when does God view a person as 'married'?

Here are my two questions:

Am I wrong in thinking that God does not care about the above mentioned traditions.

Click to expand...

Given the scriptural record, you are not wrong - unless "doesn't care about" means something other than "disregards." The Biblical record is clear. Old Testament law allowed for divorce on a whim EXCEPT where the couple had engaged in pre-marital sex: in those circumstances, divorce was expressly forbidden. The later written copy (Deuteronomy) alters the provisions of the law established in Leviticus, The difference being that the woman's father could forbid a marriage to proceed - nonetheless, the man still had to pay the bride-price.

As to what makes the couple to be one flesh - Paul's declaration is decisive... "Do you not know that any man who lays with a prostitute is thereby made one flesh with her?" He goes on to say that laying with a prostitute is a sin, but it remains that the two have become one flesh

When you take into account the fact that Jesus said of the two who have become one flesh - "What God has joined together let man not put asunder."

Telling a couple who have not been "lawfully wed" that they must separate runs the risk of setting aside the law for the sake of the precepts of men.

Am I wrong in thinking that applying to the state for a marriage license is actually an attempt to usurp the authority of God?

Click to expand...

No. Men have at various times and places been given the right to permit a marriage to proceed ... (as above, for example) - however, men (other than the couple directly concerned)have not been given the right to establish a marriage. Marriage, if it is defined as "the two shall become one flesh" is established by the act of swyving. This even the churches acknowledge, albeit unwillingly. According to church law, if a marriage is not consummated, it does not exist.

It should not pass without mention that more than 1500 years after the time of Christ, the churches still had not declared that a marriage entered into without the church authorised ceremony was a sin.

Even when the churches DID get around to making that declaration, a marriage entered into without the church authorised ceremony was deemed valid where a priest could not be found to conduct the ceremony, or where a couple could not afford to pay for a priest's services. The proviso being that when a priest and or funding became available, the couple were to immediately arrange for the authorised ceremony. That ruling has never been annulled.

Almost forgot to mention that some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew "lay hold on and take" as rape. This interpretation of the passage fails to take into account that the term is stated to be "seduced" in Leviticus, and, given that the prior recorded penalty for a rapist is death - how the translators consider it possible for a corpse to enter into a marriage contract and/or pay a bride price leaves me mystified.

Church authorised can and does include any wedding ceremony which the church recognises as valid. If the church requires more of a couple than a commitment to stay together for life, the scriptures have been added to. ie...it is a precept of man - it can and will from time to time force a violation of scriptural law.
You are correct.

God views someone as married when they both enter into a marriage covenant together.

An understanding of the concept of word "covenant" is essential to being married before God.

It would make logical Christian sense to seek not only to be truly married in heart before God by willfully entering into a covenant to another person (and they with you), but also following the established norms recognized by others as being officially married in society.

I don't see anything in scripture that says you should do something because it is the norm.

Your forget that Jesus peformed his first miracle at a wedding.

Speeding through yellow lights is certainly not a norm. would your logic advocate speeding through yellow lights because Jesus says nothing about conforming to norms?

God approves of such marriages

Click to expand...

In the OT there were many paligamous marriages, but I have yet to see a verse which labels them either "good" or "godly"...in fact, they usually resulted in trouble (Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, etc). The OT law was that if a brother's wife died without an heir, the brother had ot marry her to keep the line going...but that was the Jewish system of govt which was intended to keep them as a people (not interracial) and seems to have gone the way of ceremonial law.

Even so...the NT (which is the "light of the prophets made more clear), when describing a man fit for full-time minitry (which is a man above reproach) says, "He must be...the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable..." etc.

It would seem more than clear that the NT does not intend godly men to fulfill their lusts through multiple marriages. Remember, the OT "Christians" were still sinners, and they did not have the benefit of Scripture the way we do.

When is a person married?

Click to expand...

The covenant relationship of marriage is pivotal and rests on Ephesians 5:22-33. We see that marriage is a symbol of Christ's relationship with us, which is covenental. Knowing this, one can apply everything about God's covenant with us to marriage. There are a few fabulous and Bible-based books by Douglas Wilson on the subject.

Also, the Scripture also seems clear that if two are united as one flesh, they should not be separated, even for marital unfaithfulness, though that is allowed...but not recommended or desired by God. (Matt 19:8 and context). This has heavy implications for the sinfulness of our current age.

Keep in mind, however, that Jospeh was merely engaged to Mary when he planned to "divorce" her, and that was deinitely before their physical union...again...they had entered into a covenant which was not meant to be broken (except by marital unfaithfulness).

God also says to obey authorities and leaders, because they are placed over us (unless they command us to do something ungodly) and there is nothing in Scripture against marriage licenses...so...we should submit to the law.

Unless we are told to break the custom, we should not break it. Christ's ability to go against the flow stemmed largely from His Godhead. WE cannot just "break social rules because Christ did." We must obey the Word.

Also, we must remember the Lord's forgiveness in all things as we seek to follow God's desire for our lives by studying His word.

As to OT verse about marriage certificates...I am unaware of any.

Hope this helps...

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

An intensive search of the Bible for marriage certificates failed to yield any record of such an item. I have to accept the statement that the Old Testament indeed does not mention them. It does mention, though, that the Father of the bride has the power of veto. And in the tale of Ruth, the village elders had to be consulted - but there was a question about rights involved in that one, so it may not be of significance.

However, the apocrypha details the procedure regarding marriages - which were not ratified by a religious leader, but were contracts drawn up and signed by the bride's father and the groom.

As to accepted usages: in Australia, if a couple claims to be married, they legally are married. No need for a ceremony, just making the claim causes it to be so. (referred to as a common law marriage - "everyone" thinks you are married, you have stated that you are married, you ARE married.")

The term used for Joseph's decision is translated in some versions of the Bible as "divorce" (the actual term used is "put her away/put her aside"). The Bible does not view a betrothed couple as being married, for all that the provisions for a betrothal are much the same as those for a married couple. The penalty applicable for violation of the VOWS was the same as the penalty for adultery. (Joseph's decision is rather astonishing)

As to polygamous marriages - there is a common practice among missionaries (at least historically) of requiring a new convert with more than one wife to divorce all but the most senior of his wives. Whether the woman be wife number 1 or wife number 100, it makes no difference to the fact that the two are married. The Bible makes specific provision for an elder or a bishop to be the husband of but one wife. There is no record of any such condition being generally applied. ...
The missionaries involved have had no qualms about their edicts, even referring to the requirement of putting aside the junior wives by the correct term:- divorce. Did Christ ever give a person the right to command a divorce in his name? Or has God's express command been violated in favour of a man made precept?

"I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel," (Malichi 2:16)

Any man who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness makes her an adultress.

That is just sick. What God has brought together, let no man separate.

That is such an abuse of Scripture and a forsaking of the message behind it.

That is so sad.

I guess I'm angry. Sorry.

However...the requirements for an elder/bishop/overseer are a list of "godly" attributes. Should one say that only elders should seek to be not violent? No, not at all. These are attributes all godly men should seek to attain. However, two evils do not make a good. To try to fix a polygamus situation by divorcing one wife is like fixing an out of wedlock pregnancy by aborting the child. Not godly. Rather, monogamy should be sought after by any man who is unwed or married to only one wife at the time of his coming to faith. In cultural situations like the ones mentioned above, the practice would then die out within a generation and those young men who would seek to be leaders in the church would lead the way.

As to the apocrypha, the quotes there are fairly irrelevant there, unless one is a Catholic. And even then, the Catholic church's current statements on the issue are far more important than scriptural quotes.

My point about Joseph and Mary was more that they had entered into a covenant relationship, which has certain requirements, and adherent blessings/curses for those requirements.

peace to all who seek it,
<><

Apocrypha irrelevant? As a matter of teachings regarding godliness, I would agree - at least in the case of Sirach, which I did read as a matter of making certain whether the claim of "unscriptural" could be validated or invalidated (or in doubt) - that one certainly does not qualify as scripture.

But would you cast aside the findings of Erosthenes, who correctly calculated the diameter and circumference of the Earth more than 200 years before Christ, simply because he was of a pagan culture?

The apocrypha gives an account of the customs applied to the matter of weddings in Israel under the Old Testament law. In doing so, it provides a valuable insight. The fact that it is not scripture is irrelevant - assuming it did not fabricate the data, and no reason has been advanced for making such a claim. (Unless of course, one insists on believing that the church edicts which were brought into force some time after 1500 were in fact in place 2000 years ago.)

The apocrypha is irrelevant in seeking a Scriptural answer to the question. Simply because it elaborates on the customs of Jesus day hardly makes it in line with OT Scripture.

The best reason to consider the apocrypha mostly irrelevant (except as a historical and largely mythical text), is that the Jews even of Christ's day considered it as such. It's like saying we should go to the gospel of Thomas for answers to Scriptural questions (and I believe this was a Scriptural question...not a purely historical one...if I'm wrong...then I apologize.)

Furthermore, the apocryphal texts are not original canon as it seems that you are suggesting...they were added later.

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

I guess I don't know what everyone in the world said on their wedding day, but there was no "I swear" or "I promise" in my vows with my wife. It was , "I take you to be..." Yes, was yes.

Just because the state of WA would like you to sign an official document for tax purposes is hardly to be taken as swearing an oath. OR...do you plan never to use a credit card, never to buy a car (accept with cash), never to pay your taxes (cause you have to "promise" that its right), never to apply for college...etc...A contract is not swearing in common speech...it is a covenant, a relationship based on rules, blessings and curses, and a very Biblical thing (we are in the Covenant of Grace with God as Christians).

James is talking about people who at the time were swearing by the altar at the temple for various reason to prove their truth, and James is admonishing us to tell the Truth so plainly and constantly that we would never have to do that. To use this verse as a reason to avoid a covenant established by the king (or rulers) for regulating marriage within the land seems to stretch the meaning of the verse. A covenant is not swearing, it is saying yes and signing your name to it so that later you cannot go back on your word.

Now, if WA actually makes you take an "oath" with your hand on the Bible in the ceremony...then you're right...there is a problem. But is that really how they do it?

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

I guess I feel you so strongly on that one that I already sit there. Our current divorce laws and policy have already removed marriage so far from the life-long, unbreakable God ordained covenant it is, that I guess I don't take it seriously. The states marriage is really more like a lease with an option to buy, so I don't think anything of it. I am not married to my wife because of the license, but rather because God has promised to be our Rock. The license is a tax and census purpose piece of paper, which the government has every right under God to impose.

Coinicidentally, there is an group seeking to amend the constitution to define marriage permanently as requiring the opposite sex. Personally, I think there are more important battles to fight within the church (say...the lifestyles of modern chrisitans themselves) before we start enforcing morality via the law.

Anycase, I definitely feel you.

Peace,
<><

I think it's a very bad idea to tie legal marriage to the Christian concept of "marriage". Society may benefit from stability of relationships that the church would never bless.