What constitutes "marriage"?

[Gina B]

On the question of "is this sin the same as that sin", you mentioned laziness and adultery, with the intention of pointing out that one is vastly worse than the next.
However, this is how I would answer that question.

If the only sin man ever committed was to be slothful, would Christ have had to die?

If the only sin man ever committed was to tell one small white lie, would Christ have still died?

My point is that sin is sin. We are no less guilty or needy of Christ's blood for an "insignificant" act than a "biggie".

If Christ is able to keep us from big sin, it must be even easier to keep us from small sin. Yet obviously doesn't, because none of us are perfect. That leads me to believe that although the stronger we are in Christ, the stronger his influence and the less sin we have, He still does not always stop us from sinning.

However, all of this is way off topic.

BTW, Wildfire came on here and made a statement that almost perfectly encapsulated what took me a zillion posts to try to get across.

 

[Brother Bob]

Gina;
I am not trying to just be negative with you. I feel strongly about this subject as you do also and we are stating our veiws. I try to use Scripture always to support my position. I am concerned about the movement of the Church to a much more liberal positon for God does not change. I wonder how far is too far. The Bible says in the last days they will turn from the truth unto fables so we must be up and about our Father's business.

2 Corinthians, chapter 12
"9": And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
"10": Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
"11": I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing


1 Peter, chapter 1
"3": Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
"4": To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
"5": Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time .
"6": Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:

1 John, chapter 5
16": If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
"17": All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Even the Bible teaches us there is a difference of sin. It is not me saying that but the Scripture and the one the church can forgive is the sin which is not unto death, which adultery is not

 

[Gina B]

I agree that there is a mass movement towards what I term peripheral Christianity, defined as surrounding one's self with Christ-like stuff, rather than Christ being in the middle and moving outward.

That's just within Christianity. Within the real of politics, of government, it's an all out denial of the things of God.

I see moving away from it as going back to the good ways, the ways of God. Certainly not as becoming more liberal and accepting of questionable things.

Marriage is just one aspect of this. Admittedly, it's a biggie! But, what are our options? What are we saying to the world when we accept the authority of a corrupt government that does not fear God or want to keep his commandments?

This is a concern.

How do we handle it as Christians? It would seem that to continue to accept the authority of a nation that wants to redefine marriage, that allows divorces right and left, that performs marriages that should never take place, is the more liberal approach.

I don't understand why others are disagreeing with that. I'd appreciate input into why people believe this is not true.

(And I am really disgusted that I used the term "liberal" to describe it. LOLOL Most here know how I feel about that term...in my defense, I only used it to reply to a comment that used it.

)

 

[Brother Bob]

I share your concern. I have to look ahead and give the warning if I see the enemy coming. I may not always be right but I sure try.
BBob

 

[saturneptune]

Brother Bob,
McCracken, in far west Kentucky near Paducah. What about you brother??

 

[Brother Bob]

Saturneptune;
I am in the very eastern tip of KY neat the WV border in Pike County. Reason I asked there is two Lone Oak, KY's the other one is around Frankfort or a litte southwest of Frankfort. Looks like you are south of Louisville.

 

[Wildfire]

I think many of us are uncomfortable with anything that smacks of an excuse to just "shack up." But I believe Gina makes a very solid point. Jesus told us not only to "render unto Caesar," but also to render unto God what is His. Marriage doesn't belong to Caesar, and there is no reason we should accept government's conventions for it. I don't see a single word in the Bible that tells us how God prescribes for us to "get married." I only see that He tells us to take it seriously and permanently. Clearly, that's not working with the current social order, so I see no reason for us to passionately defend that order. Couples should give their relationship passionately to God and stay that way. How they get there is between them and their Creator.

However, Romans 13 tells us that we are to be subject to those in authority that God has placed over us (Rom 13:1a). Also that there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by God (Rom. 13:1b). Likewise, these authorities, or rulers, are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad (Rom. 13:3). Finally, these rulers are God's servants for our good (Rom. 13:4a). As such we should not have any problems submitting to the authority of the state with respect to our marriages.

That would be true if it were against the law to do what we are suggesting. Since it is not against the law, we are not defying those authorities, therefore the cite from Romans 13 doesn't apply to this question.

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Karen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildfire:

............Jesus told us not only to "render unto Caesar," but also to render unto God what is His. Marriage doesn't belong to Caesar, and there is no reason we should accept government's conventions for it..........Couples should give their relationship passionately to God and stay that way. How they get there is between them and their Creator.

There's where you and I will continue to disagree. As others and I previously discussed on this thread, marriage in a sense does belong to Caesar. How it is carried out affects all of society, nonbelievers as well as believers. It affects far more people than just the two people who "give their relationship passionately to God".
Also, as an extreme example, I recall a former poster on the BB. The spouse had a major personality change because of an auto accident. There need to be societal protections that go beyond the initial good feelings of the immediate two involved.

Karen </font>

This train of logic is a radical misinterpretation of the Scripture. To take this position, you must then say that everything that affects society belongs to Caesar. Further, as I previously mentioned, "Caesar" doesn't make it illegal to do what we're suggesting. The only legal reason for a marriage license is to accrue certain benefits granted under law. If the individuals in question don't want those benefits, the question doesn't apply. And the institution of government-sanctioned marriage is very clearly not solving any social problems. Only a firm commitment to God can do that, which is far outside of government authority. Caesar has no laws to protect the wife with the "radical personality change," so how would getting a marrige license protect her more than a firm commitment to God's definition of marriage?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Frenchy:
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion ." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

In the above passage, notice that Paul had a very specific reason why people should get married: "to avoid fornication." Here is what the English word "fornication" means:

"to have sex with someone who you are not married to" (Freesearch Dictionary)
"Fornication: Sexual intercourse that is "illicit", outside of marriage." (Medical Dictionary)
"fornication n. sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other." (Law Dictionary)
"consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
"NOUN: Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

WORD HISTORY: The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the act to which it refers. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicti, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant "a vault, an arch." The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicr, "to commit fornication," from which is derived fornicti, "whoredom, fornication." Our word is first recorded in Middle English about 1303." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.)

"c.1300, from O.Fr. fornication, from L.L. fornicationem (nom. fornicatio), from fornicari "fornicate," from L. fornix (gen. fornicis) "brothel," originally "arch, vaulted chamber" (Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings), from fornus "oven of arched or domed shape." Strictly, "voluntary sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman;" extended in the Bible to adultery." (Online Etymology Dictionary)

"Fornication - Hebrew: zanah / Greek: porneia
Fornication is voluntary sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other. Adultery is one type of fornication.

In every form, fornication was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law among God's people, the Israelites (Lev. 21:9; 19:29; Deut. 22:20-11, 23-29; 23:18; Ex. 22:16). (See ADULTERY.)

Fornication is also mentioned many times in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32; 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:7; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4).

"The Greek word for 'fornication' (porneia) could include any sexual sin committed after the betrothal contract. ...In Biblical usage, 'fornication' can mean any sexual congress outside monogamous marriage. It thus includes not only premarital sex, but also adultery, homosexual acts, incest, remarriage after un-Biblical divorce, and sexual acts with animals, all of which are explicitly forbidden in the law as given through Moses (Leviticus 20:10-21). Christ expanded the prohibition against adultery to include even sexual lusting (Matthew 5:28)." (Dr. Henry M. Morris)
The word "fornication" is sometimes used in a symbolic sense in the Bible, for example, meaning a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa. 1:2; Jer. 2:20; Ezek. 16; Hos. 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer. 3:8-9)." (christiananswers.net, emphasis added)

So depending on the context, the Greek word porneia can mean adultery, incest, prostitution, idolatry, etc., but the important point here is that porneia also means fornication (premarital sex) as in this example:

http://www.layhands.com/IsPremaritalSexASin.htm

The problem is that you're assuming the government's definition of what "getting married" is. You've got the right handle on the Scripture, but the wrong paradigm about marriage. If I, as a pastor, say that a couple has been married in my sight, can you show me the Scripture that says they have to have a license from the state to make that true?

 

[Wildfire]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
What about a man or woman that is jumping from one to another does that mean he or she is married that many times?

It's so easy to take an answer out of context. I don't see anyone suggesting that jumping from bed to bed is the same thing as marriage. God tells us to be faithful in our marriage. The question is, does that require a license from the government? Because if that's the case, then if the government also says the marriage doesn't exist by reason of irreconcilable differences, does that trump what Scripture says about it? Either marriage belongs to Caesar, or marriage belongs to God. Not both. My wife and I have a marriage license. We wanted to do it that way, but if a 70 year old couple doesn't want to lose Social Security benefits, I will solemnize their commitment in marriage without requiring them to have a license from the government. It's not against the law, and it's not against Scripture.

 

[Frenchy]

I just know that Jesus told the woman at the well that he did not condemn her either.

He also told her to "Go and sin no more!"

 

[Frenchy]

WILDFIREI thought i already answered this but her goes again.

The problem is that you're assuming the government's definition of what "getting married" is. You've got the right handle on the Scripture, but the wrong paradigm about marriage. If I, as a pastor, say that a couple has been married in my sight, can you show me the Scripture that says they have to have a license from the state to make that true?

Question:
Biblically speaking, what constitutes a marriage?

Answer:
Scripture does not give us a direct statement , i.e., “To be married one must…” While differences exist regarding exactly what Malachi 2:14 means, it does suggest that one of the things that constituted marriage was a covenant made between a man and a woman (probably in public) of their intention to be joined in marriage as a life-long commitment. Following the presentation of the bride to the groom, they were to go immediately into their house and consummate the marriage through sexual intercourse. These two things constituted the marriage in the culture of the Old Testament and this is also seen in various ways in the gospels. Marriage was in three stages: first, there was the betrothal stage, then, at the right time, there was the presentation of the bride to the groom who would come for his bride. This would be equivalent to our wedding ceremony. This was then followed by a time of celebration or feasting. Important to this was when the bride and groom would go into their home or a designated house to consummate the marriage.

http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=50&qa_id=42

quote:from Brother Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about a man or woman that is jumping from one to another does that mean he or she is married that many times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then I wrote...exactly Brother Bob that is why this whole discussion is foolish! no one now in days stays together for very long. even people who get married the right way end up divorced for the majority. there is not a state or a country that doesn't perform some kind of ceremony with witnesses in a covenant situation, which results in consumation finallizing the union.

to agree with all this hogwash is to condone sin and open a door to all kinds of perversions like homosexuality!

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Karen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Where I live now does not recognize common law marriages at all, and has not for many, many years. Where I moved from recognized it after you had been shacking up together for seven years, and then only for inheritance purposes.

That was never true anywhere in the United States. It's an urban myth.

Listen, I've been asked once or twice to advise a young couple on common law marriage, and I advise them against it unless they have a genuine conscience against a willing acknowledgment of civil authority acting as a third party in their union. In other words, unless they're true conscientious objectors, then they should go ahead and get a license.

........</font>[/QUOTE]Aaron,
It is not an urban myth. I urge you to do a little more research before you are advising young couples.
In Oklahoma, the length of time is nebulous, but cohabitation for a period of time IS one of five things that must be done to meet the terms of a common-law marriage.

Karen </font>[/QUOTE]Cohabitation is a requirement for marriage, but only ONE requirement. My point is that mere cohabitation is not common law marriage. Never was.

At the moment the vows are exchanged and they're pronounced "man and wife," they're married in God's sight. And that's all that matters.

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Aaron:

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

The first marriage license ever issued in America was in 1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his slave. It was for an interracial marriage.

Compliments of askjeeves.com

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Gershom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

Quiz time:

To whom was the first marriage license given in the United States, and why was it needed?

The first marriage license ever issued in America was in 1839, to a rich South Carolina plantation owner, so he could marry his slave. It was for an interracial marriage.

Compliments of askjeeves.com

</font>[/QUOTE]In the words of Gomer Pyle

"Sha-zaaam!!"

 

[Gershom]

As I was reading this --&gt; ARTICLE, a question came to mind. As much as some of us desire to keep the government out of marriage, you know, with the granting of a license and all, this pastor speaks of "when I perform a marriage..." I was wondering why, biblically, does there have to be a pastor involved? Why not just the two with God?

Just thinking...

 

[Brother Bob]

Wildfire;
Talking about something being easy is to come in here in the end of this thread and say "it is so easy to take an answer out of context". You need to read the entire thread to see if you know what you are talking about before makeing an accusation;

Originally posted by Gina L:
It works both ways.
My opinion is that when two people decide to be man and wife to each other, they are man and wife.

Whether or not they admit it. There is no "faking" it, it's always real.

You live together, you are intimate , you're married.

I take it a step further and say if you are intimate, you're married. You don't even have to live together. This does not include anything except mutual consent between two people who understand what they are doing.

Some will tell someone anything they want to hear to be intimate.

Also, I think adultery is breaking the law in most if not all states, they just don't enforce it.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

There are probably laws on the books that make adultery illegal in many states, but the SCOTUS ruling in the Texas sodomy case rendered them unconstitutional. Private, consensual sexual behavior was deemed to not be the province of government.

 

[Brother Bob]

I wonder why the homosexuals are trying so hard to get a license if it is not required. All they have to do is say "we married".

Wildfire;
You can preform all the marriages you want but they are not legal according to the State. Talk about losing a check, what about gaining one because of marriage or spouse dies and you find you are out in the cold. State says, "sorry you were not married to him".

 

[Gershom]

Originally posted by Brother Bob:
I wonder why the homosexuals are trying so hard to get a license if it is not required. All they have to do is say "we married".

Could be because God won't recognize it, so their best bet is to get the state involved.