A blessing?

[Neighbor]

14 minutes ago, Who me said:

Who are they going to lie to?

It is as blunt as that.

Do the lie to the pension company, or to God.

Yep, well kinda anyway. That's what it came down to  for me anyway. I tried to rationalize that I could lie to entities and not be living a lie under God's will for me. Just couldn't make it resolve to that conclusion, not for myself.

[johnthebaptist]

13 hours ago, Melinda12 said:

...instead of full wedding? 

A couple in their early 60s. Both Christians. The woman is a widow and her fiancee a gentleman who has never been married. They met, went out for a while and realised they are very compatible and in love. They planned marriage. 

Then the lady realised if she marries, she will lose her late husband's pension he left her. She depends on it. Her fiancee has only a modest wage. They will not be able to manage. 

They cannot marry and live together. They thought about maybe a church blessing, a ceremony without the legal part. At least they could still have their big planned day, commit to each other in the sight of God and loved ones, joyous reception with friends and family. Also their much planned honeymoon. 

What on earth can they do? Is a church blessing the same as being married in front of God?  

 

Fornication is a sin no matter how you look at it. However, if they keep their hands off each other, I suppose they can do anything they want.

[lftc]

@Melinda12

Your question is an excellent one.

Where did government become the authorizing authority for marriage?  It is most assuredly not in the scriptures at all.

The Mosaic Law was very specific in many issues in life.  It is very specific about marriage. 

Jesus said whoever teaches against the law is the least in the kingdom of heaven.  This gives great standing to the commandments related to marriage in the law.

There is no ceremony defined for marriage, except sex.

There is no domain given the civil functions of the Levites over the inception of a marriage.  Certainly the Levites were granted authority over the dissolution of a marraige: capitol punishment for those that violate the marriage relationship, fairly vauge control over the process of divorce.

But no control over the inception of marriage.

Marriage is one of the primary important things, which we can derive by its inclusion in the Early Gensis story.  If we choose to decide that is institutionalizing marriage, the ceremony was to "cling to " and become "one flesh".

This is further strengthened by the Apostle Paul's scolding of the Christians for visting prostitutes.  Here he confirms that the Genesis passage is indeed refering to sex: "16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”"

(the fact that he is giving this message to the church right after telling them to throw out everyone is a topic for another day)

Jesus, in the sermon on the mount, provides extension to the marraige issue (best understood from the Hebrew version of Matthew).  But no granting of authority to the Roman government or the Jewish puppet government.  Understanding Jesus in the sermon on the mount is crucial to understanding the gospel, but again, that is a separate topic.

Paul gives counsel on marriage (some of which he says is his opinion and not God's).  But again, no assignment of authority over marriage to civil government.

Yet christians handed the administration of marriage over to the civil government and over the years came to regard the authorization of government as the act of marriage. 

Let's look at it:

Most western governments have no remaining laws preventing people from having sex every night with a different person.  What does God's law say?  This is important, and most do not have a the slightest idea.  Read it and find out.

Most western governments allow people of the same gender to obtain this official blessing of "marriage".

Most western governments put people in prison, if they have 2 licenses to marry.  What does God's law say?  Read it.  Contrast it with what you discovered when you read the law when asked on the first question.

Are you now going to continue claiming that your government is the officiator of God's Holy insitution of marriage?

 

 

So my take on the issue in the OP, based on the scriptures on not on human customs:

They can get married biblically and not be lying to anyone.  The scriptures do not call for a civil authorization of their union.  And these days, the civil authorities do not call for a civil authorization of their union. 

The scripture calls for them to be faithful sexually to each other, both in the positive and negative sense.  And to Love each other in a way that honors the relationship of Jesus to his bride, the true church.  How beautiful!  Especially when contrasted to the diabolical invention that is the civil concept of marriage in this age. 

It is time to be a people separate.

 

[missmuffet]

11 hours ago, Melinda12 said:

Think what you are saying. Vital money, to eat and pay bills. Not luxuries. 

There seems a total lack of love and care in your response. This is a couple who are trying to do the right thing. They need compassion and support. This is your christian response? 

Yes, this is my born again Christian response. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, missmuffet said:

Yes, this is my born again Christian response. 

Wonderful. 

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, Melinda12 said:

Wonderful. 

Thank you Melinda.  Have a great day and God bless. 

[Willa]

Jesus did not consider a couple to be married unless it was legal, whether through the state or the synagog. I don't know how they married then. But He didn't consider people to be married who only lived together.  Consider the woman at the well.  So it is fornication, and there will be no fornicators in heaven.

My own income has decreased since my husband's death so I am also in the midst of all this.  It is more important to me to be in fellowship with my Father and not to have guilt hanging over me.  It is most important to honor God in what I do.  

I am not judging others.  God will do that.  

[lftc]

11 hours ago, Willa said:

Jesus did not consider a couple to be married unless it was legal, whether through the state or the synagog. I don't know how they married then. But He didn't consider people to be married who only lived together.  Consider the woman at the well.  So it is fornication, and there will be no fornicators in heaven.

My own income has decreased since my husband's death so I am also in the midst of all this.  It is more important to me to be in fellowship with my Father and not to have guilt hanging over me.  It is most important to honor God in what I do.  

I am not judging others.  God will do that.  

The woman at the well:

Have you ever wondered at why most of the village came to believe in Jesus?  As Romans 2 says, because of his Grace and Mercy.

Jesus observed that the woman had several past husbands but the man she was with now was NOT her husband.  It could be that he knew that she had not had a license from the local authorities as you are implying.  I can see where that is what would be read into the passage from a current worldview.

But it could also be that he, being an expert in the Law of Moses, knew what makes someone NOT a husband.  Adultery - having sex with someone that belongs to someone else.  She still belonged to her last husband.  No allowable dissolution of marriage had taken place.  They both would have been taken out and stoned, under Jewish Law .  Assuming, of course, that they had the requisite 2 OR THREE witnesses that had seen the sex act.  With Samaritan Law, I know they generally followed the Law of Moses, although by the time of Jesus there was a lot of syncretism, mixing in of the demon god worship.

Instead of rightfully condemning her, Jesus says that he brings the water of Life. And answers her question about the division between the Jews and Samaritans, eliminating the assumed barrier of hatred that stood between her and Jesus  (a Samaritan Woman and a Jewish Man)

She goes back and tells everyone that "he told me everything I ever did" with this result:

Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” So when the Samaritans came to Him, they asked Him to stay with them, and He stayed two days. And many more believed because of His message. They said to the woman, “We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world.”

Because Jesus knew of her sex life the village believed that he is the Savior of the WORLD, (not just the Jews).

So the account does not prove that she had a license for the previous 5 marriages.  Maybe she did.  It does not prove that he was strictly going off the Law either as I am asserting.  So you could be right.  But in the lack of direct statements to the contrary, my personal preference is to adhere to an understanding that uses the Law as a contributor for interpreting the actions of Jesus. 

You said "Jesus did not consider a couple to be married unless it was legal, whether through the state or the synagog.".  Do you have other passages to consider?

I'm not sure what you and MissMuffet are seeking to imply by stating "the opinion of a born again Christian".  I'll take it in love, that you mean that since we are all three believers that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead, we each have opinions that may differ on interpretation of the Law.

I do not intend to offend by looking at the scriptures about the relationship between marriage and government.  Just sharing  observations. 

[Willa]

4 hours ago, lftc said:

The woman at the well:

Have you ever wondered at why most of the village came to believe in Jesus?  As Romans 2 says, because of his Grace and Mercy.

Jesus observed that the woman had several past husbands but the man she was with now was NOT her husband.  It could be that he knew that she had not had a license from the local authorities as you are implying.  I can see where that is what would be read into the passage from a current worldview.

But it could also be that he, being an expert in the Law of Moses, knew what makes someone NOT a husband.  Adultery - having sex with someone that belongs to someone else.  She still belonged to her last husband.  No allowable dissolution of marriage had taken place.  They both would have been taken out and stoned, under Jewish Law .  Assuming, of course, that they had the requisite 2 OR THREE witnesses that had seen the sex act.  With Samaritan Law, I know they generally followed the Law of Moses, although by the time of Jesus there was a lot of syncretism, mixing in of the demon god worship.

Instead of rightfully condemning her, Jesus says that he brings the water of Life. And answers her question about the division between the Jews and Samaritans, eliminating the assumed barrier of hatred that stood between her and Jesus  (a Samaritan Woman and a Jewish Man)

She goes back and tells everyone that "he told me everything I ever did" with this result:

Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” So when the Samaritans came to Him, they asked Him to stay with them, and He stayed two days. And many more believed because of His message. They said to the woman, “We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world.”

Because Jesus knew of her sex life the village believed that he is the Savior of the WORLD, (not just the Jews).

So the account does not prove that she had a license for the previous 5 marriages.  Maybe she did.  It does not prove that he was strictly going off the Law either as I am asserting.  So you could be right.  But in the lack of direct statements to the contrary, my personal preference is to adhere to an understanding that uses the Law as a contributor for interpreting the actions of Jesus. 

You said "Jesus did not consider a couple to be married unless it was legal, whether through the state or the synagog.".  Do you have other passages to consider?

I'm not sure what you and MissMuffet are seeking to imply by stating "the opinion of a born again Christian".  I'll take it in love, that you mean that since we are all three believers that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead, we each have opinions that may differ on interpretation of the Law.

I do not intend to offend by looking at the scriptures about the relationship between marriage and government.  Just sharing  observations. 

G1062   (Word Study)

γάμος

gámos; gen. gámou, masc. noun. Marriage, a wedding feast (Mat 22:10-12; Luk 14:8; Joh 2:1-2); the actual joining of a husband and wife (Heb 13:4). Used also of the wedding festivities in the pl., gámoi (Luk 12:36; Mat 22:2-4, Mat 22:9, alternately with the sing., Mat 22:8, Mat 22:10-12; Mat 25:10gámous). The expression, "the wedding feast of the Lamb" (a.t. [Rev 19:7, Rev 19:9]), and also certain parables (Mat 22:2 ff.; Mat 25:1-10), refer to the "husband-wife" relationship of God to Israel as presented in Isa 54:4 ff.; Hos 2:19. This relationship of Jehovah to His people in the OT, Israel, was to be fully realized in the Messianic era (to which the expression in Joh 3:29, and perhaps Mat 9:15, points) and is parlayed into Christ's relation to His redeemed bride, the Church, in the NT (2Co 11:2; Eph 5:26-27; Rev 21:2; Rev 22:17). The marriage of the Lamb is the consummation of salvation to be ushered in by the parousía(G3952), the appearing of the Lord.

gamos (G1062), "a marriage, wedding," or "wedding feast," is used to denote (a) the ceremony and its proceedings, including the "marriage feast," Joh 2:1, Joh 2:2; of the "marriage ceremony" only, figuratively, Rev 19:7, as distinct from the "marriage feast" (Rev 19:9); (b) "the marriage feast," RV in Mat 22:2-4, Mat 22:9; in Mat 22:8, Mat 22:10, "wedding;" in Mat 25:10, RV "marriage feast;" so Luk 12:36; Luk 14:8; in Mat 22:11, Mat 22:12, the "wedding garment" is, lit., "a garment of a wedding." In Revelation 19, where, under the figure of a "marriage," the union of Christ, as the Lamb of God, with His heavenly bride is so described, the marriage itself takes place in heaven during the Parousia, Rev 19:7 (the aorist or point tense indicating an accomplished fact; the bride is called "His wife"); the "marriage feast" or supper is to take place on earth, after the Second Advent, Rev 19:9. That Christ is spoken of as the Lamb points to His atoning sacrifice as the ground upon which the spiritual union takes place. The background of the phraseology lies in the OT description of the relation of God to Israel, e.g., Isa 54:4,ff.; Eze 16:7,ff.; Hos 2:19; (c) "marriage" in general, including the "married" state, which is to be "had in honor," Heb 13:4, RV.

Note: Among the Jews the "marriage supper" took place in the husband's house and was the great social event in the family life. Large hospitality, and resentment at the refusal of an invitation, are indicated in Mat 22:1-14. The "marriage" in Cana exhibits the way in which a "marriage feast" was conducted in humbler homes. Special honor attached to the male friends of the bridegroom, "the sons of the bridechamber, Mat 9:15, RV (see BRIDECHAMBER). At the close the parents conducted the bride to the nuptial chamber (cf. Jdg 15:1)  Vine

Weddings were usually arranged by the parents but the bride had to accept by drinking of a cup.  The pair were betrothed which was an official engagement in which they were as good as married but without sex or living together.  They were given to each other by the families.  The marriage included a dowry and a great feast which might last a week.  So it seems it was a family affair with acquaintances  in attendance as well.   They lived in a room that was added to the grooms house and when the marriage was consummated they would announce to the guests, "it is done".  

The whole thing was very public and official in the sense that the whole families and friends of both parties were involved.  So if the union was not conducted in that way, the pair were not considered to be married.  

So we have a similar tradition.  At one time the marriages were officially recorded by the churches.  I have an ancestor who was married by publication in the general store.  The bans were posted.  He was a circuit riding Baptist minister in the frontier of  Kentucky.  So traditions have changed due to circumstances.  We post engagements and weddings in newspapers.

[lftc]

@Willa

I am in a dilemma.  Should I respond discussing the weak points that I perceive in your rebuttal?  I sense that such action would result in offense.  So then I am left to leave what I perceive to be the truth of God's word in the minds of those that read our discussion.

I choose the second option for the sake of what peace may remain.

Added:

To clarify:  I was stating a case that the scriptures do not specify a government involvement.  Meaning that a Christian is not required to have approval from a current Western Government that classifies homosexual marriage at the same level has God's marriage.

Edited October 17, 2019 by lftc