not have to have the state prevent us from divoring so quickly. The Bible does that for us... BUT... if it gives upset couples time to reconsider and get over some hurts...

Hope you all have a Blessed day in Christ Jesus our Lord!

Diane

 

Here's the scene:

Young couple moves into the apartment next to you. You have teens or younger children. The couple says "We are Christian. We have decided to live as man and wife. We have covenanted together to do so."

Your child asks them, "Does that mean you are not married?"

"It means we did not take out a marriage license from the state, but we consider ourselves married in the eyes of God"

"Cool! That means it's OK to live together without getting married if you are a Christian!"


What's wrong with this picture???

Aren't we supposed to avoid the appearance of evil?

 

Is this a correct statement?

A married couple with a state license may have a covenant marriage and it would be legal in the eyes of the State and God, but a Covenant Marriage without a state license is not legal and is not a marriage in the eyes of the State and God.

Is this correct?

The only reason for a Covenant marriage is to make it more difficult to get a divorce.

I had not heard of the covenant marriage before, but it seems from what I have read about it, it would be a good thing if the laws of the state are followed. Is this correct?

 

http://www.divorcereform.org/cov.html


No Betty, I'm confusing you. SOME states have ADDED covenant marriage (nothing Biblical about THESE) for couples who don't want to be able to easily divorce. I had read about them maybe a year ago. I believe La. is one such state. The paper basically states reasons divorce might be allowed but the parties agree to counseling for a certain amount of time before the state would grant a divorce. THOSE covenant marriages have nothing to do with what Walls, Grace1998 and others are speaking of and are not religious.

Diane

 

Here's a great explanation from the state of La.

http://patriot.net/~crouch/cov/index.html

 

Then the link I posted is something different?
A different kind of covenant marriage?
From this link it says that even Baptists are involved. Link

 

The way I understand it is that one still has to have a marriage license to have a covenant marriage, but this is not what Walls is referring to, or is it?

 

May I suggest that there are Christians who do not consider a covenant marriage as "the appearance of evil?"

This is where you see things from one side. Just as the preacher in the Baptist church may preach that it is a sin for women to wear pants while the preacher two blocks down the road does not. Just as one preacher may preach that it is an appearance of evil for women to cut their hair short while another does not. Is it an appearance of evil for one Baptist church to not have an evening service while so many others do, etc. etc?

But the man and woman are married before they live together. They have covenanted together and with God. Obtaining a state license acknowledges what God has already done.

What GOD hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

It has nothing to do with what other Christians, think, Grace, but with the testimony we present to the rest of the world.

Do we obey the law or not?

Do we conduct our lives without the appearance of evil or not?

Do we uphold what the OTHERS understand as moral standards or not?

I know we cannot please everyone, but I am pretty sick at heart of the idea that so many "Christians" present to the world that "I'm a Christian so I can get away with anything and I live by a code that is different from yours and if you don't like it, tough. I can appear immoral in your eyes, I can be somewhat unethical in my business, whatever -- you see I'm forgiven!"

That is hopefully not how most Christians approach their faith, but there are enough giving that impression that there are time when even I would rather hire someone known for honesty despite being a pagan than someone with a fish on the business card! Like many, many others, I have learned to be very wary of those claiming to be Christian businessmen.

What does this have to do with marriage? It also is, actually, a public thing. It is something which defines your place in a community which includes people of all variety of faiths and non-faiths. How we are perceived by them makes all the difference regarding their attitude toward Christ Himself.

Remember, Jesus was circumcized and baptized. Neither of these was necessary for Him. But it was done to fulfill the law and all righteousness.

Cannot we do the same in our lives, in presenting Him to the world?

We should be the people who follow the law the most, not the least.

 

I don't know what it is here now, but at one time it was 7 years. What that would mean if walls lived here is that for 7 years she was living in sin, unmarried to a man who she had children by. So as far as I am concerned,considering this law, her common law marriage being bible is flawed.

Since walls is talking about just living together and calling it marriage, then yes, it is the appearence of evil. Sex without mattiage is sin. As has been shown, a covenant marriage is in addition to a marriage license, and only available is some states.
So when two people, christian or not live together without being married, then as the bible says, it is sin.

If living to gether is all it takes to make a marriage, then gays who claim a marriage must be married too. So the other days when Rosie O'Donnell said on the news she just wanted to go home and be with her wife and mother in law and father in law, she really is married and has a wife. If it's legal for walls, it's legal for Rosie O'Donnell. Snubbing your nose at the law and God's word works both ways.

When christians break the law the unsaved world says, see their no different then I am, why should I have to worship that god is they do the samethings I do.
What a witness to the lost.

 

The self righteousness across this board is really something.

Y'all seemed so concerned about the "appearance of evil" while you are guilty of the same (myself included).

Is it an appearance of evil to have over 7000 posts on this board? I could lay out scripture that says it is.

It is merely a question of what constitutes biblical marriage and has resorted to some attacking others for their beliefs on the subject. God help us all.

I move to close this thread, seeing that there are people who want to cut others with their sense of self righteousness, calling them sinners because they differ on the subject at hand.

 

Gracious, I learned a lot in this thread from state marriage laws to Jewish traditions to "covenant marriages". Baptist board is a gem.

On the whole, I agree mostly with Pastor Larry on biblical marriages: we are to obey the state because God said so. If the state requires A, B, and C for marriage then we must submit to it; however, we cannot violate a direction principle of God if it contradicts the state standard.

On another note, Biblical Marriage probably exists in its purest definition in Ephesians 5:22-25 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

I'm now gonna put on my armor, grab my lightsaber, and duck behind my blast shield before I the shots come.

 

In response to Grace: Is it self-rightousness to plead for a moral witness to the world? I am not claiming perfection, and the number of my posts is mainly because I moderated a number of forums up until this past summer when I had to back out for awhile as we are getting our house ready to sell.

It sounds very much like your defensiveness, Grace, is because you have no defense for your witness to the world. You see, it doesn't matter whether I consider your marriage valid or not. As far as I personally am concerned, that is between you and God. What matters far more is the witness you are presenting to the rest of the world, and I question very much whether or not it is a good one.

Oh, I do not think it was self-righteousness to point out what Jesus subjected himself to, either. He was, as we both know, God and man, and a perfect being. And yet He obeyed imperfect parents, subjected Himself to the law and even paid the Temple tax, although He pointed out very clearly that He was exempt from it.

Why? Because there was no reason for Him to offend anyone by disobeying these laws, even though He had every right, as God Himself, to do so.

If HIS character is in us, then we will be doing as He did, no? We will be obeying the laws to the best of our imperfect abilities, knowing we sin, repenting of it always, and knowing that, because of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, we will not be judged by that law in terms of our salvation. But there will be, for some, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" I would pray for that for each one on this board. I know a good deal of His rewards has to do with our witness toward others, though, and all I can encourage you to do is to forget your excuses and just get done what should be done for the sake of witness to others who need to know the love of the Lord so badly in their lives.

 

Question yours as well, sister.

 

In fairness to Walls, she has a covenant marriage not a common law marriage.

I'm not sure that in my state that there is a Number of years required for common law marriage. The way I understand it, a man and woman presents themselves as husband and wife, therefore, their marriage is legal under the state law. And they would not be living in sin but according to the state common law statute.

Of course there is legislative law and there is case law to determine common law marriage in Oklahoma.

It appears that in some states that no matter the type of marriage a person chooses, they are still under the state law which would also put them under following God's law. Just my thought.

We need to be very careful to say that another person is living in sin.