Ethics: Strange Question Concerning Marriage

[MW]

Now, this presents incestous marriage as sin, but so is marriage to an unbeliever.

These are two different categories. An incestuous marriage makes the marriage a sin. In the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever, the believer personally breaks God's word which prohibits being unequally yoked, but the marriage itself is lawful because marriage is a creation ordinance and honourable in all.

The incestuous marriage should be annulled.

 

[satz]

Now, this presents incestous marriage as sin, but so is marriage to an unbeliever.

These are two different categories. An incestuous marriage makes the marriage a sin. In the case of a believer marrying an unbeliever, the believer personally breaks God's word which prohibits being unequally yoked, but the marriage itself is lawful because marriage is a creation ordinance and honourable in all.

The incestuous marriage should be annulled.

Rev Winzer,

If that is so, how can God have allowed incestuous marriages during Adam's time?

 

[MW]

If that is so, how can God have allowed incestuous marriages during Adam's time?

He is God!

 

[Grymir]

Well that's easy. Incestuous marriages were forbidden in the time of Mosses. Until then, there was no command. Probably because of the DNA breakdown. We don't allow it because of crazy babies. The 'grossness' is because of society.

 

[Christusregnat]

where does God speak judgment on two guys marrying?

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God demands the death penalty for certain offenses; in his court room, and among men. One offense is "men with men, working what is unseemly".

If you are interested, you may also read the Old Testament at your leisure for more information on this issue.

Cheers,

 

[ModernPuritan?]

where does God speak judgment on two guys marrying?

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

God demands the death penalty for certain offenses; in his court room, and among men. One offense is "men with men, working what is unseemly".

If you are interested, you may also read the Old Testament at your leisure for more information on this issue.

Cheers,

exactly, you are equating a condemnation of a sexual act, as condemnation of that type of marriage. God doesnt say explitily in bold letters "Two men can not get married" but it does say that intercourse between them is forbideen and punishble.

So i maintain that they seperate civilly, and hook up later on down the road and build a right, family relationship.

 

[Grymir]

exactly, you are equating a condemnation of a sexual act, as condemnation of that type of marriage. God doesnt say explitily in bold letters "Two men can not get married" but it does say that intercourse between them is forbideen and punishble.

So i maintain that they seperate civilly, and hook up later on down the road and build a right, family relationship.

umm, is this for real or a joke?

If there's no intercourse, there's no marriage. (Gay people can't have sex anyway, just umm, mutual masturbation) Gay marriage building a right, family relationship? No way that can be done.

 

[Wannabee]

To Wannabee (and Mark) there was a case in Thailand where a homosexual man disguised himself as a woman, and married an Italian man. After a few days, the truth came out. The judges verdict was quite embarrassing reading!!

Wannabee, you say let your yes be yes and your no be no in the context of an unlawful marriage. Could you or Mark please explain why that marriage would still be considered a marriage in your eyes, and should allowed to continue, even if both parties consent? Could I get both of you to explain to me why that marriage shouldn't be considered void?

Fair questions Tim. First, I'm not ready to die on this hill. It's a difficult question. I think those who think they've got this one pegged should be very careful.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how God ordained it. Therefore, there is no such thing as marriage between a man and a man. It simply does not exist. If they insist and persist then Roman's 1 makes their plight pretty clear - and is self-evident in much of our western culture.

However, marriage between a man and woman is ordained by God. For a period of time it was necessarily ordained as between siblings. This puts it in a separate category from other sexual sins. I'm not trying to waffle, just work through it. This is why I referred to the Gibeonites. Israel, too, entered into an "illegal" covenant. But God held them to it. Even though they were to wipe the Canaanites from the face of the earth, they could not obey that commandment because they had made a covenant with goyim. This is a unique situation and the only one I can think of where God insists on His people honoring their word even though doing so is to continue to disobey an earlier commandment. The only other possibility is when the Isrealites were ordered to divorce their pagan wives.

Based on this, and the fact that this couple has covenanted before and to God, I would be very reluctant to advise divorce. You say that they had no marriage covenant - I would reply that their covenant is just as valid as Isreal's was with the Gibeonites. They have vowed to stick it out, period; not "unless we find some valid reason to divorce." Even divorce for reasons of sexual sin or abondonment are "permitted," rather than commanded - and this because of our hard hearts.

I don't expect agreement on this. I've discussed it with many over the past few years and people struggle with it. We all want to honor God. But this one leaves us with a situation where it seems that there is no clear answer - unless one can prove that a marriage covenant between siblings is automatically void. I have seen some good reasoning, but not scriptural proof.

May God grant wisdom and grace if any of us ever are put in a situation where we shepherd precious souls in such an affliction.

 

[Christusregnat]

exactly, you are equating a condemnation of a sexual act, as condemnation of that type of marriage. God doesnt say explitily in bold letters "Two men can not get married" but it does say that intercourse between them is forbideen and punishble.

So i maintain that they seperate civilly, and hook up later on down the road and build a right, family relationship.

Jeff,

This is the most whacky thing I've heard in a while...

Marriage is God's ordinance; it is only rightly performed on His terms. It is a creation ordinance, for man, and his helper, woman. Therefore "a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Condemning the act of sodomy is an indirect condemnation of anything under that color pretending to be marriage.

Here's an example that might help. God condemns murder. Say someone wanted to create a "business" of murdering people (trust me, people have done this). Does that fact that God never said "thou mayest not have a business of murdering" mean that we can have one? No, the fact that God condemns murder is enough. Marriage is honorable among all, and to drag it through the muck of man's wickedness doesn't really honor anything, except the violation of God's law.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

 

[TimV]

This is the most whacky thing I've heard in a while...

When Jeff posts late, he's not always doing his best thinking.

 

[kalawine]

Nathan...

Nathan, Could you possibly try to think up a harder question for us?

 

[ModernPuritan?]

So i maintain that they seperate civilly, and hook up later on down the road and build a right, family relationship.

(referring to the half brother and sister)

umm, is this for real or a joke?

If there's no intercourse, there's no marriage. (Gay people can't have sex anyway, just umm, mutual masturbation) Gay marriage building a right, family relationship? No way that can be done.

depnds on your definition of what actually constitutes a marriage. I know folk, who think there is a little more to being declared married in Gods eyes than just the sex act. also depends on how you define "sex" just insert particular body parts infront of "sex"..

so im clear, you would assert that even though a couple take vows before a preacher or justice of the peace, they are not actually biblically married till the sex act?

 

[Grymir]

Yes, because marriage is more than a piece of paper. God joins our hearts together in marriage. Something that won't happen in 'gay' marriages. And yes, the act of sex is what consumates a marriage.

 

[TimV]

Based on this, and the fact that this couple has covenanted before and to God, I would be very reluctant to advise divorce.

As long as you would keep you and your mom or you and your full sister in a holy, church approved marriage that's fine, otherwise it's just emotionalism on your part.

 

[Wannabee]

Marriage between an unbeliever and believer is not church approved. Do we counsel divorce? Is this based on emotionalism? We have zero examples of marriages between parents and their children. Insest? Yes (Lot). Marriage? No. However, sibling marriages were mandated by the reality of creation.

Interesting, Tim. You asked for reasoning, and I shared my struggle and gave Scriptural reasons for my understanding. You're not the only one who's wrestled with this for any period of time. Your response, as far as I can tell, is simply authoritarianism based on, what I perceive, an imposition of your pre-understanding on the whole scenario. Obviously, I may be mistaken in both my position and my perception of your comment. But your statement may reveal an air or self-proclaimed authority (i.e. pride) that easily leads one to believe their own philosophy above God's Word (seeing the two as equal/the same). May it never be so of either of us.

 

[TimV]

I was just checking the WCF for something else, and somehow I think we all missed that the subject is dealt with there

IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband's kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.

 

[satz]

I am still not convinced it is obvious from the bible that the couple referred to in the OP must separate.

The proof texts that the WCF uses on the topic do not go further than to say incestuous marriages are sin. That is not to be taken lightly, but marriages to unbelievers are sin as well, and God allowed the parties to remain married. And as has been mentioned in this thread, incestuous marriages were once allowed, whereas marriages to unbelievers was always condemned. So if anything, the latter is the ”greater sin”.

Again, I believe God requires mercy rather than sacrifice, and we should not rush to require the separation of a couple that did not commit any presumptuous sin. This is not being pragmatic or soft-hearted, because God himself gives the precedent of allowing sinful marriages to remain intact in 1 Corinthians 7.

I am still open to the idea that the incestuous marriages are somehow different, but I have not seen it proved scripturally yet (if I missed something in this thread, I would certainly be grateful if someone would point it out).