Marriage.

[Rudy]

Does anyone know of an apostolic preacher that would perform a marriage ceremony without a license?

[Esaias]

Does anyone know of an apostolic preacher that would perform a marriage ceremony without a license?

Why is a preacher needed? Does the Bible authorize preachers to "perform marriages"?

[Esaias]

Biblically, a marriage is a contract between a man (the groom), the bride, and the bride's father. The groom's father also has an advisory role, but is not the final authority, it seems.

So for a marriage to be valid in God's eyes there needs to be two or three witnesses and a public declaration of marriage (with the consent of the bride's father or nearest male relative responsible for her, unless there are none) followed by a consummation. The exchange of vows would certainly certainly suffice as the "contractual terms" although they could also just be written out and the two parties publicly affirm their commitment to the terms.

No preacher needed. And the "license" or PERMISSION resides a) in the stipulations of God's Word as to what constitutes marriage and b) in the consent of the bride's father to give her in marriage.

[Esaias]

Now, if one requires a preacher in order to satisfy requirements of the state, then that assumes the state has authority to impose requirements. Which goes full circle right back to the license thing.

At this time, states have pretty much abandoned any legitimacy in regards to marriage. People should just go back to the Bible, and make sure inheritance issues are sufficiently taken care of contractually.

[Miss Scarlett]

Does anyone know of an apostolic preacher that would perform a marriage ceremony without a license?

I'm not sure I understand your Question, If the Pastor is not licensed, or the couple don't have license. If no license is present to make the marriage legal, I don't think an apostolic pastor would perform a marriage. But if you are asking if the preacher doesn't have license, it would make no difference. You can be married in my state by a Justice of the peace, a Judge, or a supervisor.

[jediwill83]

:-D

[Miss Scarlett]

:-D

bLA, bLA. bLA :foottap

[Esaias]

lol

[Amanah]

:-D

Princess Bride :gaga

[jediwill83]

bLA, bLA. bLA :foottap


What????? *Innocent look*

[Rudy]

There are 5 short parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTs5-WtGEI

[Aquila]

Biblically, a marriage is a contract between a man (the groom), the bride, and the bride's father. The groom's father also has an advisory role, but is not the final authority, it seems.

So for a marriage to be valid in God's eyes there needs to be two or three witnesses and a public declaration of marriage (with the consent of the bride's father or nearest male relative responsible for her, unless there are none) followed by a consummation. The exchange of vows would certainly certainly suffice as the "contractual terms" although they could also just be written out and the two parties publicly affirm their commitment to the terms.

No preacher needed. And the "license" or PERMISSION resides a) in the stipulations of God's Word as to what constitutes marriage and b) in the consent of the bride's father to give her in marriage.

There is no stipulated contract or procedure for marriage anywhere in Scripture.

[Esaias]

There is no stipulated contract or procedure for marriage anywhere in Scripture.

Wrong. Democrats love to believe that, so they can push fornication as "marriage".

[Aquila]

Wrong. Democrats love to believe that, so they can push fornication as "marriage".

I don't mind being corrected. I've researched the issue and know all about the Ketubah. However, my point is, it isn't in Scripture. If it is, could you provide it?

P.S.

Most Democrats are big on state involvement, with marriage licenses being granted to non-traditional couples (gays, polyamorous, polygamous, etc.). Most of those who have grown leery of government involvement in marriage and consider shying away from civil licensing are Conservative Republicans. For example, here is the Marriage Pledge (which our fellowship has agreed to):

The Marriage Pledge:


In many jurisdictions, including many of the United States, civil authorities have adopted a definition of marriage that explicitly rejects the age-old requirement of male-female pairing. In a few short years or even months, it is very likely that this new definition will become the law of the land, and in all jurisdictions the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage will be granted to men in partnership with men, and women with women.

As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-..habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ..being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ..articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

Drafted by:

The Reverend Ephraim Radner

The Reverend Christopher Seitz

Source: https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

You might also consider doing additional research before laying such accusations:

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/texas/17185-bad-idea-for-ministers-to-sign-marriage-licenses-pastors-insist

Right or Wrong? Signing state marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/opinion/other/17763-right-or-wrong-state-marriage-licenses?highlight=YTozOntpOjA7czo4OiJtYXJyaWFnZSI 7aToxO3M6ODoibGljZW5zZXMiO2k6MjtzOjE3OiJtYXJyaWFnZ SBsaWNlbnNlcyI7fQ%3D%3D

2nd Opinion: Pastors, stop signing those marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/opinion/other/17330-2nd-opinion-pastors-stop-signing-those-marriage-licenses?highlight=YTozOntpOjA7czo4OiJtYXJyaWFnZSI 7aToxO3M6ODoibGljZW5zZXMiO2k6MjtzOjE3OiJtYXJyaWFnZ SBsaWNlbnNlcyI7fQ%3D%3D

Editorial: Marry church and covenant; divorce church and state
https://www.baptiststandard.com/opinion/editorial/17249-editorial-marry-church-and-covenant-divorce-church-and-state?highlight=YTozOntpOjA7czo4OiJtYXJyaWFnZSI7aT oxO3M6ODoibGljZW5zZXMiO2k6MjtzOjE3OiJtYXJyaWFnZSBs aWNlbnNlcyI7fQ%3D%3D

Pastors want covenant certificates to replace marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/texas/17094-pastors-encourage-covenant-certificates-as-alternatives-to-marriage-licenses?highlight=YTozOntpOjA7czo4OiJtYXJyaWFnZSI 7aToxO3M6ODoibGljZW5zZXMiO2k6MjtzOjE3OiJtYXJyaWFnZ SBsaWNlbnNlcyI7fQ%3D%3D

Marriage by Biblical Covenant
Not State License
http://www.truthinliving.org/Marriage_Covenant.php

Holy Matrimony vs. Marriage
http://presys.com/~ekklesia/mvm.htm

Marriage Proposal: Why Not Privatize?
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1657

In addition, we have plenty of commentary from CONSERVATIVES regarding how marriage licenses should be abandoned by serious Bible believing Christians. Here are two leading conservatives who have commented on the issue:

"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." ~ Ron Paul

"The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." ~ Ron Paul

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella


I think you're incorrect in your assumption that marriage without licenses is a liberal or Democratic notion. In fact, most Democrats that I know would like to reinstate Common Law Marriage statutes, which would legally recognize the union of many cohabitating couples who wish to avoid marriage licensing. In this way, the government recognizes any union established by a couple claiming "marriage"... license or not.

[Rudy]

I sure can't find it if there is one.

[Aquila]

Many churches and fellowships (both liberal and conservative, Esaias) today offer Commitment Ceremonies for couples that do not desire to get a Civil Marriage. The elders in our fellowship don't even seek state minister's licenses, so legally they can't sign off on civil marriage documents. Our statement of faith reads in Section 4, paragraphs D, E, & F:

D. A head of household does not need to be licensed in order to lead his own family, nor does he/she need to be licensed if his/her work expands beyond his/her own household.

E. The Apostolic Fellowship reserves the right to function as a religious network of Christian believers without government intervention and regulation. Since we receive our authority from God and not from man, we will not seek to be recognized by any federal government as an officially incorporated institution. Elders are not to be licensed by any state or government body.

F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the Apostolic Fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings.

With the above in mind, our elders can only officiate over Commitment Ceremonies (or Recommitment Ceremonies). Should a couple desire to have a Civil Marriage, we advise them to go down to the courthouse to get one prior to, or soon after, any Commitment Ceremony that is performed. Interestingly, it isn't the young people who ask about Commitment Ceremonies the most. It is typically older people who are divorcees, retirees, and those who have never been married but understand civil marriage statutes.

One might ask, "What is a 'Commitment Ceremony'?"

A commitment ceremony is often very similar to many other kinds of weddings. The difference is that rather than being a legally binding ceremony, it is simply a public affirmation of a couples commitment to one another in the eyes of God, family, and friends. A commitment ceremony may be religious or secular, formal and traditional or loose and unstructured.

The makeup of the ceremony will depend on the rules of the officiant/house-of-worship and the couple's own preferences. However, generally speaking, these are the key elements:

•Greeting
The officiant welcomes guests to a celebration of the love and commitment between the couple. He or she will probably also say a few words about their relationship, or about marriage/commitment in general.

•Vows/Promises
This is the part where the couple declares their intent to be a committed or married couple. As in any kind of wedding, they will make promises about what that commitment means. They may promise to love in sickness and in health, in richness and poverty, till death do they part. Alternatively they may write their own vows or promises.

•Readings/Music
A religious commitment ceremony will likely incorporate hymns and scripture readings that focus on love. (Many religious officiants will have a standard set of music and readings that are often used at commitment ceremonies and weddings.) A secular ceremony will usually also include music and readings about love, including poems, passages of literature, famous quotes, personal writing, pop songs, and classic wedding music.

•Exchange of Rings
The couple exchanges promise rings, and says a few words about what these rings mean. It may be:

"With this ring, I thee wed."
"I give you this ring as an expression of my love and commitment to you."
"I'm honored to give you this ring as a symbol of the promises I've made to you today, and a proclamation to the world of the love I have for you."

A Quaker promise is also quite popular in some fellowships:

"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee, to be my husband/wife, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife/husband so long as we both shall live."

Or anything else the couple wishes to say.

•Pronouncement of Marriage
The officiant announces to the guests or congregation that the couple is now married (joined/united/wed - whatever word you prefer to say) and invites the couple to kiss. Some couples may not be used to kissing in public and thus may only have a very small kiss, or forgo this part altogether. Others will relish the moment to have the opportunity to kiss each other in front of their loved ones, proclaiming their love, and pride in having that love.

•Reception
Most couples will follow the ceremony with a reception of some kind. As with all weddings, there are no rules as to what this should be - it can be very formal and traditional, or as casual as a backyard picnic. It may include traditional wedding elements such as the first dance, cake cutting, and bouquet toss, or may just be an unstructured party. Generally the invitation will give some clues as to what it will be like (e.g. Please join us after the ceremony to toast the happy couple or A reception at the Springfield Country Club will immediately follow the wedding)


It is important to counsel couples regarding their desire for a Commitment Ceremony. First, they must understand that in some states common law marriage statutes might legally recognize the union established by a Commitment Ceremony as a legally binding union. Second, they need to understand the necessity of having the appropriate wills and powers of attorney in place to legally act in one another's absence and to ensure the transfer of assets upon death. In some states it is recommended that a couple file a cohabitation agreement with the courts to protect property rights. All these details can be worked out prior to or after a Commitment Ceremony.

[Aquila]

Here is a video of an informal Quaker wedding (Quaker weddings do not have an officiant or preacher):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ae8fmy4oGg

[Aquila]

Here is a more formal example of a Quaker style wedding (no preacher or officiant):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=483h79KAdCI

[Esaias]

I think you're incorrect in your assumption that marriage without licenses is a liberal or Democratic notion.

See? You either can't, or don't read. I never said "marriage without licenses is a liberal or Democrat notion."

Good grief.

[Aquila]

See? You either can't, or don't read. I never said "marriage without licenses is a liberal or Democrat notion."

Good grief.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I thought that was what you meant when you said,

Wrong. Democrats love to believe that, so they can push fornication as "marriage".

[good samaritan]

I have seen many people who are dependent on government services and cannot legally marry without those benefits being forfeited. I sympathize for those circumstances, but I often wonder what has brought them into such a circumstance. I believe this is a difficult subject of whether or not we should validate our marriage with the laws of the land. I am of the pursuasion that although marriages are not made valid by the government we should still recieve marital recognition from the government. It reminds me of Abraham lying to the Egyptions and Philistines about Sarai for fear of what they might do to him.

I still am open minded on this subject because I know people personally who are in a covenant relationship, but cannot go through state process in making it legally recognized because of the loss of much needed medical ins.

[Aquila]

I have seen many people who are dependent on government services and cannot legally marry without those benefits being forfeited. I sympathize for those circumstances, but I often wonder what has brought them into such a circumstance. I believe this is a difficult subject of whether or not we should validate our marriage with the laws of the land. I am of the pursuasion that although marriages are not made valid by the government we should still recieve marital recognition from the government. It reminds me of Abraham lying to the Egyptions and Philistines about Sarai for fear of what they might do to him.

I still am open minded on this subject because I know people personally who are in a covenant relationship, but cannot go through state process in making it legally recognized because of the loss of much needed medical ins.

If a couple has all necessary powers of attorney, wills, and cohabitation agreements in place, the only things a "civil marriage" can offer is the ability to file taxes jointly as married for tax benefits, the right to Social Security benefits upon a spouse's death, and a free name change.

One thing that a civil marriage does is it binds you legally in a manner that should the marriage fail, you have to go before the civil courts to divorce. And most divorce law isn't biblical anymore seeing that divorce is granted on a "no fault" basis and assets are divided equally, with child support rendered according to income and custody determined by statute, regardless as to who was at fault. In addition, Paul admonished against going before unbelieving courts:

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 King James Version (KJV)
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Paul said that it would be better to suffer being defrauded, or ripped off, than to go before the unbelieving courts of this world to settle our disputes. In fact, for old world groups like the Quakers, refusal to be subject to civil authority is considered a part of one's Christian testimony.

Ultimately, I think it is up to individual couples to decide what works for them in relation to what their church teaches. The civil marriage system is there to participate in if a couple wishes. But for many couples (for reasons such as what you mentioned) it would be far more of a liability than a benefit. If these couples enter a covenant commitment and wear wedding bands to publically affirm that they are in union with another, I don't judge.

[n david]

If a couple has all necessary powers of attorney, wills, and cohabitation agreements in place, the only things a "civil marriage" can offer is the ability to file taxes jointly as married for tax benefits, the right to Social Security benefits upon a spouse's death, and a free name change.

One thing that a civil marriage does is it binds you legally in a manner that should the marriage fail, you have to go before the civil courts to divorce. Paul admonished against going before unbelieving courts:

1 Corinthians 6:1-8 King James Version (KJV)
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Paul said that it would be better to suffer being defrauded, or ripped off, than to go before the unbelieving courts of this world to settle our disputes. In fact, for old world groups like the Quakers, refusal to be subject to civil authority is considered a part of one's Christian testimony.

Ultimately, I think it is up to individual couples to decide what works for them. The civil marriage system is there to participate in if a couple wishes. But for many couples it would be far more of a liability than a benefit. If these couples enter a covenant commitment and wear wedding bands to publically affirm that they are in union with another, I don't judge.

I believe you're taking what Paul wrote completely out of context. He was speaking of lawsuits, not divorce.

[Aquila]

I believe you're taking what Paul wrote completely out of context. He was speaking of lawsuits, not divorce.

You're right.

In Paul's day, among the Jews a divorce was typically a "writ of divorcement", or "get". It was a written decree written and issued by the husband terminating the marriage. It was often reviewed by a rabbi prior to being delivered to the wife. No government courts were necessary. Disputes relating to the separation were handled by the synagogue, not the Roman courts.

In the early Christian church, marriage and divorce laws primarily applied to those who were official Roman citizens. This citizenship was either granted according to birth or upon purchase. The majority of people under Rome's authority were not classified as official citizens, and so Roman courts felt no need to even involve themselves in their marriages or divorces. So, the average marriage was established by a private contract between families or individual couples. It was also terminated by private decree in accordance to local family traditions.

So essentially, for the most party, marriages were a private contract, agreement, or arrangement between families or individuals.

Today, since the government took over marriage and states have abolished common law marriage laws in all but a handful of states, marriage is now a "civil contract" with the government. And termination of the contract essentially becomes a lawsuit to be settled in a court of law in accordance to civil statute.

So, while divorce wasn't similar to a lawsuit in Paul's day, it is today.

[Aquila]

In the early church marriages were also established by couples who privately committed to one another, even if alone behind a barn. These couples didn't go to the church to have their union established, churches only blessed marriages that couples established. After marriage was declared a "sacrament" a priest was required to officiate. All marriages established privately by couples were then deemed lawful in the church, but were labeled "illicit marriages", seeing they were entered into outside of the church's authority.

After the Protestant Reformation, Protestant churches increasingly divested themselves from having authority over marriage and began recognizing marriages through common law, cohabitation and repute. Common law evolved into tort and civil laws and so secular government authorities began claiming more legal power over marriage.

In the American colonies and on the frontier common law marriage was rather common. Church weddings were also common. Marriages were recorded in family Bibles. Soon, Bibles started to be printed with marriage certificates and family trees. Yep, that's why so many Bibles come with those things! It's an early American marriage tradition. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn't have marriage licenses, their marriages were just recorded in their family Bibles.

After the Emancipation states began requiring licenses to keep mixed couples from marrying. You see, they'd deny the license to interracial couples, thereby keeping them from marrying. More and more states began requiring the licensing and civil marriage laws as we know them began to take shape. Mixed couples didn't get their right to a license until the 1960's.

[Aquila]

I was just surfing for a few minutes on this topic and I found this interesting article from WorldNetDaily:

Stay single, young man!
http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/29779/
Vox Day

Marriage, as conceived by God, is a good and fruitful thing. Marriage, as conceived by the state, is an evil man-trap designed to deprive men of their property and their children.


For as the Ohio State Bar Association helpfully explains, the marriage license is:

… a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio.

This contract grants the third party jurisdiction over all the property owned by the first two, as well as anything produced by the other parties, including children. And it is this marriage license which gives the state legal power to dictate who gets what in the case of a divorce.


The explosion of divorce in the latter half of the 20th century and the commonplace abuse of men in the family “courts” (which are actually fraudulent executive-branch entities that operate in total violation of the constitutional law’s separation of powers) is bad enough. But since feminists have discovered how the power of government can be used to forcibly transform civil society to their liking, they have been emboldened to make even more creative use of the state’s power over marriage.

In Spain, for example, a law is being passed to force men to do more housework. Since the vast majority of Spanish men – 81 percent – are traditionalists who believe that women with school-age children should stay at home and not work full-time jobs, Spanish feminists are waging war against them through the national legislature.

As the law’s sponsor, Margarita Uria, helpfully explains:

The idea of equality within marriage always stumbles over the problem of work in the house and caring for dependent people. This will be a good way of reminding people what their duties are. It is something feminists have been wanting for a long time.

No doubt they have. Because, according to Marian Salzman, described by the U.K. Observer as a “trend-spotter extraordinaire,” women are “rejecting equality in the workplace and prefer the idea of becoming full-time housewives – but not ones who actually do housework … women are happy to abandon the workplace, but not if it means spending all day at home cooking, cleaning and looking after children. Instead, they want to play the “role” of housewife with a little help from, for instance, a nanny, and someone who does the ironing.”

Her warning should sober even the most infatuated man. “Women think: ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is mine.'”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court now sees fit to take international law into account when deciding what is and is not constitutional, it can only be a matter of time before a woman’s right to force her husband to do the ironing or breast-feed the baby is discovered in an emanation or a penumbra. After all, someone has to do the housework when mommy is busy sitting on a corporate board, which she’ll be doing as soon as the Norwegian concept of sex-based affirmative action for company directors crosses the Atlantic.

Young men are already responding to the increasingly odious burden of marriage by delaying it or avoiding it altogether, but for the most part, they are doing so without conscious design. It is time for men to become aware that as the more economically productive class, they are the natural prey of the government and its family-control machinery. The courts have already demonstrated that a man – any man – will do for their purposes when child support is required, even if that man can be proved to have no relationship to the child.

For non-Christian men, the answer is easy: Avoid marriage at all costs. Marriage only weakens your legal and emotional positions vis-a-vis a woman, and since American women will freely provide companionship, sex and children upon request, to marry is to give up a great deal for what is literally less than nothing.

A Christian man, on other hand, cannot freely engage in non-committal sexual relationships, and so must marry. He can improve his odds, however, by marrying a Christian woman who is not on the career track. This will significantly increase the chances that he will not find himself at the legal mercy of a sociopath obsessed with momentary happiness ?ber alles, but blessed by a traditional wife committed to building a family and a life together with him instead.

But is it possible for a Christian couple to avoid the state’s machinery of control and still marry before God? Yes, according to pastor Matt Trewhella. “What’s recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/29779/#39sg5CGzOUYgvK0o.99

[n david]

You're right.
You agree, yet you continue to try to use the scripture, twisting it to try and validate your belief on marriage.

In Paul's day, among the Jews a divorce was typically a "writ of divorcement", or "get". It was a written decree written and issued by the husband terminating the marriage. It was often reviewed by a rabbi prior to being delivered to the wife. No government courts were necessary. Disputes relating to the separation were handled by the synagogue, not the Roman courts.

In the early Christian church, marriage and divorce laws primarily applied to those who were official Roman citizens. This citizenship was either granted according to birth or upon purchase. The majority of people under Rome's authority were not classified as official citizens, and so Roman courts felt no need to even involve themselves in their marriages or divorces. So, the average marriage was established by a private contract between families or individual couples. It was also terminated by private decree in accordance to local family traditions.

So essentially, for the most party, marriages were a private contract, agreement, or arrangement between families or individuals.
Correct. Marriages were arranged and blessed by the families within a ceremony. They did not simply jump into the sack and call it good.

Today, since the government took over marriage and states have abolished common law marriage laws in all but a handful of states, marriage is now a "civil contract" with the government. And termination of the contract essentially becomes a lawsuit to be settled in a court of law in accordance to civil statute.

So, while divorce wasn't similar to a lawsuit in Paul's day, it is today.
Again, I don't read 1 Corinthians 13 as applying to divorce. That is about an argument between believers which is taken to court.

If a couple wants to have a private ceremony with family and their Pastor, I'm fine with that. What I'm not okay with is the claim that all a couple needs to do is jump in bed together and have sex and God is good with that. Not so.

[Aquila]

You agree, yet you continue to try to use the scripture, twisting it to try and validate your belief on marriage.

I'm only explaining why you're absolutely right in one sense, but wrong in another sense.

Correct. Marriages were arranged and blessed by the families within a ceremony. They did not simply jump into the sack and call it good.

It's more complicated than that. First, in Judaism, it was typically expected if the bride still lived with her father. But if she didn't, or her parents were dead, a ceremony wasn't necessary. In addition, what ceremonies we see were cultural and varied from location to location, era to era. The BIBLE doesn't prescribe a specific ceremony. And, all of this is only true for JEWISH couples. In the early church these ceremonies and traditions weren't performed among Gentile believers. They had their own traditions, including couples who made covenant together when they were alone. They would announce their union to family later that day or on one of the next days, and the church would either bless the union or condemn it. But the church never established unions. You will NOT find a single Scripture requiring a specific ceremony or stating that the church is to officiate a wedding. Nor will you find a prescribed procedure for a preacher who wishes to wed a couple.

Again, I don't read 1 Corinthians 13 as applying to divorce. That is about an argument between believers which is taken to court.

So, you think that Gentile Christians who divorced rushed down to the Roman courts to divorce? First, the Roman court would only wish to involve itself if they were official Roman citizens. Second, most Christians were not official Roman citizens, they were of the poorer classes. It is possible that Jewish Christians might have turned to the synagogues before they were cast out of Judaism, but afterwards where would they go to divorce? The truth is, most Christian marriages had nothing to do with Roman government. And when they divorced, the church would try to help them reconcile and if it failed, the departing party was allowed to simply leave. If they were a believer, they were not to remarry, and men were commanded not to divorce their wives (demand that they leave). If one of them was an unbeliever or apostate, and wished to leave, they were to be allowed to leave, and the believer was no longer bound by the covenant of that union, meaning they could remarry in the Lord. Early Christians didn't rush down to government courts to separate.

To say that Paul would admonish Christians not to settle matters in the courts of the unbelievers, but would support Christians turning to the courts of the unbelievers in divorce is to create a duplicity. When Paul speaks of "lawsuits" (as you put it) it includes any legal dispute "of this world", that includes divorce.

If a couple wants to have a private ceremony with family and their Pastor, I'm fine with that.

What kind of ceremony is needed? Where is a specific ceremony prescribed in the Bible? In addition, where is a pastor required to marry a couple in Scripture? Yes, rabbis and early Christian elders were invited to bless unions at the time of the marriage. But on other occasions couples came to church and announced that they had chosen to marry. Thus the elders would bless the couple after the fact. This is why the Catholic church established various marriage traditions, there wasn't any uniformity. In addition, if a couple gave their promises/vows and married alone behind a barn, it was blessed by the church. However, after marriage was made a sacrament, it required a priest. Those marriages established privately or through any other means of commitment were then deemed lawful but illicit marriages.

What I'm not okay with is the claim that all a couple needs to do is jump in bed together and have sex and God is good with that. Not so.

That's not what I'm presenting. I too disagree with that.

What I'm saying is when a couple is truly committed to one another, they enter into the marriage covenant through cohabitation (leaving father and mother and cleaving unto one another). This was deemed the most basic of marriages. If the man took a woman under his roof and committed to care for her he was her "husband". He "husbanded" her. He became her caretaker, provider, and defender. To "husband" (as a verb) is to engage in husbandry, the care and cultivation of another (although today we use it strictly to speak of the care of animals because women are no longer considered "property"). The commitment to live together and build a life together was (and is) the essence of the covenant. This is why common law marriages going all the way back to ancient Greece were established by cohabitation and repute. You take her in, you claim her as your wife, consummate, you present her as your wife, the two of you sire children, and the two of you raise the children. You build a home and family together = Married. It's a natural right, not a civil right. And so instead of officiating these unions as churches do today, in early Christianity the church would either bless these unions or condemn them, and it didn't matter if the state was involved or not.

Your statement begs the question, "Then what is fornication?" And this is an important question. Transient sexual encounters (promiscuity), going to prostitutes, participating in revelries, sex without the commitment of care and cohabitation, etc., are all "fornication" (sexual immorality). And if one is committed to another, such sins are adultery.

[n david]

So, you think that Gentile Christians who divorced rushed down to the Roman courts to divorce? First, the Roman court would only wish to involve itself if they were official Roman citizens. Second, most Christians were not official Roman citizens, they were of the poorer classes. It is possible that Jewish Christians might have turned to the synagogues before they were cast out of Judaism, but afterwards where would they go to divorce? The truth is, most Christian marriages had nothing to do with Roman government. And when they divorced, the church would try to help them reconcile and if it failed, the departing party was allowed to simply leave. If they were a believer, they were not to remarry, and men were commanded not to divorce their wives (demand that they leave). If one of them was an unbeliever or apostate, and wished to leave, they were to be allowed to leave, and the believer was no longer bound by the covenant of that union, meaning they could remarry in the Lord. Early Christians didn't rush down to government courts to separate.
I never said they did. As previously agreed, marriage did not involve the government so there was obviously no need to take the matter before a court.

To say that Paul would admonish Christians not to settle matters in the courts of the unbelievers, but would support Christians turning to the courts of the unbelievers in divorce is to create a duplicity. When Paul speaks of "lawsuits" (as you put it) it includes any legal dispute. It wasn't codified as we have codified it today.
I disagree. Paul was emphatic about submitting to the higher powers. Peter wrote that Christians should submit themselves to "every ordinance of man."

If a Christian chooses a civil marriage, they should abide by the ordinance of that marriage, including divorce court.

Again, 1 Cor 13 has nothing to do with divorce.

What kind of ceremony is needed? Where is a specific ceremony prescribed in the Bible? In addition, where is a pastor required to marry a couple in Scripture? Yes, rabbis and early Christian elders were invited to bless unions at the time of the marriage. But on other occasions couples came to church and announced that they had been married. Thus the elders would bless the couple after the fact. This is why the Catholic church established various marriage traditions, there wasn't any uniformity. In addition, if a couple gave their promises/vows and married alone behind a barn, it was blessed by the church. However, after marriage was made a sacrament, it required a priest. Those marriages established privately or through any other means of commitment were then deemed lawful but illicit marriages.
There is no written record in the Bible, though history can provide that for you. There are scriptures of wedding feasts, so one could imagine that some kind of ceremony occurred.


That's not what I'm presenting. I too disagree with that.
There are previous posts from you which appear to suggest exactly that. One post regarding an unmarried couple who was turned away from a relatives home, you stated (paraphrase) if they had slept together they were considered a couple in the eyes of God. Other posts have held similar views - that a couple who engages in sex should be considered a couple.

[LOVE JESUS]

I would think it is against the law of the land to marry a couple without the wedding license. It would not be legal. I know my husband will not marry anyone unless he has possession of the license and he mails it in himself. It was a state law where we lived that the person performing the ceremony had to mail in the license - no exceptions.

[n david]

I would think it is against the law of the land to marry a couple without the wedding license. It would not be legal. I know my husband will not marry anyone unless he has possession of the license and he mails it in himself. It was a state law where we lived that the person performing the ceremony had to mail in the license - no exceptions.

This is where Paul and Peter's writing about submitting to the authority and ordinances comes into play. If the law requires civil marriage, you should follow the law.

[Esaias]

This is where Paul and Peter's writing about submitting to the authority and ordinances comes into play. If the law requires civil marriage, you should follow the law.

Submission to HIGHER authority is required. Thus, if a court requires one thing, but a superior court requires something else, the ruling of the superior court is to be followed, not the lower court.

And the highest authority is God. Marriage was instituted by God prior to the existence of the state. Thus marriage is governed primarily by God's Law (Word), and only secondarily by the state as it fulfills its God-ordained responsibility of promoting good and punishing evil. And therefore the state's requirements must be facilitative, and not interfere with, God's design for and regulation of marriage.

So then, the state does not create a marriage, nor does the state dissolve a marriage, it can only confirm what God has ordained, and prohibit was God has prohibited. Anything beyond that is usurpation of authority, is an act of rebellion against God, and is to be rebuked by the church.

Compliance with secular edicts that go beyond Biblically defined mandates is often expedient, but must never interfere with obedience to God, and must not be seen as replacements of Biblical requirements.

[Esaias]

Submission to HIGHER authority is required. Thus, if a court requires one thing, but a superior court requires something else, the ruling of the superior court is to be followed, not the lower court.

And the highest authority is God. Marriage was instituted by God prior to the existence of the state. Thus marriage is governed primarily by God's Law (Word), and only secondarily by the state as it fulfills its God-ordained responsibility of promoting good and punishing evil. And therefore the state's requirements must be facilitative, and not interfere with, God's design for and regulation of marriage.

So then, the state does not create a marriage, nor does the state dissolve a marriage, it can only confirm what God has ordained, and prohibit was God has prohibited. Anything beyond that is usurpation of authority, is an act of rebellion against God, and is to be rebuked by the church.

Compliance with secular edicts that go beyond Biblically defined mandates is often expedient, but must never interfere with obedience to God, and must not be seen as replacements of Biblical requirements.

An example:

The US recognizes and performs "gay marriage". Such persons, however, are not in fact married. Likewise, such persons who obtain a legal "divorce" are not in fact divorced, either. Two men who go to the courthouse and get papered are in fornication, not married, regardless of what the state says. And if they "divorced" they are not actually divorced persons. Why? Because marriage (and thus divorce) is defined by God, not the state, not "we the people", not a judge, court, king, pope, priest, or preacher.

[Esaias]

Marriage laws change from country to country, century to century, decade to decade. But God doesn't change. Therefore, actual marriage doesn't change.

[Esaias]

Suppose a state were to allow a man to marry his father's wife. They would be legally "married".

But such a union is prohibited by God (Deut 22:30). This prohibition is recognized as valid in the New Testament (1 Cor 5:1, where it is specifically called fornication). Since such unions are prohibited by Divine edict, no amount of state paperwork can make them legitimate.

Now, suppose such a man becomes a Christian. He divorces the woman, and is now legally a divorced man. How is the church to relate to him?

According to the state, he was married, and is now divorced. According to God, he was a fornicator, and has now repented. Thus, the question "Can he marry a woman?" should be answered by the church on the basis of God's Word, not the state's. He never was actually married, anymore than two men could be, or a man and his dog, or a man and himself, could be married.

[n david]

Submission to HIGHER authority is required. Thus, if a court requires one thing, but a superior court requires something else, the ruling of the superior court is to be followed, not the lower court.

And the highest authority is God. Marriage was instituted by God prior to the existence of the state. Thus marriage is governed primarily by God's Law (Word), and only secondarily by the state as it fulfills its God-ordained responsibility of promoting good and punishing evil. And therefore the state's requirements must be facilitative, and not interfere with, God's design for and regulation of marriage.

So then, the state does not create a marriage, nor does the state dissolve a marriage, it can only confirm what God has ordained, and prohibit was God has prohibited. Anything beyond that is usurpation of authority, is an act of rebellion against God, and is to be rebuked by the church.

Compliance with secular edicts that go beyond Biblically defined mandates is often expedient, but must never interfere with obedience to God, and must not be seen as replacements of Biblical requirements.
You believe Romans 13 isn't about government?

What is Peter speaking of in 1 Peter 2:13, when he states we should submit to the ordinances of man?

[n david]

An example:

The US recognizes and performs "gay marriage". Such persons, however, are not in fact married. Likewise, such persons who obtain a legal "divorce" are not in fact divorced, either. Two men who go to the courthouse and get papered are in fornication, not married, regardless of what the state says. And if they "divorced" they are not actually divorced persons. Why? Because marriage (and thus divorce) is defined by God, not the state, not "we the people", not a judge, court, king, pope, priest, or preacher.
Not sure what the point here is. Obviously we know the Bible is against homosexuality. Who, here, is desiring to marry a person of the same sex?

[n david]

Marriage laws change from country to country, century to century, decade to decade. But God doesn't change. Therefore, actual marriage doesn't change.
And yet Peter wrote that we should submit to the ordinances of man. The only exclusion I've read where we are not to follow the law is if it would compromise our faith. Signing a marriage license does not compromise one's faith.

[Aquila]

I would think it is against the law of the land to marry a couple without the wedding license. It would not be legal. I know my husband will not marry anyone unless he has possession of the license and he mails it in himself. It was a state law where we lived that the person performing the ceremony had to mail in the license - no exceptions.

You are correct, if a minister is licensed with the state, some states prohibit them from marrying a couple that haven't filled for a marriage license.

You see, the licensing never ends.

But when it comes to Quakers, house churches, and many other independent churches, they do not have elders that are licensed by the state, so they are not beholden to the state. Once something is licensed with the state, it belongs to the state, even preachers. As for Quakers and house church pastors and elders, it would be illegal for them to sign and submit a state marriage certificate. This insulates them from state control. In this, they will bless couples, even perform commitment ceremonies (which are legal for state licensed ministers), and Quaker weddings, and covenant marriages.

There is an excellent book titled, Sovereign Christian Marriage, that covers all of these legalities and their implications.

[Aquila]

This is where Paul and Peter's writing about submitting to the authority and ordinances comes into play. If the law requires civil marriage, you should follow the law.

Quakers have been performing unregistered marriages for over 200 years. Quakers, house churches, and many independent churches will gladly perform them even today. And guess what? Because these pastors and elders are not licensed with the state, there is no penalty.

Remember, in marriage, "legal" means subject to state legalities not "illegal".

[Aquila]

Submission to HIGHER authority is required. Thus, if a court requires one thing, but a superior court requires something else, the ruling of the superior court is to be followed, not the lower court.

And the highest authority is God. Marriage was instituted by God prior to the existence of the state. Thus marriage is governed primarily by God's Law (Word), and only secondarily by the state as it fulfills its God-ordained responsibility of promoting good and punishing evil. And therefore the state's requirements must be facilitative, and not interfere with, God's design for and regulation of marriage.

So then, the state does not create a marriage, nor does the state dissolve a marriage, it can only confirm what God has ordained, and prohibit was God has prohibited. Anything beyond that is usurpation of authority, is an act of rebellion against God, and is to be rebuked by the church.

Compliance with secular edicts that go beyond Biblically defined mandates is often expedient, but must never interfere with obedience to God, and must not be seen as replacements of Biblical requirements.

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

[Esaias]

You believe Romans 13 isn't about government?

What is Peter speaking of in 1 Peter 2:13, when he states we should submit to the ordinances of man?

https://media1.popsugar-assets.com/files/2013/09/25/902/n/1922729/51d134e34070be30_peter.xxxlarge.gif

[Aquila]

And yet Peter wrote that we should submit to the ordinances of man. The only exclusion I've read where we are not to follow the law is if it would compromise our faith. Signing a marriage license does not compromise one's faith.

One can say that it doesn't compromise one's own faith. Because interpretations of the Bible differ.

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Quakers do not believe swearing or making oaths, so they refuse to swear in on court proceedings. They also do not offer sworn testimony, they will only promise to affirm or deny with a "yay or nay" answer. They feel the court system is therefore sinful and is not honoring God. They also believe that to "solemnly swear" is to imply that one could tend to be untruthful otherwise, thus they believe that it damages Christian testimony. This is why Quakers seek to avoid the civil courts of this unbelieving secular society if at all possible.

In civil marriage, the "vows" are also something they take issue with. They do not make "vows" at their weddings because they believe it implies that one would otherwise break a promise. And so they offer "promises" to one another.

Biblically speaking, marriage is between a man and a woman. In addition, to divorce and remarry is adultery (some interpretations of Scripture believe in exceptions). The biblical marriage never required an agent of the state or a state court to dissolve a marriage. Biblical marriage also requires grounds for a divorce in order to affirm the innocent party and identify the offending party. Also, the Bible explicitly states that God joins a man and woman together, not the state. Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and God. It is a private contract, agreement, or arrangement. Jewish traditions that include a written contract (a ketubah) allow the contract to stipulate all expectations of marriage, grounds for parting, and terms of any separation. These expectations, grounds, and terms are drafted by the husband and his father (and sometimes with the aid of a rabbi). The bride to be and her father review the terms and must choose to agree or disagree, and present any clauses to be included or removed. Thus the marriage is entirely on the couple's terms or their parent's terms. No outside power other than Scripture can determine those terms and conditions.

Civil marriage is quite different. The civil marriage laws permits divorce and remarriage at will, which is a violation of Scripture. The state permits "no fault" divorce, which is a violation of Scripture. Civil marriage contains vows (which as noted above is against the interpretations of many old world forms of Christianity). Civil marriage is a binding secular contract between a man, a woman, and the state; God isn't a party legally included. Should the marriage fail, civil marriage requires one to go before unbelieving secular courts, which is a violation of Scripture according to old world interpretations of Scripture (such as those held by Quakers, German Baptists, and others). In a civil marriage it is the state that sets all terms and conditions, not the couple. In addition, civil courts allow for gay marriage.

The unbiblical nature of civil marriage has been challenging to Christians since its beginnings. Christians and churches have taken issue with kings and royalty who used their state authority to authorize, partake in, and legalize marriages that were unbiblical. Churches have taken issue with the institutional controls of the state churches in various countries that refuse to acknowledge the marriages of those who are not a part of that given Christian religion. For example, in England marriages were legally sanctioned by the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church, being a state church, set legal recognition strictly for Anglican marriages. Doing this meant that all parties were required to be married by an Anglican Priest. This meant that marriages among Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican religions were denounced as being illicit. And so this is why many early writings about Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican groups included the charge of "fornication" and "licentious behavior". In nations wherein the church and state were mingled, this was a serious charge that could lead to fines, corporal punishment, or even execution. And so the civil court systems in these countries used institutionalized marriage as a means to persecute other religions. Quakerism was founded during these dark times. And it is for this reason that Quakers vehemently stand against any government regulation of marriage by reserving their right to perform marriages that are essentially outside of the authority of civil law and government. It, to them, is an issue of human liberty. The right to marry in God's eyes, as they see it, is a natural right of every human being. It isn't a civil right granted by government in which one must be "licensed" to partake in.

That brings us to an interesting point. The "licensing" of marriage. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Therefore, by passing laws that require a marriage license, states deemed marriage in and of itself... "illegal". Think about that. The government made the entire covenant of marriage illegal. And so, states began to refuse to recognize marriages under common law, which was the oldest form of marriage going farther back than ancient Greece. This seized marriage and took it out of the hands of couples, churches, parents, and communities... firmly placed it into the government's grasp. But why did the government do this? History tells us why.

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Remember, only mixed couples had to qualify for a marriage license to overcome laws prohibiting mixed marriages. Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

So, the "marriage license" is essentially an old holdout of institutionalized racism that was expanded to include all citizens. Quakers have always been known as pacifists and strong abolitionists, advocates for social justice and equal rights for all men, seeing that we are all created equal by our Creator and are endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights. And to Quakers, the right to marry is a natural law granted by the Creator, and so any state institution that impedes that is violating human liberty. When marriage licensing began in America, Quakers denounced it's racist and as in England, rejected state control over man's natural right to marry. As states abolished common law marriage, the natural right to marry without needing to appeal to or involve the government was abolished. But Quakers hold strong, still performing unions that are not registered with the state.

Many would ask is it illegal for Quakers and other libertarian minded Christians to do this? Not if the minister or elder involved isn't licensed by the state. Most don't realize that once a minister is licensed by the state they become an "agent of the state" and must uphold all state statutes as part of their ministry. Many ministers are discovering how treacherous this truly is now that gays have a civil right to civil marriage. This is why Quakers and other libertarian minded Christian ministers traditionally DO NOT seek to be state licensed ministers. As long as the elder or minister isn't an agent of the state, they can indeed bless couples as being married in the eyes of God without registering the union with the state.

[Aquila]

For some, this is an issue of human liberty. For example, this rather conservative couple chose to draft their own marriage contract and were married outside of civil marriage: http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/

For others, civil marriage has consequences. Some who are currently unmarried qualify for medical insurance that helps them with rather serious medical bills, the cost of necessary medication, and procedures. When a couple gets a civil marriage, they are viewed by the government as a single civilly incorporated entity, and so their incomes and assets are combined. For many, this would cause them to no longer qualify for the medical insurance that they currently have and would essentially bankrupt them and have a serious impact on their overall health, and even shorten their lifespan.

Others have had civil marriages and have been through the terrible process of a divorce in the civil courts. They have experienced the injustice of a system that abides by civil laws that are unbiblical. Excessive attorney's fees, court costs, litigation, has often nearly bankrupted both men and women who were forced into a rather brutal divorce by a merciless spouse. When courts required legal grounds for divorce, civil marriage was truly something that offered security to couples. You see, when grounds for divorce needed to be established in a court of law, the guilty party was often penalized by being denied spousal support or child custody entirely or in part. The innocent party was also often compensated for emotional damage and the financial loss they would incur due to the divorce. But all of this changed when states abolished the need to establish grounds for a divorce and passed laws allowing for what is called, "no fault divorce". What "no fault divorce" means is that your spouse can choose to be unfaithful, or just choose to one day simply walk out on you after years of marriage... and they are automatically entitled to half of everything. If there is a difference of income and your spouse makes less than you, they are automatically entitled to spousal support. Some state laws also favor the mother with regards to child custody, even if she were the guilty party! And even more disturbing, some divorce courts are HOSTILE to Christian spouses. Many stories can be found wherein the civil courts essentially limited or denied custody to a Christian because their spouse brought up inflated charges of spiritual and psychological abuse from the Christian's religion or house of worship. With "no fault divorce" statutes in most states, civil marriage has ceased to offer the security it once offered, now it is truly a serious legal liability. Biblical marriage was supposed to provide security. And so civil marriage is unbiblical in this respect too.

It should be interesting to note that since the civil governments have passed laws allowing for "no fault" divorce, and statutes that cause divorce to be far more damaging to the innocent party, the number of couples who choose NOT to get a civil married before living together has increased, even among otherwise upstanding citizens. Fewer people want a civil marriage and for those who do enter into civil marriages, the numbers concerning divorce have increased.

For these reasons, among others, an increasing number of Christians are considering "covenant marriage" over "civil marriage". They do not want the GOVERNMENT controlling the terms and condition of their unions. They'd rather weather the outcome of separation privately, whatever it might be, than to have to have the court liquidate them and enforce unbiblical statutes upon their lives and finances. They want to take back control of their unions, their families, their finances, and their lives.

Remember, covenant marriages are not "illegal". There is no statute against performing them unless you're a licensed minister functioning as an agent of the state. There is no penalty under law for being in a covenant marriage. With powers of attorney, wills, and cohabitation agreements, a couple can secure the vast majority of rights a couple has in a civil marriage. However, control of these rights is in the hands of the couple, and not the government.

https://comingintheclouds.org/wpclouds7/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/marriage-license-certificate.jpg

[Aquila]

You believe Romans 13 isn't about government?

What is Peter speaking of in 1 Peter 2:13, when he states we should submit to the ordinances of man?

Is there a law that prohibits an Quaker elder or Christian minister from performing covenant marriages & commitment ceremonies? If there isn't, what ordinance of man is being broken?

[Aquila]

This might be of interest:

LewRockwell.comThe Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-racist-origins-of-government-marriage-in-america/

Ryan McMaken

Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:


The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of “freedom.” Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the “Negro agitatuhs” and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative “logic” at its best.

[Aquila]

Here's another article of interest:


Libertarian News
A libertarian news aggregation service.

Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity
https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/02/01/marriage-licenses-are-a-racist-crime-against-humanity/

by Michael Suede • February 1, 2011


A pastor tells us why the State has no business issuing licenses for a religious establishment:


George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

I reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction my marriage.

You should too.

Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t matter since the US Constitution has about as much worth as used toilet paper, but I’ll post it here for you to consider anyways.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Just in case you don’t understand what the word establishment means:


a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

[Aquila]

Unlike many libertarian minded liberals and conservatives, I do not advocate abolishing civil marriage. I see it as a government program for couples who wish to receive various government benefits. And this program works for some and not for others. It probably works best if there is significant property and large sums of money involved. However, I think civil marriage should be regarded as optional for couples in covenant. If a couple commits and enters covenant with God, and wears wedding bands or promise rings, they should be regarded as being married in the eyes of God. The legality of their marriage should be left entirely up to them.

I tend to agree in part with C.S. Lewis:

“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not (p.112).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[n david]

Is there a law that prohibits an Quaker elder or Christian minister from performing covenant marriages & commitment ceremonies? If there isn't, what ordinance of man is being broken?
Per Ohio law, couples must apply for a marriage license and have the marriage officiated by a licensed minister or judge. It does not appear that Ohio recognizes private marriages, per their statute. I haven't looked at other states, but I would guess there are more with the same kind of laws.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3101

[n david]

Unlike many libertarian minded liberals and conservatives, I do not advocate abolishing civil marriage. I see it as a government program for couples who wish to receive various government benefits. And this program works for some and not for others. It probably works best if there is significant property and large sums of money involved. However, I think civil marriage should be regarded as optional for couples in covenant. If a couple commits and enters covenant with God, and wears wedding bands or promise rings, they should be regarded as being married in the eyes of God. The legality of their marriage should be left entirely up to them.

I tend to agree in part with C.S. Lewis:

“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not (p.112).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
I can agree with that. My point was you can't cherry pick the Bible and say 1 Cor 13 prohibits divorce court, but ignore 1 Peter 2 which tells us to submit to the ordinances of man.

[n david]

But when it comes to Quakers.....

Quakers .....

In fact, for old world groups like the Quakers...

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers....

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

No, he is a Faker, not a Quaker.

This guy lives in the world of nonsense.

Louis Farrakhan is more Christain than Aquila. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

Your marriage isn't recognized by the state as solemnized.

Common law isn't recognized in Ohio. Also if your Quaker, or House Churcher isn't licensed by Ohio your marriage is null and void. Grow up.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Aquila how did you get your divorce?

Did the Quakers, house church elders, or the court house grant you a divorce?

Were you divorced before you ever got together with your girlfriend?

[Esaias]

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

Did this Quaker marriage take place in Ohio?

I fail to see what bearing your scenario and question has on my post which you quoted.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Did this Quaker marriage take place in Ohio?

I fail to see what bearing your scenario and question has on my post which you quoted.

It's called grasping at straws elder.

[Sean]

One can say that it doesn't compromise one's own faith. Because interpretations of the Bible differ.

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Quakers do not believe swearing or making oaths, so they refuse to swear in on court proceedings. They also do not offer sworn testimony, they will only promise to affirm or deny with a "yay or nay" answer. They feel the court system is therefore sinful and is not honoring God. They also believe that to "solemnly swear" is to imply that one could tend to be untruthful otherwise, thus they believe that it damages Christian testimony. This is why Quakers seek to avoid the civil courts of this unbelieving secular society if at all possible.

In civil marriage, the "vows" are also something they take issue with. They do not make "vows" at their weddings because they believe it implies that one would otherwise break a promise. And so they offer "promises" to one another.

Biblically speaking, marriage is between a man and a woman. In addition, to divorce and remarry is adultery (some interpretations of Scripture believe in exceptions). The biblical marriage never required an agent of the state or a state court to dissolve a marriage. Biblical marriage also requires grounds for a divorce in order to affirm the innocent party and identify the offending party. Also, the Bible explicitly states that God joins a man and woman together, not the state. Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and God. It is a private contract, agreement, or arrangement. Jewish traditions that include a written contract (a ketubah) allow the contract to stipulate all expectations of marriage, grounds for parting, and terms of any separation. These expectations, grounds, and terms are drafted by the husband and his father (and sometimes with the aid of a rabbi). The bride to be and her father review the terms and must choose to agree or disagree, and present any clauses to be included or removed. Thus the marriage is entirely on the couple's terms or their parent's terms. No outside power other than Scripture can determine those terms and conditions.

Civil marriage is quite different. The civil marriage laws permits divorce and remarriage at will, which is a violation of Scripture. The state permits "no fault" divorce, which is a violation of Scripture. Civil marriage contains vows (which as noted above is against the interpretations of many old world forms of Christianity). Civil marriage is a binding secular contract between a man, a woman, and the state; God isn't a party legally included. Should the marriage fail, civil marriage requires one to go before unbelieving secular courts, which is a violation of Scripture according to old world interpretations of Scripture (such as those held by Quakers, German Baptists, and others). In a civil marriage it is the state that sets all terms and conditions, not the couple. In addition, civil courts allow for gay marriage.

The unbiblical nature of civil marriage has been challenging to Christians since its beginnings. Christians and churches have taken issue with kings and royalty who used their state authority to authorize, partake in, and legalize marriages that were unbiblical. Churches have taken issue with the institutional controls of the state churches in various countries that refuse to acknowledge the marriages of those who are not a part of that given Christian religion. For example, in England marriages were legally sanctioned by the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church, being a state church, set legal recognition strictly for Anglican marriages. Doing this meant that all parties were required to be married by an Anglican Priest. This meant that marriages among Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican religions were denounced as being illicit. And so this is why many early writings about Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican groups included the charge of "fornication" and "licentious behavior". In nations wherein the church and state were mingled, this was a serious charge that could lead to fines, corporal punishment, or even execution. And so the civil court systems in these countries used institutionalized marriage as a means to persecute other religions. Quakerism was founded during these dark times. And it is for this reason that Quakers vehemently stand against any government regulation of marriage by reserving their right to perform marriages that are essentially outside of the authority of civil law and government. It, to them, is an issue of human liberty. The right to marry in God's eyes, as they see it, is a natural right of every human being. It isn't a civil right granted by government in which one must be "licensed" to partake in.

That brings us to an interesting point. The "licensing" of marriage. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Therefore, by passing laws that require a marriage license, states deemed marriage in and of itself... "illegal". Think about that. The government made the entire covenant of marriage illegal. And so, states began to refuse to recognize marriages under common law, which was the oldest form of marriage going farther back than ancient Greece. This seized marriage and took it out of the hands of couples, churches, parents, and communities... firmly placed it into the government's grasp. But why did the government do this? History tells us why.

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Remember, only mixed couples had to qualify for a marriage license to overcome laws prohibiting mixed marriages. Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

So, the "marriage license" is essentially an old holdout of institutionalized racism that was expanded to include all citizens. Quakers have always been known as pacifists and strong abolitionists, advocates for social justice and equal rights for all men, seeing that we are all created equal by our Creator and are endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights. And to Quakers, the right to marry is a natural law granted by the Creator, and so any state institution that impedes that is violating human liberty. When marriage licensing began in America, Quakers denounced it's racist and as in England, rejected state control over man's natural right to marry. As states abolished common law marriage, the natural right to marry without needing to appeal to or involve the government was abolished. But Quakers hold strong, still performing unions that are not registered with the state.

Many would ask is it illegal for Quakers and other libertarian minded Christians to do this? Not if the minister or elder involved isn't licensed by the state. Most don't realize that once a minister is licensed by the state they become an "agent of the state" and must uphold all state statutes as part of their ministry. Many ministers are discovering how treacherous this truly is now that gays have a civil right to civil marriage. This is why Quakers and other libertarian minded Christian ministers traditionally DO NOT seek to be state licensed ministers. As long as the elder or minister isn't an agent of the state, they can indeed bless couples as being married in the eyes of God without registering the union with the state.
I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

Modern marriage is also the institute of gay marriage now, so God should honor this marriage law of the land in 2017?

I think not.

Modern definitions of marriage law is honorable to God in 2017?

God does not honor these reprobate laws.

Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

The secular licensing is merely for a tax write off etc.

[Esaias]

I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

I'm not sure but I think it originated in Europe, possibly England, during the medieval period? However, most people outside the nobility in England and the Colonies generally got married with no officiants, ministerial or secular, up into the mid 1800s or so.



Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

Not necessarily. There are certain unions that are prohibited even among opposite sex candidates, like incest. In such cases, the union is not marriage, regardless of whether Jed Clampett, the local bishop, or the local judge approve.

[Aquila]

I cannot find a verse in the N.T. that says an Apostolic minister can join 2 saints or anyone else in matrimony.

Where did this idea originate anyway?

The Catholics?

Modern marriage is also the institute of gay marriage now, so God should honor this marriage law of the land in 2017?

I think not.

Modern definitions of marriage law is honorable to God in 2017?

God does not honor these reprobate laws.

Fact is, if it is a hillbilly wedding done by Jed Clampett, as long as the 2 opposite sex candidates promise their undivided love, God honors their marriage.

The secular licensing is merely for a tax write off etc.

Pretty much.

If a couple wants the government benefits of marriage, they need to file their marriage with the government. If they are not interested in those benefits, they are not required to file their marriage with the government.

[Aquila]

Good grief, enough with the Quakers. Many Quakers don't believe in water baptism. They're not spirit filled. In fact, there's a group of Quakers who consider themselves ATHEISTS! smh So I regard their beliefs on issues about the same as I do the Pope or Joel Olsteen or Paula White.

Are you a Quaker now?

In the name of religious liberty, the Quakers serve as an excellent "example".

Here's a non-Quaker couple's story. They are liberty minded conservatives:

How Do I Get Married Without A License?
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-do-i-get-married-without-a-license/

Here's an ebook on Sovereign Christian Marriage (Non-Quaker):


Sovereign Christian Marriage
https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/SovChristianMarriage/SovChristianMarriage.htm

Here's an article by a conservative independent pastor:

Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
http://www.hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

And many churches call these "commitment ceremonies", here's an example of one of these:

Religious Commitment Ceremony
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2012/06/08/september-16-2011-religious-commitment-ceremony/9512/

I could post many, many, more non-Quaker examples of this practice. But you get the point. It's not strictly a Quaker thing. However, the Quakers have been doing it the longest.

[Aquila]

Did this Quaker marriage take place in Ohio?

I fail to see what bearing your scenario and question has on my post which you quoted.

The point is, are such arrangements "illegal" or just "not legal"? There is a difference.

[Aquila]

Your marriage isn't recognized by the state as solemnized.

Common law isn't recognized in Ohio. Also if your Quaker, or House Churcher isn't licensed by Ohio your marriage is null and void. Grow up.

None of our elders are licensed:

E. This fellowship reserves the right to function as a religious network of Christian believers without government intervention and regulation. Since we receive our authority from God and not from man, we will not seek to be recognized by any body of civil government as an officially incorporated institution. Elders are not to be licensed by any state or government body.
F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within this fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings.