Featured Must a Marriage be legally licensed to be accepted by God?

What cases and in whose eyes? Only God matters.

 

Gen. 38 - Judah lay with Tamar, the wife of his dead son, thinking she was a prostitute...Once discovered there is no indication they became married...in fact, it says "And he did not know her again."

David lay with Bathsheba, and only later after Uriah was dead did he take her into his house to become his wife.

Exodus 22:16-17 - 16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, jhe shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
-So, if he lies with her, there are two options, "make her his wife" (this is AFTER the "lying")...or pay her father, in which case they are NOT married.

-Deut. 22:28 - If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
-Again, if he sleeps with her, she SHALL BECOME HIS WIFE...not "already is" his wife.

Matthew 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And ghe called his name Jesus.
-Angel said don't be afraid to take her as his wife...Joseph listened, took her as his wife, but did not have relations until after Jesus was born.

That should do for now.

 

In this case, I think it is an example of a culture that took marraige & sex seriously, such that even though he was tricked, Jacob knew the right thing to do was to keep her has his wife...

I agree that this is what should happen, in fact it has happened twice in our church in the last few years: 2 different couples were living/sleeping together, and our pastors convinced them that they need to get married...or as the pastor advised the man in this case, to "make an honest woman out of her." :thumbs:

 

What needs to be understood here is that though not specifically recorded there was some type of ceremony involved, otherwise what did Jacob do, wait till she went to be and then jumped on her. No, there was a preparation and that preparation established in some way (whether spoken or through actions) vows were given or accepted prior to the conjugation, and the act is seen as consummating it.

He was tricked in that she was veiled however the marital act (ceremony and se*ual actions performed) established the marriage and he was bound to her via the marriage covenant. He could not legally just dump her without good and proper cause in that culture.

I will agree to a point. If they are members of the church they need to be lovingly spoken to, but with the understanding that what they are doing is a sin before God and that marriage is the best option if they really love each other and God. Otherwise Church discipline must come into play if they don't stop and repent.

If they are not a part of the church, then speaking and encouraging them is just as important as relating that their lifestyle is hindering their relationship with God due to the sin they are in.

 

I have Bill....I know where your thinking comes from, as you are not the first person to ever pose this idea...I have heard this before, as I am sure Aaron has, and most others on here. You are not the first one to pose this idea to most of us. An encouragement to "read my Bible" on this is presumptuous, My beliefs about marriage ARE formulated from a reading of Scripture...I just disagree with you....and 12 strings has already provided you a very well-taken Scriptural rejoinder to your position.

 

You have style but this will not justify sleeping with a woman and the abandoning her. I don't care if it waqs a fling in the back seat, you married and then deserted her. You have ripped this verse right out of it's context and cork screwed it to serve your purposes, my friend.

Tamar was owed an heir and she had een refused, a sin in itself. When Judah did sin and did not provide a son Tara chose to sin and to be a harlot. This has zero bearing on this issue.

Exodus 22:16-17 - 16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, jhe shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
-So, if he lies with her, there are two options, "make her his wife" (this is AFTER the "lying")...or pay her father, in which case they are NOT married.[/quote]

No!Please read the text of this verse to understand and without the preplanned opinion. Because he lay with her he owes the dowry price and she is his wife and now must proclaim it. As I said, I'm astonished you can skim the scriptures and read authority for your sin into it.

That's twice now, I really struck the sin nerve, didn I? Here the same as above and I'll not repeat, the MS is killing me today.

You make me want to scream! Joseph was Mary's husband and she, his wife before the Angle of the LORD performed the miricle of making her pregnant. They were married way over a year before he coupled with her and again, this does not apply. Context, please.

 

Allan,
We are discussing scripture here and scripture does not support your assertion.

 

And 12strings went completely out of Biblical context and that is not what God recorded. Now, the Bible is of one context from In the beginning through the very last Amen of Revelation 22 meaning that, just as the first understood rule of Hermaneutics, no single nor any selected group of scripture can be understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it.

Before I ever understood this point of scripture I had read the Bible through several times and when doing the topic study I examined all these irrelevant passages just handed me. I wil lsay it again in another manor, study.

 

Scripture speaks DIRECTLY to my assertion as does historical understanding of pagan societies of the time period.

Stick with the scriptures th1bill. The act of sex does not constitute a marriage anywhere in scripture. It consummates it but it does not constitute it.

 

This has become a complex issue only because of disobeying the Lord in the first place. I never lived with anyone before marriage, and am married to the same person I married over 35 years ago, in a church, performed by a pastor, with a license from the state of Kentucky.

These what ifs and technicalities that turn the question into a complex nightmare is from taking a different route. Are they married in the eyes of God without a ceremony? Is one married to everyone that they ever had an intimate relationship with? What about an annullment? What if they did not consumate the marriage? What about second marriages and divorce? What if, what if, what if??? So simple, God's plan.

As someone said, all Scripture is in harmony. We are commanded to obey the laws we are under. Marriage was instituted in Genesis. Sexual behavior in Scripture is made quite clear in deed, motive, and thought. Sometimes I specific verses are used as a roadmap to get us out of a jam. That is totally different than rightly dividing the Word.

Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to decieve.

 

1. You have not addressed the verses I posted, except to say I have somehow taken them out of context...but you not told me how.
-You have simply said without explanation that the account of both Tamar & Mary & Joseph do not apply...but did not say why.
-You have failed to address the part in Exodus where the man might possibly not be married to the woman, if her father refuses.

2. I'm not sure what sin I"m trying to "justify" or "read authority" into...but even by your unproven definition, I have only "married" one woman...and we are still married...in fact, like Mary & Joseph, we were married for several hours before consumation...and if for some reason one of us had a physical problem that made that impossible...we could still be married!

 

I might have made a fool out of myself and assumed but I did. Do you honestly not know the meaning of context?

 

Allan, I wish you all the best in the world but you are not cute. I have remained within the scripture to show the OP what the Bible said. You and the others have, honestly dipped into Satan's tool chest and have shot from the hip, instead of reading and speaking from the Word of God. When some of you, not you, did speak from the scriptures he went to the trouble to add verses that, as I pointed out, support what I have learned about God's view on this matter when they are read in context or when they are used in their context have absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

My only goal now, is to get you and the others to repent and stop sinning. You foloks have fed this young person a crock and in doing so have made yourselves equal with God. I know this because I have, in the past, had to repent of this same sin. And now 12strings wants me to believe he is ignorant and can't comprehend the scriptures nor can he my comments. You folks need to get real.

 

I'll probably regret this.

I know the meaning of context, but simply saying the word "context" or saying the person you are debating is not considering context doesn't show that they are wrong...neither does simply telling us to read the passages again without preconceptions (and impossible thing to do for anyone), or simply to study more.

Please let me know if I understand your view correctly:

1. Tamar & Judah: Their sin DID result in thier marraige, followed by a divorce or sinful abandonment not recorded in scripture? Or else a marraige but one marked by celebacy (also not recorded in scripture).

2. Exodus: A man who lays with a woman is instantly her husband, but if the father refuses consent, they must get a divorce? (Under OT Law)

3. David & Bathsheba: I can only assume you either (a) believe bathsheba was married to 2 men for a time, or (b) believe that in the case of adultery, physical union does not result in marriage? I'm not sure...the text says she became his wife once David took her into his house several weeks/months after the initial act.

In addition, please clarify the following practical applications of your view:

1. If two 14 year-olds "couple", are you saying there is no sin unless they then separate, and/or marry someone else later on? If they stay together and later have wedding ceremony...no sin?

2. If a Christian couple gets engaged...would you then say it is not a sin for them to lay with each other several months before their wedding date...since that makes them married anyway?

FINALLY: No one who holds this view is trying to justify sleeping with someone and then abandoning them. We are simply saying the physical union and the marriage are 2 different things. And we agree that if a couple comes together, the good and right and God-honoring thing to do is to get married and commit to a life together.

 

You also wrote:

And you wrote:
I often find folks croswsing swords with me for what I'm about to give you for an answer. The very moment a man and a woman r a boy and a girl unite in the act of sex, they are married in the eyes of God. In the beginning there was Adam and there was Eve, nowhere was a judge, pastor, preacher nor a licensing beaureau to be found. Such was the case, also for their children and their children's children. [/quote]

God was there in lieu of those mentioned.

Bill, you can't have it both ways.

1) The sex act constitutes marriage. The couple become husband and wife.

2) Married, ie husband and wife, and the sex act has not occurred.

And.....

Matthew 1: KJB
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

They were married in the eyes of God, if we are to believe scripture.

ESPOUS'ED, pp. Betrothed; affianced; promised in marriage by contract; married; united intimately; embraced.
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,espoused

Mary was espoused to Joseph just as we are espoused to Christ. I don't know what ceremony, procedure, etc. was used in that time to recognize their committment. It doesn't matter as scriptures tell us they were husband and wife, when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 11: KJB
1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

God was there in lieu of those mentioned.

Bill, you can't have it both ways.

1) The sex act constitutes marriage. The couple become husband and wife.

2) Married, ie husband and wife, and the sex act has not occurred.

And.....

Matthew 1: KJB
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

They were married in the eyes of God, if we are to believe scripture.

ESPOUS'ED, pp. Betrothed; affianced; promised in marriage by contract; married; united intimately; embraced.
http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,espoused

Mary was espoused to Joseph just as we are espoused to Christ. I don't know what ceremony, procedure, etc. was used in that time to recognize their committment. It doesn't matter as scriptures tell us they were husband and wife, when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 11: KJB
1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.[/QUOTE]

First I wish to thank you for a thoughtful and Christian responce. Perhaps, no, I should have gone to the trouble of pointing out what you have here. I sometimes tend to be short with people that refuse to study and then become experts and rip the scriptures apart. You have been thoughtful with your reply and that demonstrates study... Thank you.

Your remarks are not only solid biblically but they do reflect on the, now, lost purpose of the OP. The misuse of the scriptures of Mary and Joseph just infuriated me. And then I was scolded to remain in the scripture even though the use of the PROOF TEXTING ripped the scriptures into units and voided the context. I do not recall the address but some 22+ years ago, in my Decipleship Classes I have always sought to remember God's admonishment against using the scriptures, just to prove one's point.

And so, with your indulgence, back to the point requested in the OP. When we return to the issue, these people, this couple, are, it appears to me, Common Law Married, making the reference to the union of Joseph to His bride, Mary, without any simblance of fore thought.

So it is, you see, that this point of yours is reason for another discussion but in reference to this marriage of these two persons that have, it appears, made a commitment that, as the scripture instances I used illustrate, makes a marriage in God's eyes, as per recorded scripture. I hope, that by pointing out the root of this string you are able to see where I am coming from. I went so far, in my first post, as to point out that these two needed to go to the Pastor and to have him remarry them for the Church to witness and no one seems to have read me at all except to allow Satan to insert his ugly number nine into their lives.

God Bless, my MS is in relapse and I'm in bed today o nmy laptop.

 

Yes, both of them sinned and the intentional sin of Judah resulted in an additional and unintended sin, the sin of coupling (becoming one with his qwn daughter-in-law) as she, through harlotry sought the security of an heir.

No, this is Common Law. God is, in no mannor, about to approve of divorce in nay manor and it is, in some cases, required that he and in some that both die.

Yes, she coupled with both and thus was married to both, a very, very good reason not to sin this one. On this point Common and other law may disagree but God does not care! Regardless of how that last verse of chapter 11 is written, what happened there is the world around them became aware of their union, not, perhaps, the timing, just that they chose to couple.

No, that would be a complete violation of scripture. We live in a society where the law of our governments forbid child marriages and we are taught to obey the laws of man except they interfer with the Law. My mother-in-law was 13 when she married her 17 year old husband in the 30s but, both being stought Christians there did it with a license and then remained together until death. But, had they chosen the other route and then seperated, they, likely, would have over and cover compounded their sin. This item here has so much to do with my remark that upset you so much.

My Granddaughter is in Texas A&M right now, engaged to another Aggie and they ecame engaged at 18 for her and 19 for him. He sat her down and explained to her that they would botrh be virgins on the day of their marriage. Here it comes, I'm not chasing rabbits, I wish that I had been that devoted to our LORD and while I do not know your history, I am far to knowledgable of what is the norm for young people, maloe and female.

You might not be guilty of this sin but there are very, very, very few in this world that are not but there are a lot that pretend to be this holy. Hope that helps. BTW, my Ash is not the only one that loves that young man, he gets a lot of respect from me!

No! What is wrong here is that people read or refuse to read the Od Testament ecause they see the Law! When I read all of the Bible, I see all of it, being forgiven, as the principals that I build my entire life on, right down to putting my shoes on in the morning. The joining of these two would demonstrate nothing more than, sinful, uncontained lust! But that does not mean I would, immediately, remove them from fellowship.

And on this, we must agree to disagree, Iḿ going to hold to the more conservative point of view as I have found the scriptures to teach.

God bless and thank you for the less aggressive and the well considered response.

 

For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. John 4:18

Now, will you please give up the silly notion that sex = marriage?

 

He will not...... He will likely simply encourage you to "read" your Bible...and subsequently feel superior for having done so, even though this verse ALONE is sufficient and inarguable proof that his "sex=marriage" notion is false. Maybe he will argue that she lived with him, but had no relations, and therefore he never became her husband...I'm all ears anyway.

 

From possibly the most underrated band (in the States at least) in modern history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjn3pJS74g0&feature=related