As I went back through this thread, I see what I think is a misunderstanding of terms. This is indeed a hard subject due to MUCH confusion sown by the church and their unholy connection with the state. It really, truly is a “mystery” as Paul says. But I think the primary communication breakdown here has been in defining terms.
What I tried to say was, first, “marriage” was a physical act between a man and a woman (possible because of the unique creation of their anatomy) which has lifelong, permanent consequences. They become “one flesh”. Paul demonstrated how this could be done with a harlot. This can’t be undone. BUT, the covenant of marriage, the ‘institution’ if you will (I hate that word),
when legitimate, is ALSO called “marriage”. Both of these are a mystery. Both are initiated by a sexual union. Leave that part out and we’re not even talking about the same thing. I’ve long studied this subject and come to at
least this conclusion:
To define a marriage so as to exclude the sexual nature of it truly eliminates any real meaning of marriage. It is a UNIQUE human relationship, instituted, and legitimized by God (NOT the state), and that nature of it IS what makes it unique. If you don’t at least agree with that, then we just don’t share the same logic circuitry, and there’s really no point in continuing this conversation.
So let me try and unpack this…First I’m not arguing
against vows or covenants.. I do in fact believe that (legitimate) marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. That is, those “whom
God has joined together”. (When a man “joins” himself to a harlot, that is an unholy marriage, and un-covenanted .)
If the man and the woman wish to have a ceremony, and say some words to the effect of their commitment, I think that’s wonderful. Whether or not they do, they certainly should understand in their minds that they ARE in fact covenanting with each other—for life. God Himself is witness to this. But the ceremony, the spoken (or written) words are not the marriage. The marriage is created by the
physical act of unity, when they become “ONE FLESH”.
The covenant merely defines the Godly purpose of that physical union. I pointed this out by using the examples of scripture in the stories of Jacob and Rachel, Issac and Rebekah. Apparently, this went right over everyone’s head. I don’t know why.
Neo:
But let us assume there was some re-statement of the vows, or perhaps, as Kat postulates, “When the couple exchanges wedding vows they are making a moral, legal and spiritual commitment to each other. It's a promise to be faithful, reassurance that they will stick it out no matter what, "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health."
… Dennis posits:
“You can be legally married and never have sex. Sex does not make a marriage legal. The vow to God makes it legal to have sex. It's a contract.”
WELL, HERE WE HAVE AN INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM WITH THIS THEORY:
23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.
24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
If the feast/ceremony/vows/oaths had already occurred with Rachel the night before, then Jacob was already married to Rachel. ALL OBLIGATIONS HAD BEEN MET.
Gina, re-read that. There seems to be a veil over everyone’s mind... I DID concede that vows may have taken place during the first night of the wedding feast. In fact, I used that as evidence to prove that—according to the contract doctrine of marriage (per Ray)-- Jacob and Rachel WERE legally married, and NOT Jacob and Leah as it is
inconceivable that he would publicly vow a vow to take Leah as his wife that night (what was he drunk and didn’t know what he was saying?).. Therefore, how did MERELY the sexual union with Leah that night cause a “legal marriage” with her? Can you still not see what I am saying?
Gina:
Are you saying that a man is considered to be married to a woman simply by having sex with her? Michael, and you'll tell that to the women (and sometimes men) and children (male and female) who are raped every year?
Everybody will have to give an account to God. If they believe that they are legally married simply because they had sex with another person, then they will have to grapple with that. It is between them and God.
As for me, I believe that we were bought with a very, very HIGH price by Jesus Christ who made a public display of his love for us and redeemed me with His blood in a very public way.
I'm not married and I'm not perfect but I will never consider myself married to a man simply because he "entered my house," so to speak. Thieves and robbers do that to women and children (boys and girls) every day!
I’m sorry for the confusion here, I thought it was understood we were talking about CONSENSUAL sex! No, rape is a criminal act of violence, and no victim of that is in any way in a marital relationship with the perpetrator! Plenty of scripture available to clear that up…
I'd be very careful, Michael. Jesus put himself on display to unite me back to my heavenly Father. If I were going to be married, the least I could do is to sign a piece of paper and make a public statement that, yes, I have it on file at the courthouse that this is my husband and I am his wife and not go outside the bounds of marriage where sex is concerned.
Can a person be tricked into taking an oath, or signing a contract, Gina? If you are, you should know
the contract is invalid.Earlier, Loc suggested that Jacob may have been deceived into saying an oath that unwittingly bound him to Leah. This is 100% speculation—not scripture. But THIS brings us full circle to the Title Question in this thread… If the VOW is so important in “legalizing a marriage”, then WE NEED TO KNOW THE VOW… Otherwise, we can be TRICKED into entering into a lifelong commitment with someone we did not intend to, OR, conversely, we can be tricked into THINKING we are married, when in fact, we are not! Now this has almost come to parody. I’m obviously being farcical…Because I clearly see that taking the ‘contract theory of marriage’ to its logical conclusion leads to much error.
Gina, you and Loc seem to share the same devotion to “legal documents”, licenses, certificates, deeds, titles…all issued by the state. For the record, I am married and have been for over 24 years. I DO have such a “certificate of marriage” issued by the state! I do not know what my vow was; it was spelled out for me by the state to recite. I did not know what I was agreeing to, I just wanted to marry my beautiful 19 year old wife and I would have signed anything.
I’ve since seen the error in that as well.
If this contract with the state gave existence to my marriage, and was the THING that joined us together, then it was not GOD who joined us. It is either or… I think this very statement is what launched me on my odyssey of really trying to understand what marriage is!
This is a direct offshoot of this discussion that I didn’t really mean to get into, but I think it should be mentioned here (for the benefit of those who truly believe in their hearts that the State is the Agent of God—
for His people)
The state has usurped God’s natural order and direction for the family. The state has in fact, made themselves to BE God. Everything they do is to that end. If you do not accept this, study the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Knowing these malicious doctrines will bring clarity.
But I’ll just leave you with this paraphrased snippet for your consideration:
First of all, the marriage license is a Secular Contract between the parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.
My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract.
Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. This contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. Very few people realize this.
Furthermore, it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.My point is, believers who are following this prescription for their “legitimate marriages” are just as deceived as Jacob was. And perhaps will share in the same consequences. That, Dave, is why it matters.