When a couple begins attending church and are “living together” without being married, or two saints begin an intimate relationship without being married, I’ve seen different approaches. The first church I attended would require that they separate. If they wanted to marry they were to begin “dating” and become engaged later. However, pastoral leadership felt that such marriages weren’t going to last and often refused to have a large “church wedding” for the couple. The other church I attended left the couple alone to discover God’s will for their own lives in the hopes that they’d choose marriage.
Paul said something interesting:
I Corinthians 7:36 (KJV)
{7:36} But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
An elder up in his 80’s shared this verse with me. His interpretation surprised me, so I began to study alternate translations of the text. Here’s what it reads in several different versions:
1 Corinthians 7:36 (New International Version)
36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
1 Corinthians 7:36 (English Standard Version)
36If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.
Corinthians 7:36 (New Living Translation)
36 But if a man thinks that he’s treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin.
1 Corinthians 7:36 (New Century Version)
36 If a man thinks he is not doing the right thing with the girl he is engaged to, if she is almost past the best age to marry and he feels he should marry her, he should do what he wants. They should get married. It is no sin.
1 Corinthians 7:36 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
36 But if any man thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin, if she is past marriageable age, and so it must be, he can do what he wants. He is not sinning; they can get married.
1 Corinthians 7:36 (Today's New International Version)
36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting beyond the usual age for marrying[a] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
There are a couple interpretations of this text. The elder who spoke with me believes that the Scripture is talking about an unmarried couple who are devoted to one another. He broke it down like this:
If a man being convicted that he isn’t acting honorably toward the woman he loves, and she is of age to marry, and his passions are too strong to resist and he feels they aught to marry, they are allowed to marry. Sin isn’t counted against them. They should get married.
But other interpretations offer alternative ways of looking at this.
I believe in taking time with a couple that isn’t married. Allow them to begin integrating God into their lives. If they are truly in love and also fall in love with the LORD, eventually they will wish to surrender their entire lives to him and seek marriage. Should one of them resist the notion of marriage, the godly conviction upon one of them will eventually work to dissolve their relationship without the need of the church meddling. If both are resisting the notion of marriage, conviction from loving and biblical preaching will eventually bring a breaking point in spirit... repent or leave. I think this is best, especially if children are involved.
If a couple lives together without being married and both refuse to marry, and biblical preaching isn't affecting them for the good, sadly, the church may have to pull away from fellowshipping them.
Just to be clear, are you talking about an unmarried couple who think they are in love, but don't get married, have sex anyway, then change their minds about being in love and break up?
And sorry, but I'm still having trouble understanding that post. What doctrine are you referring to in "Can you imagine the wickedness if this doctrine were followed?" Is it the killing of a new wife who was not a virgin, which you had just mentioned?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
And sorry, but I'm still having trouble understanding that post. What doctrine are you referring to in "Can you imagine the wickedness if this doctrine were followed?" Is it the killing of a new wife who was not a virgin, which you had just mentioned?
Oh, Michael! If you don't help me understand your post, I'll just have to jump to my own conclusions!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Im talking about the doctrine promoted in the first post. That if couples are in a "committed" but unmarried relationship they can have sex together and YHWH is ok with it.
Im talking about the doctrine promoted in the first post. That if couples are in a "committed" but unmarried relationship they can have sex together and YHWH is ok with it.
OK, thanks. (The link in the first post, I guess you mean. Not sure if the poster agreed with it or not!)
So, here's the example of wickedness you gave:
1. Couple is (or thinks they are) in love.
2. Couple has sex.
3. Couple discovers they aren't in love after all (or "falls out of love").
4. Couple breaks up.
And you think replacing step 2 as follows would be better (not wicked, or less wicked):
1. Couple is (or thinks they are) in love.
2. Couple gets married. (And presumably has sex.)
3. Couple discovers they aren't in love after all (or "falls out of love").
4. Couple breaks up.
Is that right?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Before "government" got involved, a marriage was any union solemnized by the church, minister, or family. It was largely a private affair. A couple would put their names together in the family Bible and it would be so.
Our modern era has seriously complicated some very simple and intimate things.
The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families
November 18, 2010
Executive Summary
The transformative trends of the past 50 years that have led to a sharp decline in marriage and a rise of new family forms have been shaped by attitudes and behaviors that differ by class, age and race, according to a new Pew Research Center nationwide survey, conducted in association with TIME magazine, and complemented by an analysis of demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
What if we had "common law" marriage laws throughout the United States?
Essentially that would legalize any couple "living together" who met certain standards. The institution of marriage was established to legally establish that a woman belonged to a given man, it ensured her some rights in the community in regards to care and protection, it also ensured some rights in the community for her children in regards to care and protection. If "common law marriage" laws existed throughout the country, society would grant any person cohabitating with someone for a given amount of time would certain rights to care and protection. In some common law states a common law wife can even get alimony if her common law husband leaves her. All she has to do is provide evidence that their union has met the standards of being a common law marriage.
Here's a short description of common law marriage standards that I found on the internet:
1.Ascertain if the state/country you are living in recognizes common-law marriages. Only a few states plus the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages.
Currently, common-law marriages are recognized by: Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington, D.C.
2.Generally, there are four requirements for a valid common-law marriage. Just living together isn't enough to validate a common-law marriage.
3.Requirement One:
You must live together.
4.Requirement Two:
You must present yourselves to others as a married couple. Some ways of doing this are by using the same last name, referring to one another as husband or wife, and filing a joint tax return.
5.Requirement Three:
Although the time frame is not defined, you have to be together for a significant period of time.
6.Requirement Four:
You must intend to be married.
7.In the U.S., the agreement by every state to recognize as valid a common-law marriage that was recognized in another state has been challenged by many states creating state laws not recognizing same sex marriages valid in other locales. It is best to consult an attorney to make sure your common-law marriage is recognized in the state where you are currently residing.
8.Note:
The Social Security Administration will only recognize your common-law marriage if the state where you reside recognizes your common-law marriage.
To make sure that you would be eligible for survivor benefits, you need to go to a SSA office and fill out forms, provide statements from two blood relatives, and provide supporting evidence of your common-law relationship.
9.Your Federal Income Tax, Publication 17:
"Considered married. "You are considered married for the whole year if on the last day of your tax year you and your spouse meet any one of the following tests ... 2. You are living together in a common law marriage that is recognized in the state where you now live or in the state where the common law marriage began."
page 20
Seeing that the traditional "sacremental institution" of marriage has slowly fallen apart, would common law marriage laws allow more couples to enter into wedlock by virtue of the nature of their relationship, though without the "ceremony"?
Maybe the answer is getting Government out of the marriage business. It seems like everything GOVERNMENT touches begins falling apart. And why is GOVERNMENT so involved anyway? I think they found a way to make money by requiring marriage licenses etc. I'm just thinking out loud.
Linear Mode
