The Church, the State and marriage

[Dr. Shane]

I think all too often .... we can get stuck in the mud with preconceived ideas just because they are the old traditional ideas. But, they just may not be the ideas of God. We do need to open our minds to Truth.

I think we always have to have an open mind to new truths from Scripture. However we need to be slow to throw away the faith of our fathers. The evidence for new light has to be very substantial and not contradict Scripture for me to accept it.

I have rejected the idea that using jewelry is sinful. That is because in my examination of Scripture I saw the counsel against using jewelry was accompanied by counsel against other prideful and materialist issues. I then examined areas of Scripture where jewelry was permitted. Thus I concluded that the counsel against jewelry is actually counsel against pride and materialism.

So I am not a traditionalist who clings to church tradition and refuses to consider new light. I am one that holds new light to a high standard when it contradicts the faith of our fathers.

[CyberGuy]

And Cyberguy don't forget King's David and Solomon. They were great but didn't have marital bliss to speak of.

pk

True but if Solomon did not have those 1000 wifes and concubines we would not have all those great observations about marriage and women by Solomon.

There was nothing but war and strife because of jeolousy between sons of different wifes of David. Solomon to had nothing but unhappiness with all those women. It lead to the ruination of a united Israel when Solomon died. It was the wifes who lead Solomon to Idolotry and building those shrines to idols to try to please his wives.

[John317]

Would a marriage without any sex be a holier matrimony?

Certainly not. This is not a part of the argument. The point I am making is that even if we found out that Mary and Joseph did not have sex, their marriage would be legitimate.

Quote:

There is no Biblical evidence that the brothers of Jesus were all older or that Joseph was a much older widowed man with children from a previous marriage. One son is referred to in Mark 15:40, somewhat ambiguously, as James "the less" in the KJV. An alternate translation of the Greek which is used in a number of the translations is "younger". That text refers to Mary as his and Joses' mother.

This Mary is not the mother of Jesus. A comparison of Matt. 27: 61 and Mark 15: 47 shows that the "other Mary" is the mother of Joses, for these two women were watching where Jesus was laid.

Present at the cross were:

1) Mary, mother of Jesus.

2) Mary's sister, Salome (John's mother)

3) Mary Magdalene

4) Mary, wife of Cleopas (mother of James and Joses) Matt. 27: 56; Mark 15: 40.

When Jesus died 3 of these were still present:

1) Mary Magdalene

2) Mary, wife of Cleopas (mother of James and Joses)

3) Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Only two of these witnessed the burial (Mark 15: 47):

1) Mary Magdalene

2) Mary the mother of James and Joses

Notice that Luke 24: 10 says that "Mary the mother of James" was among those women who announced Christ's resurrection to the apostles.

This from The Dictionary of the Bible (in the New Analytical Bible)--

"Mary the wife of Clopas or Cleophas (John 19: 25). They were parents of James the Less, an apostle, and of Joses (Matt. 27: 56; Mark 15: 40; Luke 24: 10)."

Also see the SDA Bible Dictionary under "Mary", #4,5,6. (Page 690, 1960 ed.)

Quote:

What EGW wrote was based on long held church tradition dating back to probably the 5th Century when the apocryphal book "The History of Joseph the Carpenter" that claimed to quote Jesus as telling his disciples this fact and that Mary remained a virgin, etc. It was an accepted fact in EGW day and not likely to have been questioned by her, even though the authorship and authenticity of the History of Joseph the Carpenter is quite suspect. Again this was written undoubtedly to support the growing myth of Mary's perpetual viginity and that all the sons had to have been from a previous marriage of Joseph. This is all to support the Catholic doctrine of original sin and none of it is Scriptural. To the contrary, much of it is clearly contradicted by Scripture.

There is no evidence that Ellen White went along with church tradition simply for the sake of going along with it. She always went against church traditions when she knew it was contrary to what God had shown her or when it contradicted the truth of Scripture. If she wrote things simply because they were popularly held and even if they were different from what God showed her in vision, she wouldn't be reliable.

Remember that God showed her the life of Christ in vision on several occasions. She actually saw Jesus Christ's face sweating blood in the garden. She saw the nails driven into His hands, and she saw the resurrection.

[olger]

Tom. Here are some notes that I shared in Norway.

1. Marriage is an institution created by God and therefore is holy.

Jesus confirmed this in Matthew 19 when He said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Because God created marriage, it becomes more than just a cultural idea. It is a holy union blessed by God. In recognizing such, it deserves a certain amount of respect and recognition beyond "we say we're married so we are".

2. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In creating marriage, God defined it precisely. Genesis 2:24 states, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Marriage can only be between a man and a woman where they are joined together as a single entity. It involves the leaving of the old, childhood life and starting something new.

There are many kinds of unions between people. However, that does not make them equivalent to marriage. Living together may be a type of union, but it does not join the participants into a single entity. Our laws recognize that spouses cannot testify against one another; precisely because they are joined in such a union.

It also answers the question of so-called "homosexual marriage". Since, by definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, homosexual unions are not marriages. They cannot be. You may use some other term to describe their relationship, but to use the word marriage is incorrect. The definition won't allow it.

3. Marriage is more than a commitment.

In your question, you state "He said they had made their vows to each other and consummated the relationship, ... He also stated that nowhere in the bible does it state you have to go through a 'ceremony' and he felt what they did was enough." Your son said he felt making vows to each other was enough to constitute a marriage in the eyes of God. However, the Bible actually does take a different view.

You see, marriage is more than just making a commitment to someone else. It is also entering into a holy covenant before God. In Malachi, God is rebuking the people of Judah for not following His laws. There we read, " 'Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion, and your wife by covenant.. For I hate divorce,' says the Lord." (Mal 2:14,16).

God says here that marriage is a covenant, one witnessed and sealed by Him. A commitment is a civil agreement. A covenant is religious by nature and should be presided over by a religious official. Breaking a commitment can be done by mutual agreement. However, a covenant is considered binding and can only be broken if God has provided for such a dissolution - such as adultery.

4. Marriage is to be witnessed.

Because marriage is a covenant to be entered freely by two individuals, is must be witnessed by at least two or three people. This idea is confirmed in Matthew 18:16, where Jesus quotes Leviticus, "Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed."

Ruth 4:9-12 shows this applies specifically to marriage when Boaz seeks out witnesses to secure his right to marry Ruth, the Moabitess. There, the witnesses even pronounce a marriage blessing on them.

5. Marriage is to be held in honor.

If we take all of the above into account, we can see that marriage is an institution not to be taken lightly. In fact, it is a union of the highest honor. "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled..." (Heb. 13:4).

Interestingly, this verse links the idea of marriage to legal custom. In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we are to be in subjection to governing authorities. In other words, we are to obey the laws of the land because God has placed those people in power. Then, in verse 7, he writes, "Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

We know that marriage is honorable and the Bible commands us to render it honor properly. Further, it shows that we are to obey the governing laws and respect the customs associated with Biblical marriage.

Our laws recognize the holy union of marriage (point number 1), require it to be between a man and a woman (point number 2), recognizes the covenant nature of marriage by sanctioning clergy to perform marriage ceremonies (point number 3), and requires witnesses (point number 4). Therefore, in order to give marriage proper honor and to render the proper respect to the governing authorities, legal marriage is both required and appropriate. It does not follow that legal marriage is not necessary in today's society.

Taking all into account, the Bible clearly shows that an official marriage ceremony governed by clergy is entering into marriage appropriately. Jesus blessed official marriage by performing His first miracle at the marriage feast in Cana (John 2) . His relationship with the church is compared to a bridegroom and his bride, again showing the holiness of the marriage relationship.

It is an unfortunate commentary on our society that we've reduced the idea of marriage to one of comfort. With Las Vegas 30 minute weddings and no-fault divorce, we are straying farther and farther away from the idea of the holy covenant God set forth. It is to be binding, not broken by any man.

If a person truly is serious in vowing "until death do us part", then why would they be resistant to making that vow legal? Many times people are betrayed by their concern for the consequences of their actions. The consequences of dissolving a legal marriage are much less than they were, but are still significant. It could be those consequences are what bothers people. Thus they enter into a merely temporary agreement - and that isn't marriage.

• An additional reason that marriage exists only when a covenant is entered into is found in 2 Samuel 15. Amnon wanted to “take” Tamar in a physical relationship. She pleaded with him to not do this evil thing, and to ask her father and he would give her to Amnon. If the sexual union creates a “marriage” then she would have no basis for her plea to Amnon to wait and ask for her hand in marriage.

• You cannot marry yourself any more than you can baptize yourself.

• Living together does not create a marriage – it creates pain & consequences.

as always,

olger

[Gregory Matthews]

Just a comment, Olger:

Marriage may be defined by the Bible and or the Church. NOTE: I assume here in this comment that the Bible and the Chruch are in agreement.

Or,

Marriage may be defined by the civil authorities. Those civil authorities do not hvae to be in agreement with the Bible. If they are not, the civil defination does not make it a Biblical marriage. But, it remains a civil marriage.

Marriage, in my thinking, has two aspects: A Biblical aspect and a civil aspect. It is from that perspective that I do NOT marry people who have not complied with the civil requirements for a marriage. And, I also do not marry people who do not wish to enter into what I consider to be a Biblical marriage. I have refused to marry people from both perspectives. I am quite willing to cancel out from either perspective.

[olger]

Thanks Greg.

og

[Tom Wetmore]

I am going to shift direction a bit on the topic. I am going to tie in secular humanism, anthropology and evolution into this topic. Bear with me a bit. (And for our sometimes overzealous anti-evolution friends, please do not derail this and sidetrack it into another endless rant against that perceived evil.)

What seems to be the cause of most in misunderstanding what I am saying is perceiving it from the wrong direction. Given the degradation of sex after countless generations of sin, it seems to me that the much of the negative reaction is colored by that perception of sex. Looking at what I have said from the wrong direction is that linking sex and marriage, as I have suggested, somehow diminishes marriage. The resistance comes from the perception that sex is less than marriage, if not a necessary procreative biological process, but dirty deed nonetheless. But the opposite is the truth of what I have been trying to say. It is elevating sex back to the God intended holiness of the marriage covenant. It is sanctifying sex. It is raising sex back to the level of holy matrimony as God created it.

The resistance creates, if not insists on, a disconnect, separating the act of sex from the act of marriage. Disconnecting sex from marriage should have rather obvious moral implications for Christians, I should think. But where I have seen this most profoundly is in the discussions of human sexuality from the secular sciences. Human sexuality is looked at as simply an evolved biological process to insure the survival of the species and marriage as a culturally defined convention. The evolutionary view of human sexuality inevitably compares us to the evolutionary ancestors and anthropology and sociology look at the mores and taboos as cultural evolution with no moral imperatives. Because all the animals do it, with a marriage-like mating for life the odd exception among a handful of species, we must look at the human concept of marriage as disconnect from our human biology.

Do you see where this leads? It is certainly away from God's original created design. And I would suggest that this disconnect leads to a fractured and distorted view of marriage and sex quite like what we see here. Did evolution influence the Christian view or the other way around? Or did this drift apart develop from a more diabolically coordinated assault from two separate fronts against what God has joined together, his crowning act of creation - man and woman joined together as one?

[olger]

Tom.

1) Your argument appears to be one of emphasis, falling rather incidentally towards sex as the premiere ratification of the marriage. For myself, I understand sex to be a beautiful component of marriage, but not the cause of it (Proverbs 5:18-19 come to mind). More like a benefit.

2) I don't see sex as dirty at all (within marriage). "Undefiled."

3) Resistance to your "emphasis" is justifiably mindful of the enemy's attempts in these last days to jettison marital accountability norms to satisfy the twin appetites of lust & rebellion. Consciousness of his goals should temper your re-definition efforts.

regards,

ger