Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I forgive them. They're conditioned to believe that for something to be real Caesar has to solemnize it, codify it, or license it. They don't realize that they are not yet entirely free of a statist mindset.

As long as you forgive them......

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

We agree that the topic at hand were taxes.

No, we do not agree. The key to what Jesus was talking about is found in this verse:

Luke 20:24 "Show Me a Roman coin. Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" "Caesar's," they replied.

Do you see any mention of taxes? He was talking about an image. And like I pointed out, the Jews were forbidden to make any such image. Sorry, but that's Bible--not conjecture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

However, the logic used by Jesus was to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. This understanding can be applied to more than taxes.

So, out with the exegesis and in with your own variety of eisegesis? Whatever you want a verse to say--regardless of context--you make it say?

You cannot use just any statement in the Bible as proof for what you want the Bible to say. But that's precisely what you're trying to do here with John 20:24.

Originally Posted by Aquila

For example, should Christians follow traffic laws? Well, nothing in Scripture indicates that traffic laws were set by God, therefore traffic laws are Caesar's to codify. But, let's look at preaching. Caesar would like to write statutes that limit and control preaching to only messages that agree with Caesar. Does Caesar have that right? NO. Why? Because preaching is under the authority of God, not Caesar. Therefore, it is better to obey God than men, and preach as the Holy Spirit leads us to preach. What about marriage? Caesar would like to require any licensed agent of the state to have to perform civil marriages upon request, including gay marriages. Does marriage belong to Caesar? NO. Therefore, an obedient pastor will obey God over Caesar and refuse to conduct a gay wedding if Caesar would require it of him. This logic of Christ's pervades Scripture. There are things that are natural and inalienable rights. They are beyond Caesar's realm of authority and so Caesar oversteps his authority if he seeks to regulate them or prohibit them.

So, Aguila, when you were married "like a Quaker," was that according to God's biblical teaching? Or was it according to the teachings of the Quakers?

Do you need the approval of the Quakers to preach? If not, why did you need to follow their teaching on marriage?

I think you're Caesar is a Quaker.

Originally Posted by Aquila

With the exception of the right to hunt and fish (to procure food to sustain life as God designed by nature's God) are not a part of God's legal economy as stipulated in Scripture. Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Apples and oranges? Hardly? A license obtained through legal means is still a license. And these verses from Jesus and His apostles still command true believers obey their civil authorities and their laws:

Romans 13:1-7 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. [2] So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. [3] For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. [4] The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. [5] So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. [6] Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. [7] Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

1 Peter 2:13-17 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; [14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. [15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: [16] As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.[17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Titus 3:1 Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good.

Originally Posted by Aquila

...

Now, the above story is only a legend. The point of the story isn't dependent upon the story being actual history or factually correct.

Of course, why bother with the truth when we can bog the conversation down with fiction, right?

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point of the story is that love and marriage is beyond the authority of Caesar. That the state cannot prohibit or regulate love, namely the love between a man and a woman whom God has joined together. It underscores the sanctity that the early church held for the union of man and woman. A view of marriage that transcends any state mandate or decree of Caesar.

No one is saying anything about love. The conversation has been on you posting about a nude experience you and your fiancée had together and if that was proper for you to post, and if you were even married when it occurred.

What happened during the time of Caesar has nothing to do with your Christian testimony, or with how you as a Christian are to live within your civil laws.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm going to challenge you here. According to God's Word, what is the only grounds for divorce that permits remarriage?

Do the statutes governing the institution of "civil marriage" comply with God's Word?

Yes or no?

WHAT?

So you do NOT agree that "Christians do not have such rights, for they are bound to say only what God permits and to believe and worship only as God allows"?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm going to challenge you here. According to God's Word, what is the only grounds for divorce that permits remarriage?

Do the statutes governing the institution of "civil marriage" comply with God's Word?

Yes or no?

During Jesus' day, the two most prominent Pharisaic schools of thought was the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel. Rabban Hillel was the great grandfather of Rabban Gamaliel, who was the teacher of Saul of Tarsus, a.k.a. the apostle Paul. From this school's tutelage, Paul said he was “taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers” (Acts 22:3). Thus, he was also taught the marriage and divorce views of Rabban Hillel.

Shammai was the more conservative and Hillel the more liberal. Jesus' teaching agreed with Shammai's on marriage and divorce. The Mishnah (Gittin 9:10) says the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel based their view of divorce on their interpretation of a portion of Deuteronomy 24:1 ("because he has found some indecency in her"). Shammai interpreted this statement to mean that a man could not divorce his wife unless she was found sexually unfaithful. Hillel interpreted it to mean the man could divorce his wife for almost every cause (see question in Matthew 19:3-9), including “if she spoiled a dish for him,” in other words, if she burnt his toast. This difference of interpretation is probably the reason the Pharisees asked Jesus about His position on divorce.

I think the question of which rabbinical position Jesus took missed the bigger picture of Jesus' response. He not only said divorce was allowable in cases of unfaithfulness, He also said God allowed this to be written by Moses because of the “hardness of the people's hearts.” He then referenced the original plan of God.

(Genesis 2:24) Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

To the degree that divorce is only allowed for sexual unfaithfulness, Jesus was taking Shammai's position. However, Jesus said Moses included this due to the “hardness of the people's hearts.” The hardness of the heart is the fly in the ointment. If either party is found with a hard heart toward God, trouble (sin) is sure to follow. By saying this, Jesus was again teaching His people that sin is a matter of a hard heart, and that the only way to eradicate their sin was to receive the new heart that's promised in His New Covenant.

Jesus then referenced the original plan from God is one man and one woman being made one flesh until death do them part. Several years ago, I found this information in a Jewish Book entitled Every Man's Talmud. It isn't inspired scripture, but the conclusion of its message sure rings true. Anyway, the book said that in Hebrew, the man is an “Ish” and the woman is an “Isha.” Ish (Man) is spelled “Aleph Yodh Shin.” “Isha” (Woman) is spelled “Aleph Yodh Shin He.” Two important consonants, the “Yodh" and the "He,” come from what is commonly known to be the Covenant Name for God: "Yod," "He," "Vav," "He." To the Hebrew, this name represents God’s influence with mankind in the earth. So, in a proper marriage there will be the influence of the presence of God "Yod" "He." "Aleph" "Shin" is what’s left if you remove the letters (Yodh and He) of the Covenant Name from Ish (man) and Isha (woman). “Aleph" "Shin” spells the Hebrew word for “fire.” Fire represents the conflict that occurs in a marriage when God's influence is removed. In this instance, the opposite sex becomes the opposing sex. That which is true in the family is true in the Church.

Bible Verses to consider:

Matthew 5:31-32 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' (32) But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Luke 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Mark 10:2-12 And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" (3) He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" (4) They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away." (5) And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. (6) But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' (7) 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, (8) and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. (9) What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (10) And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. (11) And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, (12) and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Romans 7:1-3 Or do you not know, brothers--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? (2) For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. (3) Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

1 Corinthians 7:8-17 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. (9) But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (10) To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (11) (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (12) To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. (13) If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. (14) For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (15) But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (16) For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (17) Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't claim a "common law" marriage. I claim a marriage in the eyes of God and God alone. For it is God who joins a man and woman in marriage, not Caesar.

Do you? If so, why remarry in a civil service?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Will the police begin rounding up couples without a civil marriage certificate and begin placing them in jail? Will the state of Ohio begin mailing out fines and notices of violation to couples without a civil marriage license or civil marriage certificate?

So, your only fear is not getting caught?

You always reply that you skipped a civil marriage because such a union disobeys God, but what about you skipping God's teachings on obeying civil authorities and laws? Do you have any obligation to keep those? Are is that only to drive a car or hunt a deer?

[Esaias]

"To the degree that divorce is only allowed for sexual unfaithfulness, Jesus was taking Shammai's position."

I don't think that's entirely accurate. Bet Shammai ruled that divorce must be for cause, and the cause must be sexual immorality. In any event, Jesus gave the exception clause as "the word of fornication". This encompasses more than adultery. Under Biblical law nobody would sue for divorce for the cause of adultery, since that was a capital offense. The adulterers would simply be stoned to death. And bringing a charge of adultery without sufficient evidence to convict could result in the death of the one bringing what would lawfully be a "false testimony". So people did not get divorced for adultery unless the secular power did not enforce the divine law.

Fornication encompasses more than adultery. Ex. Joseph, betrothed to Mary, finds her pregnant. He planned to put her away. Why? He was a "just man". He didn't want to make a public display of her, so was minded to do it privately, but he was minded to put her away anyway. Why? Because it sure looked to him like she was NOT a virgin, had been fooling around or been seduced or raped, and was pregnant with some other guy's child. In other words, fornication, and being a righteous man, he wanted to put her away.

Fornication as used in scripture would cover any unlawful or prohibited unions. If a man discovered his marriage was prohibited by divine law, divorce was authorized (and even required). If the man "found some uncleanness in her" means the man discovers she is not a virgin, or is prohibited by divine law.

The point being, "fornication" covers more than simple marital infidelity. Jesus affirmed Moses, not necessarily some post-Exilic rabbi.

"Because of the hardness of your hearts" does not mean Moses allowed men to divorce their wives because the men were stubborn and mean. Rather, hardness of heart means refusal to obey God. God knew they would refuse to follow His Law in regard to marriage and sexual purity. So, divorce was given to ameliorate the effects of sin. Divorce was a remedy given by God to mitigate the damage that would inevitably be caused by unregenerate, uncircumcised-in-heart people violating God's Laws regulating marriage. Otherwise, God would require sinners to remain in unlawful sinful unions (fornication).

Divorce was instituted as a means of enabling repentance.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

No, we do not agree. The key to what Jesus was talking about is found in this verse:

Luke 20:24 "Show Me a Roman coin. Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" "Caesar's," they replied.

Do you see any mention of taxes? He was talking about an image. And like I pointed out, the Jews were forbidden to make any such image. Sorry, but that's Bible--not conjecture.

It was a trap. And the subject was taxes:

Matthew 22:16-21English Standard Version (ESV)
16 And they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you are not swayed by appearances. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

But let me entertain your logic. Do men and women bear the image of God or Caesar? Does marriage bear the image of Christ and the church, or Caesar? Does Caesar join a man and woman, or does God join a man and woman?

So, out with the exegesis and in with your own variety of eisegesis? Whatever you want a verse to say--regardless of context--you make it say?

You cannot use just any statement in the Bible as proof for what you want the Bible to say. But that's precisely what you're trying to do here with John 20:24.

John 20:24? I'm not talking about John 20:24.

So, Aguila, when you were married "like a Quaker," was that according to God's biblical teaching? Or was it according to the teachings of the Quakers?

Do you need the approval of the Quakers to preach? If not, why did you need to follow their teaching on marriage?

I think you're Caesar is a Quaker.

The Quakers are only an example of a radical Christian libertarianism regarding marriage. I've given you multiple examples of other Christians with the same understanding. They aren't Quakers, in fact those signed to the marriage pledge are from all denominations.

Apples and oranges? Hardly? A license obtained through legal means is still a license. And these verses from Jesus and His apostles still command true believers obey their civil authorities and their laws:

Romans 13:1-7 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. [2] So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. [3] For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. [4] The authorities are God's servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. [5] So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. [6] Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. [7] Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

1 Peter 2:13-17 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; [14] Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. [15] For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: [16] As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.[17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

Titus 3:1 Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good.

You have shown that such marriages are not legal in a civil court. But you haven't shown where they are "illegal" or prohibited. So, no crime has been committed by commitment ceremony or sovereign wedding (be it Quaker or otherwise.

Of course, why bother with the truth when we can bog the conversation down with fiction, right?

You're purposefully ignoring the point, ancient tradition defies the notion that Caesar can prohibit any natural union.

No one is saying anything about love. The conversation has been on you posting about a nude experience you and your fiancée had together and if that was proper for you to post, and if you were even married when it occurred.

This was already addressed. It was after our covenant, which doesn't involve a civil contract. And so the conversation has evolved into the question asking if a civil contract is required in Scripture. I say, a civil contract can be of benefit, but isn't required in Scripture, for it is God that joins a man and woman, not Caesar. In fact, historically speaking, marriage has been a private contract or arrangement throughout history. Civil marriage as we know it began shortly after the Civil War, and even then licensing was only required for mixed couples because mixed marriages were indeed illegal or prohibited. Every other marriage was technically by common law, which dates back to before ancient Greece.

What happened during the time of Caesar has nothing to do with your Christian testimony, or with how you as a Christian are to live within your civil laws.

It has much to do with why many don't wish to participate in the modern construct of civil marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

WHAT?

So you do NOT agree that "Christians do not have such rights, for they are bound to say only what God permits and to believe and worship only as God allows"?

Please answer the question, and your answer will answer your other questions.

I'll ask again...

According to God's Word, what is the only grounds for divorce that permits remarriage?

Do the statutes governing the institution of "civil marriage" comply with God's Word?

Yes or no?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Concerning civil marriage: The only thing that caused us to consider a civil marriage was being able to claim the other's Social Security.

So, because your "Quaker marriage" does not give money from the Government, you are now going to be married through the Government?

Isn't that kinda like: because Jesus didn't meet your model of a king, you're going to Caesar to be your king?

Originally Posted by Aquila

We'd both had civil marriages before. We were the faithful parties in each. Yet the civil court system raked us over the coals and cost each of us thousands of dollars to line the pockets of divorce attorneys. I even had to prove that I wasn't secretly taking my son to the church my wife and I served in else she was going to fight my having joint custody of my son on the grounds of it being an abusive cult. The civil marriage system doesn't demand grounds for divorce as the Bible requires. It doesn't prohibit remarriage for unfaithful parties. It doesn't concern itself with who was wronged and who wasn't and penalize the unfaithful one. It blesses Sodomites and marries them in the eyes of the state. It threatens Christian parents with losing child custody. It is known to turn and financially oppresses the innocent party in a divorce and reward the guilty party.

So, your decision to be "married" without a civil license wasn't to please God, but rather to bypass a future civil divorce?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why in God's name would any real Christian bring their union under such a binding contract???

You mean, only in a civil marriage is the union of the husband and the wife under a "binding contract"??? You are not bound one to another in a Quaker marriage??? Were the two of you in a "binding contract" when you had your Adam and Eve time together???