If a couple is living/sleeping together but not married...

[proverbswisdom]

And they have been doing this for a couple years does God considered them married? Let's say that these ppl are not the right match for each other - is God likely to tell them to get legally married since He sees them as married already (if He does see them that way) or is He more likely to tell them to break up?

 

[Luther073082]

They are not married unless the community at large recognizes them as such. In our country it would be based on if the law considers you to be married. Since most states don't have a common law marriage, most likely they arn't married by law and therefore not married before God.

In that case they are living in sin. Their choices are to A. Stop living together. B. Get married.

If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.

 

[jpcedotal]

If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.
If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.
If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.
If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.
If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.

Especially, if the questioning is coming from "Is it a sin" realm. If one is "here" in the relationship, he/she already knows the answer and is just trying to get someone to talk them out of having to make a difficult decision....not judging, I am in the same situation.

 

[Autumnleaf]

If someone drives on the wrong side of the road and otherwise obeys all traffic rules are they safe drivers or not?

 

[technofox]

And they have been doing this for a couple years does God considered them married? Let's say that these ppl are not the right match for each other - is God likely to tell them to get legally married since He sees them as married already (if He does see them that way) or is He more likely to tell them to break up?

I don't think God would consider them married unless they are devoted to each other for life. There is marriage by the definitions set by secular law and that may differ from what God considers marriage. Case in point, what do you consider marriage: a couple who was married by a priest in a loveless marriage where there is no intemacy whatsoever or a loving couple with Christ like love for each other whose only flaw is premarital sex, but lives together until death?

I think marriage is a lifetime commitment between two individuals. You could technically live in a society that does not permit marriage at all, but would God frown upon a couple who are devoted to each other as though they were married?

I am not so sure, because I don't know how God would handle that, but I think he would understand said situations. I believe that marriage is a condition of the heart between the two individuals, and how the couple treats one another.

Adam and Eve were considered a couple, yet there were no vows exchanged to define them as married, people just assume they were either, because from what we know of them is that they remained together until both of them passed from this life to the next or because that is what we have been told by someone else; however, that is only an assumption. We have no idea if they were married by God himself or if God just saw them as married, because they remained together for all of their lives.

What are your thoughts?

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

I don't think God would consider them married unless they are devoted to each other for life. There is marriage by the definitions set by secular law and that may differ from what God considers marriage. Case in point, what do you consider marriage: a couple who was married by a priest in a loveless marriage where there is no intemacy whatsoever or a loving couple with Christ like love for each other whose only flaw is premarital sex, but lives together until death?

In both of those situations there is sin involved, so neither one is right. Sin is sin and is sin. I think it's dangerous trying to qualify which sin is "worse" because all sin is the worst because it separates us from God. There is no such thing as a "that's not a big deal" type of sin.

In the right situation a man and a woman will get married and live harmoniously (it won't always be easy) together for the rest of their lives.

I think marriage is a lifetime commitment between two individuals. You could technically live in a society that does not permit marriage at all, but would God frown upon a couple who are devoted to each other as though they were married?

Marriage is a lifetime commitment between two individuals in the sight of God and other witnesses. Most Christians have at least two witnesses and usually also have a marriage certificate from the government because they are respecting government authorities as we are taught in scripture. Marriage certificates don't go against Biblical teaching so it's completely reasonable to obey the government authorities in this regard. I don't think the government technically has to be involved, but at the same time, I think its better to err on the side of caution and get the marriage certificate anyway. It's not gonna hurt and it has other benefits associated with it.

But Biblically speaking, a contract was between two people, God, and some witnesses, so at the minimum, those things should be in done when Christians are getting married.

Adam and Eve were considered a couple, yet there were no vows exchanged to define them as married, people just assume they were either, because from what we know of them is that they remained together until both of them passed from this life to the next or because that is what we have been told by someone else; however, that is only an assumption. We have no idea if they were married by God himself or if God just saw them as married, because they remained together for all of their lives.

What are your thoughts?

Adam and Eve did not have the luxury of having multiple witnesses, but God was orchestrating everything and they were married in his site. God specifically made Eve for Adam if that tells you anything.

That is not the normal situation and we shouldn't apply it to everyone. It was a unique situation that happened once and has an extremely low probability of happening again. The only way I could see a situation like that happening again is if a man and a woman were somehow stranded on a random desert island. If that is the case, then I believe the man and the woman would be able to be married before God without the presence of any other witnesses. But we are obviously not talking about that situation.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

And they have been doing this for a couple years does God considered them married? Let's say that these ppl are not the right match for each other - is God likely to tell them to get legally married since He sees them as married already (if He does see them that way) or is He more likely to tell them to break up?

I do not believe God sees them as married. I believe a marriage contract requires the man and woman to come into covenant relationship with one another and God before at least two witnesses. The US government also requires a marriage certificate before the government will consider a man and a woman married. I don't think that is necessarily required to be married but it definitely doesn't hurt and does line up with Biblical teaching to obey government authorities.

As to your second question, I do not believe God would be likely to tell them to get married or to tell them to not get married. I think God provides for us his instructions through the Bible, our conscience, prayer, Godly instruction from other believers, common sense, and our intelligence.

Do you think it's a good idea for a person to marry someone who is not a compatible match?

 

[omanid]

"Sleeping together" or sleeping together?

 

[technofox]

In both of those situations there is sin involved, so neither one is right. Sin is sin and is sin. I think it's dangerous trying to qualify which sin is "worse" because all sin is the worst because it separates us from God. There is no such thing as a "that's not a big deal" type of sin.

In the right situation a man and a woman will get married and live harmoniously (it won't always be easy) together for the rest of their lives.

Marriage is a lifetime commitment between two individuals in the sight of God and other witnesses. Most Christians have at least two witnesses and usually also have a marriage certificate from the government because they are respecting government authorities as we are taught in scripture. Marriage certificates don't go against Biblical teaching so it's completely reasonable to obey the government authorities in this regard. I don't think the government technically has to be involved, but at the same time, I think its better to err on the side of caution and get the marriage certificate anyway. It's not gonna hurt and it has other benefits associated with it.

But Biblically speaking, a contract was between two people, God, and some witnesses, so at the minimum, those things should be in done when Christians are getting married.

Adam and Eve did not have the luxury of having multiple witnesses, but God was orchestrating everything and they were married in his site. God specifically made Eve for Adam if that tells you anything.

That is not the normal situation and we shouldn't apply it to everyone. It was a unique situation that happened once and has an extremely low probability of happening again. The only way I could see a situation like that happening again is if a man and a woman were somehow stranded on a random desert island. If that is the case, then I believe the man and the woman would be able to be married before God without the presence of any other witnesses. But we are obviously not talking about that situation.

Not to bust on you, but wouldn't what you have stated about a desert island scenario equal sin, since there are not multiple witnesses?

Also, where in the OT and NT that says one cannot live with another of the opporite sex or even have premarital sex?

I am saying specifically and verbatum, because I know neither exists. The OT basically has one passage that says if a guy sleeps with a virgin, he should marry her, but what if two single non-virgins sleep with each other?

I know where your rebuttals are going to come from:
Fornication - which its definition has changed over time and from its original greek meaning was different from what we understand it as today.

The passage that tells us to refrain from the appearance of evil - which again is all ambiguous and subjective. Two single people dancing could be considered an appearance of evil in persons's mind, in just as much as two individual's of the opposite sex living together in the same place. What happens if you found out that the two individuals are our brother and sister? It can be claimed as an appearance of evil to some, does it not?

Adultry - please not, adultry can only occur if one or both individuals are married, but not to each other. It is present tense, meaning that it does not inference a person being married in the future.

Last, but not least - context or assumption of what God was thinking. Had Adam and Eve not sinned, then we could assume marriage would have never become to what we know of it as today. Basically in the ideal world people of the opposite sex would choose only partner and remain with them for the rest of their lives (or eternity in that case).

Marriage is nothing more than what God intended for mankind; a marriage can be just as sinful as a couple having premarital sex, by the way the spouses treat each other. I am not condoning, nor supporting premarital sex, but debating on valid claims and merits of both sides. Personally I leave it up to each person's conscience; basically its between them and God, not you or I.

Either way I love debating from both sides of the coin on this.

Your brother in Christ,

Technofox ;-)

 

[LinkH]

They are not married unless the community at large recognizes them as such. In our country it would be based on if the law considers you to be married. Since most states don't have a common law marriage, most likely they arn't married by law and therefore not married before God.

In that case they are living in sin. Their choices are to A. Stop living together. B. Get married.

If one person is questioning the relationship its best to stop living together.

Now, one poster I know on these forums might consider this post to be a bit Pharisaical, because the sin is not in living or sleeping together but in laying together sexually.

Are you adding rules and regulations now?

 

[LinkH]

There was a woman Jesus talked to by a well in Samaria. He said to her, "Thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not thine husband."

It seems like this woman was sleeping with a man who wasn't her husband. Sleeping with a man did not make her his husband.

In the Old Testament, if a man seduced a virgin, he was to be forced to pay her father the bride price for virgins. The father still had the right to refuse to give her to him as a wife.

 

[technofox]

I do not believe God sees them as married. I believe a marriage contract requires the man and woman to come into covenant relationship with one another and God before at least two witnesses. The US government also requires a marriage certificate before the government will consider a man and a woman married. I don't think that is necessarily required to be married but it definitely doesn't hurt and does line up with Biblical teaching to obey government authorities.

As to your second question, I do not believe God would be likely to tell them to get married or to tell them to not get married. I think God provides for us his instructions through the Bible, our conscience, prayer, Godly instruction from other believers, common sense, and our intelligence.

Do you think it's a good idea for a person to marry someone who is not a compatible match?

God love you, lol.

So a marriage is a contract? So what makes it different from a business contract?

Technically could sign a contract with two witnesses and a priest in a covent with a business partner. The truth is - its not a piece of paper that makes a marriage a marriage. People used just get married in front of priest and may have had a witness. God is a witness since he is always present, correct?

You are going by the grounds setforth by a secular government, which is outside the scope of the bible. You also missed my argument about the couple who lives in a society that does not permit marriage, yet lives together as though the were in a way that honors God, but are having sex without a marriage certificate, because the said document does not exist in that society. My Adam and Eve argument brought up a good point, because now you are now trying to defend an argument based upon pure speculation. Contextually God implied that we should only be in monogomous relationships; however, marriage does become defined until later in the OT. So now we have a dilemma, what does God consider marriage?

Obviously God does not want us sleeping around for a variety of reasons besides sin. Health issues for one thing and family structure for another. Marriage = life long commitment to another individual of the opposite sex and to procreate, plus have sex for bonding purposes. Basically that is what the bible definds marriage as. Point out where in the that witnesses must be present? Or an ordained priest must be present? I am sure the OT in Leviticus or Deuteronomy may have it, but I am uncertain where those passages are, if they even exist.

So basically your argument is losing ground due to a lack of compelling evidence from scripture. Please state the passages as reference and then your argument will gain strength.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Not to bust on you, but wouldn't what you have stated about a desert island scenario equal sin, since there are not multiple witnesses?

The only way I could see a situation like that happening again is if a man and a woman were somehow stranded on a random desert island. If that is the case, then I believe the man and the woman would be able to be married before God without the presence of any other witnesses. But we are obviously not talking about that situation.

Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.

Also, where in the OT and NT that says one cannot live with another of the opporite sex or even have premarital sex?

I'm not going to address the living together statement because we agree there. I don't think there's anything wrong with unmarried people of opposite genders living together in platonic relationships.

As for pre-marital sex the Bible gives no prescriptive commands directly against premarital sex, but at the same time it also does not give any prescriptive commands to have sex to become married nor does it describe non-married sex automatically making a couple married. Without clear, prescriptive Biblical commands for or against pre-marital sex, I will go back to the Bible to find what I believe is significant evidence supporting a wedding before sex:

The Bible has numerous accounts of weddings, dowries, feasts, and other Jewish marriage customs include having a rabbi lead the ceremony, and we know from studying history that Jewish customs have included marriage ceremonies right from the beginning of Judaism (Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel). Jesus even performed his first miracle at a wedding. Ancient Jews (and modern day traditional Jews) consummated their union after their ceremonial wedding; there's even an old Yiddish saying of "no chuppah, no schtuppa" or "no wedding, no bedding". Jewish customs dictated wedding before consummation.

This information brings us to an important cultural context through which we must read the NT as well as the OT. Weddings and marriage were a normal, customary event throughout Biblical history--the wedding always preceded the consummation--and the authors of the NT, being the ancient Jews that they were, knew and were steeped in this custom. All the writers of the NT would have known and been familiar with these customs. Keep this in mind when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

7. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. ​

In verse 7 Paul is saying that he wishes that all could remain single so as to better serve the Lord; he repeats this again in verse 8. When he is referring to different "gifts" he is talking about sex drive. So basically, "some people have low sex drive and some people have high sex drive; I (Paul) wish that all people were like me and had low sex drive." He then says that unmarried people who cannot control themselves ("cannot control themselves" meaning that they strongly desire sex and cannot exercise enough self control to keep themselves from sinning) should marry.

Marriage, to Paul and any other new testament writer, would have required first a wedding then the consummation of that wedding--not the other way around (as I've shown historically speaking). So Paul is saying that in order to avoid sin because of a person's lack of self control a person should marry. To me that's pretty clear evidence that marriage is God ordained and in order to not sin you need to marry before having sex.

Another passage I'd like to look at is Matthew 19:3-6:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”​

This passage is oftentimes referred to as the "leave and cleave" passage. As a reminder, Jesus knew Jewish culture and customs of the day so he knew of the wedding ceremony and consummation of the wedding. He even framed it in a very specific order which determines that the "union" or wedding or contract comes before the consummation. The Pharisees framed the question in such a way (by saying man and his wife) that there is no doubt in our minds that they were referring to a married man and woman. Jesus then goes on to describe the physical, emotional, and spiritual events that take place when a couple becomes husband and wife in a very specific order:

1. The man leaves his father and mother physically and emotionally.

2. He unites to his wife in holy matrimony (wedding ceremony)(also, notice how the couple are referred to as man and wife before the final consummation occurs).

3. And lastly, the two become one flesh both physically, emotionally, and spiritually (consummation).

Furthermore, God is spiritually over all of this: "therefore what God has joined together (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) let no man separate." I would like to take this time to address something you said in your second post because it relates to what this paragraph is about. Here's your post:

So a marriage is a contract? So what makes it different from a business contract?

Technically could sign a contract with two witnesses and a priest in a covent with a business partner. The truth is - its not a piece of paper that makes a marriage a marriage. People used just get married in front of priest and may have had a witness. God is a witness since he is always present, correct?

This response has to do with my previous paragraph because the same verses are involved. Marriage is most definitely a contract. It is different from a business contract because God is at the core. The very definition of consummate is "to bring to completion or fruition; conclude". The very act of consummation following a wedding is quite literally the signature which concludes the wedding contract. The contract consists of the wedding, vows, witnesses, and God overseeing all. The final signatory act is consummation. "Therefore, what God has joined together let no man separate." God sees each part of the contract including consummation and puts his final stamp of approval on each step.

The vows make up the meat of the wedding contract. The wedding ceremony is the celebration of the contract. The witnesses are the earthly accountability to the contract (similar to how secular contracts require multiple witnesses or an officially recognized witness professionally known as a notary). And consummation is the final signature to the contract.

I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows, and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.

Marriage is nothing more than what God intended for mankind; a marriage can be just as sinful as a couple having premarital sex, by the way the spouses treat each other. I am not condoning, nor supporting premarital sex, but debating on valid claims and merits of both sides. Personally I leave it up to each person's conscience; basically its between them and God, not you or I.

I'm confused by the first part of your first sentence. I agree with the second part of the first sentence but I would be extremely cautious in presuming that any sin is worse than another sin. I'm not willing to make those assumption because I just don't know. As to your last sentence, I believe that a reasonable amount of evidence exists supporting that pre-marital sex is not God-ordained. I think it's reasonable to conclude given my argument in this post that a God-ordained marriage starts with leaving father and mother, uniting to his wife (wedding), then becoming one flesh by consummating the marriage, in that exact order.

You are going by the grounds setforth by a secular government, which is outside the scope of the bible. You also missed my argument about the couple who lives in a society that does not permit marriage, yet lives together as though the were in a way that honors God, but are having sex without a marriage certificate, because the said document does not exist in that society. My Adam and Eve argument brought up a good point, because now you are now trying to defend an argument based upon pure speculation. Contextually God implied that we should only be in monogomous relationships; however, marriage does become defined until later in the OT. So now we have a dilemma, what does God consider marriage?

I'll repeat two paragraphs that I wrote that address these points.

Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.

I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.

Point out where...an ordained priest must be present?

As clarification: I do not believe that an ordained minister or official reverend or what have you is required to lead the the wedding ceremony. I consider anyone under the Lordship of Jesus Christ a competent wedding ceremony leader.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Whew I think that's the longest post I've written

 

[Johnnz]

We get a clue from the OT. A man who rapes a woman must marry her. That suggests sexual union is much more that two bodies coupling.

John
NZ

 

[technofox]

Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.

I'm not going to address the living together statement because we agree there. I don't think there's anything wrong with unmarried people of opposite genders living together in platonic relationships.

As for pre-marital sex the Bible gives no prescriptive commands directly against premarital sex, but at the same time it also does not give any prescriptive commands to have sex to become married nor does it describe non-married sex automatically making a couple married. Without clear, prescriptive Biblical commands for or against pre-marital sex, I will go back to the Bible to find what I believe is significant evidence supporting a wedding before sex:

The Bible has numerous accounts of weddings, dowries, feasts, and other Jewish marriage customs include having a rabbi lead the ceremony, and we know from studying history that Jewish customs have included marriage ceremonies right from the beginning of Judaism (Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel). Jesus even performed his first miracle at a wedding. Ancient Jews (and modern day traditional Jews) consummated their union after their ceremonial wedding; there's even an old Yiddish saying of "no chuppah, no schtuppa" or "no wedding, no bedding". Jewish customs dictated wedding before consummation.

This information brings us to an important cultural context through which we must read the NT as well as the OT. Weddings and marriage were a normal, customary event throughout Biblical history--the wedding always preceded the consummation--and the authors of the NT, being the ancient Jews that they were, knew and were steeped in this custom. All the writers of the NT would have known and been familiar with these customs. Keep this in mind when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-97. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. In verse 7 Paul is saying that he wishes that all could remain single so as to better serve the Lord; he repeats this again in verse 8. When he is referring to different "gifts" he is talking about sex drive. So basically, "some people have low sex drive and some people have high sex drive; I (Paul) wish that all people were like me and had low sex drive." He then says that unmarried people who cannot control themselves ("cannot control themselves" meaning that they strongly desire sex and cannot exercise enough self control to keep themselves from sinning) should marry.

Marriage, to Paul and any other new testament writer, would have required first a wedding then the consummation of that wedding--not the other way around (as I've shown historically speaking). So Paul is saying that in order to avoid sin because of a person's lack of self control a person should marry. To me that's pretty clear evidence that marriage is God ordained and in order to not sin you need to marry before having sex.

Another passage I'd like to look at is Matthew 19:3-6:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?" 4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."This passage is oftentimes referred to as the "leave and cleave" passage. As a reminder, Jesus knew Jewish culture and customs of the day so he knew of the wedding ceremony and consummation of the wedding. He even framed it in a very specific order which determines that the "union" or wedding or contract comes before the consummation. The Pharisees framed the question in such a way (by saying man and his wife) that there is no doubt in our minds that they were referring to a married man and woman. Jesus then goes on to describe the physical, emotional, and spiritual events that take place when a couple becomes husband and wife in a very specific order:

1. The man leaves his father and mother physically and emotionally.

2. He unites to his wife in holy matrimony (wedding ceremony)(also, notice how the couple are referred to as man and wife before the final consummation occurs).

3. And lastly, the two become one flesh both physically, emotionally, and spiritually (consummation).

Furthermore, God is spiritually over all of this: "therefore what God has joined together (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) let no man separate." I would like to take this time to address something you said in your second post because it relates to what this paragraph is about. Here's your post:

This response has to do with my previous paragraph because the same verses are involved. Marriage is most definitely a contract. It is different from a business contract because God is at the core. The very definition of consummate is "to bring to completion or fruition; conclude". The very act of consummation following a wedding is quite literally the signature which concludes the wedding contract. The contract consists of the wedding, vows, witnesses, and God overseeing all. The final signatory act is consummation. "Therefore, what God has joined together let no man separate." God sees each part of the contract including consummation and puts his final stamp of approval on each step.

The vows make up the meat of the wedding contract. The wedding ceremony is the celebration of the contract. The witnesses are the earthly accountability to the contract (similar to how secular contracts require multiple witnesses or an officially recognized witness professionally known as a notary). And consummation is the final signature to the contract.

I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows, and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.

I'm confused by the first part of your first sentence. I agree with the second part of the first sentence but I would be extremely cautious in presuming that any sin is worse than another sin. I'm not willing to make those assumption because I just don't know. As to your last sentence, I believe that a reasonable amount of evidence exists supporting that pre-marital sex is not God-ordained. I think it's reasonable to conclude given my argument in this post that a God-ordained marriage starts with leaving father and mother, uniting to his wife (wedding), then becoming one flesh by consummating the marriage, in that exact order.

I'll repeat two paragraphs that I wrote that address these points.

Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.

I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.

As clarification: I do not believe that an ordained minister or official reverend or what have you is required to lead the the wedding ceremony. I consider anyone under the Lordship of Jesus Christ a competent wedding ceremony leader.

Good job ;-)

I was using the business contract argument as one that I have seen a lot of athiests used to pin our beliefs in marriage as nothing more than a contract. I think all too often people who aren't believers go on here and other sites and see weak arguments and then disregard us believers as nothing than a bunch of kooks.

I believe the original OP should wait until marriage, even if the bible doesn't explicitly state that premarital sex is bad. The reasons behind are simple:

1. Virginity is a trait and something special in my opinion, and therefore makes that person unique and not part of the crowd.

2. God obviously wants us to be monogomous. If you are knocking boots with someone, the both of you should be spending the rest of your lives together.

3. Just because something isn't explicitly stated in the bible does not mean it will or will not be good for you. This is where prayer and God's guidance comes in. Read scripture and walk by faith, because its by faith that the law is fulfilled.

4. To go into the secular world - its a health issue. People who are promiscous will have a greater risk of and sti than those who are monogomous.

In the end its up to the OP own conscience.

Personally I have waited until I was married before having sex with my now ex-wife. It made special not only because I was her first experience, but I also appreciated to be her first. I lost my virginity before I was saved, but waited until marriage after being saved. I think sex is worth waiting for and making sure that you love that person before bonding with them.

 

[omanid]

I have no husband,” she replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
John 4:17

In a way, yes, but basically...no.

 

[LinkH]

In the Bible, I see examples or commands for three ways people got married:

1. A man pays the bride's father a bride price. At some point in time later, he takes her into his own home to be his wife.
2. A man finds a beautiful woman among the captives taken in battle with a nation far away, not one of the seven nations with whom it is forbidden to remarry. He has her do certain things including shave her head and cut her nails. After a certain period of time, he can sleep with her: she is his wife.
3. A man decides to raise up seed to his brother. He takes his brothers wife (sleeps with her) and takes over his estate. The first son born from the union bears the lineage of the deceased relative. Boaz's 'wedding' to Ruth consisted of his making an agreement with another close relative, removal of a shoe, and calling the elders to witness the transaction. Ruth was then his, and he could legitimately sleep with her without being fornication.

I don't see any evidence for a kohen priest, Levite or elder having to preside over some kind of wedding ceremony.

In pagan Roman culture, a couple would appear before a priest and say certain words. Let's say a woman were marrying gaius. She would give her consent to the union by saying "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia." At the end of the ceremony before a pagan priest, the groom runs off with the bride at some point, carrying her as if he were stealing her away, while the bride's family chase them off. This was a commemoration of a story of how early Romans got their wives by stealing them away at a certain point in history, or legend.

Christianity comes in. Now, we have Christians who stand before the Christian elder/priest who speaks a blessing over them. It seems to me this was an adaptation of Roman culture which got rid of certain pagan rituals, but kept some of the form. I don't think it is wrong, but I wouldn't say a village culture where getting married involved giving the bride's father a water buffalo to marry his daughter, taking her home as your wife, and then sleeping with her is wrong either. Most cultures aren't that simple. Jewish culture had a bride price, but by the time of Samson, there were wedding parties that publicly celebrated and acknowledged the marriage.

My guess is that Jewish traditional weddings are very much influenced by other culture's practices. I do not believe that the Jewish traditions that emerged from the captivity are all ancient, especially the ones not mentioned in the Old Testament.