Here's what I said in another thread about this topic:
Originally Posted by
technofox
Not to bust on you, but wouldn't what you have stated about a desert island scenario equal sin, since there are not multiple witnesses?
Originally Posted by
dsrohe
The only way I could see a situation like that happening again is if a man and a woman were somehow stranded on a random desert island. If that is the case, then I believe the man and the woman would be able to be married before God without the presence of any other witnesses. But we are obviously not talking about that situation.
Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.
Originally Posted by
technofox
Also, where in the OT and NT that says one cannot live with another of the opporite sex or even have premarital sex?
I'm not going to address the living together statement because we agree there. I don't think there's anything wrong with unmarried people of opposite genders living together in platonic relationships.
As for pre-marital sex the Bible gives no prescriptive commands directly against premarital sex, but at the same time it also does not give any prescriptive commands to have sex to become married nor does it describe non-married sex automatically making a couple married.
Without clear, prescriptive Biblical commands for or against pre-marital sex, I will go back to the Bible to find what I believe is significant evidence supporting a wedding before sex:
The Bible has numerous accounts of weddings, dowries, feasts, and other Jewish marriage customs include having a rabbi lead the ceremony, and we know from studying history that Jewish customs have included marriage ceremonies right from the beginning of Judaism (Jacob marrying Leah and Rachel). Jesus even performed his first miracle at a wedding. Ancient Jews (and modern day traditional Jews) consummated their union
after their ceremonial wedding; there's even an old Yiddish saying of "no chuppah, no schtuppa" or "no wedding, no bedding". Jewish customs dictated wedding before consummation.
This information brings us to an important cultural context through which we must read the NT as well as the OT.
Weddings and marriage were a normal, customary event throughout Biblical history--the wedding always preceded the consummation--and the authors of the NT, being the ancient Jews that they were, knew and were steeped in this custom. All the writers of the NT would have known and been familiar with these customs. Keep this in mind when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
7. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
In verse 7 Paul is saying that he wishes that all could remain single so as to better serve the Lord; he repeats this again in verse 8. When he is referring to different "gifts" he is talking about sex drive. So basically, "some people have low sex drive and some people have high sex drive; I (Paul) wish that all people were like me and had low sex drive." He then says that unmarried people who cannot control themselves ("cannot control themselves" meaning that they strongly desire sex and cannot exercise enough self control to keep themselves from sinning) should marry.
Marriage, to Paul and any other new testament writer, would have required first a wedding then the consummation of that wedding--not the other way around (as I've shown historically speaking). So Paul is saying that in order to avoid sin because of a person's lack of self control a person should marry. To me that's pretty clear evidence that marriage is God ordained and in order to not sin you need to marry before having sex.
Another passage I'd like to look at is Matthew 19:3-6:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
This passage is oftentimes referred to as the "leave and cleave" passage. As a reminder, Jesus knew Jewish culture and customs of the day so he knew of the wedding ceremony and consummation of the wedding. He even framed it in a very specific order which determines that the "union" or wedding or contract comes before the consummation. The Pharisees framed the question in such a way (by saying man and his wife) that there is no doubt in our minds that they were referring to a married man and woman. Jesus then goes on to describe the physical, emotional, and spiritual events that take place when a couple becomes husband and wife in a
very specific order:
1. The man leaves his father and mother physically and emotionally.
2. He unites to his wife in holy matrimony (wedding ceremony)(also, notice how the couple are referred to as man and
wife before the final consummation occurs).
3. And lastly, the two become one flesh both physically, emotionally, and spiritually (consummation).
Furthermore, God is spiritually over all of this: "therefore what God has joined together (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) let no man separate." I would like to take this time to address something you said in your second post because it relates to what this paragraph is about. Here's your post: Originally Posted by
technofox
So a marriage is a contract? So what makes it different from a business contract?
Technically could sign a contract with two witnesses and a priest in a covent with a business partner. The truth is - its not a piece of paper that makes a marriage a marriage. People used just get married in front of priest and may have had a witness. God is a witness since he is always present, correct?
This response has to do with my previous paragraph because the same verses are involved. Marriage is most definitely a contract. It is different from a business contract because God is at the core. The very definition of consummate is "to bring to completion or fruition; conclude". The very act of consummation following a wedding is quite literally the signature which concludes the wedding contract. The contract consists of the wedding, vows, witnesses, and God overseeing all. The final signatory act is consummation. "Therefore, what God has joined together let no man separate." God sees each part of the contract including consummation and puts his final stamp of approval on each step.
The vows make up the meat of the wedding contract. The wedding ceremony is the celebration of the contract. The witnesses are the earthly accountability to the contract (similar to how secular contracts require multiple witnesses or an officially recognized witness professionally known as a notary). And consummation is the final signature to the contract.
I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows, and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.
Originally Posted by
technofox
Marriage is nothing more than what God intended for mankind; a marriage can be just as sinful as a couple having premarital sex, by the way the spouses treat each other. I am not condoning, nor supporting premarital sex, but debating on valid claims and merits of both sides. Personally I leave it up to each person's conscience; basically its between them and God, not you or I.
I'm confused by the
first part of your first sentence. I agree with the second part of the first sentence but I would be extremely cautious in presuming that any sin is worse than another sin. I'm not willing to make those assumption because I just don't know. As to your last sentence, I believe that a reasonable amount of evidence exists supporting that pre-marital sex is not God-ordained. I think it's reasonable to conclude given my argument in this post that a God-ordained marriage starts with leaving father and mother, uniting to his wife (wedding), then becoming one flesh by consummating the marriage, in that exact order.
Originally Posted by
technofox
You are going by the grounds setforth by a secular government, which is outside the scope of the bible. You also missed my argument about the couple who lives in a society that does not permit marriage, yet lives together as though the were in a way that honors God, but are having sex without a marriage certificate, because the said document does not exist in that society. My Adam and Eve argument brought up a good point, because now you are now trying to defend an argument based upon pure speculation. Contextually God implied that we should only be in monogomous relationships; however, marriage does become defined until later in the OT. So now we have a dilemma, what does God consider marriage?
I'll repeat two paragraphs that I wrote that address these points.
Read what I said about that hypothetical desert scenario again. I'm saying the desert scenario would be the only applicable situation that I can think of off the top of my head where no ceremony and no witnesses would be entirely fine, but we are not talking about that scenario in the OP.
I do agree with you that a government slip is not required to have a marriage ceremony, vows and consummation in the sight of God, but as long as the government doesn't force sin with the slip, it's a good idea to get it because we are instructed to obey government authorities when they are not asking us to sin.
Originally Posted by
technofox
Point out where...an ordained priest must be present?
As clarification: I do not believe that an ordained minister or official reverend or what have you is required to lead the the wedding ceremony. I consider anyone under the Lordship of Jesus Christ a competent wedding ceremony leader.
