Marriage

Marriage is one of the greatest blessings in life, and choosing your spouse is one of the most important decisions you will ever make. 

While finding the person you want to spend your life with is not always easy, spending every day with the person you love the most makes the journey worthwhile. 

The idea of settling down and getting married might seem old-fashioned, but that does not mean it still is not an important goal for many people. Busy though our lives may be, most of us are still going to considerable lengths to try and meet that special someone and grow old together. 

Over the past several months, I have been studying the subject of marriage and when is it legal? What is the Bible procedure for marriage? Do Christians recognize civil marriage? These are just a few of the questions I have asked of me that I had no real answers to. 

I have, like most people, accepted the statements of the church on marriage without question or even cursory research. I am like most people when it comes to getting married, you find the one you love and want to live your life with, ask them to marry you, set the date, get your license, find a minister, and have a ceremony.  I never gave it a thought what really goes into “getting married.”  

As a Quaker, marriage is of the LORD, but what does that mean in today’s culture. Are we to adapt to the culture of the day? Does state law supersede the custom and tradition of thousands of years of practice? 

For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests’ or magistrates;’ for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s; and therefore, Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses. George Fox 1669 

Since the days when a man and woman were joined together as one in marriage there have been many changes. There has been an evolution of marriage over the years. Up to the time of Christ there were three main divisions of marriage procedures, contract, consummation, celebration. 

The state may see marriage differently from faith communities. For the latter, especially within the Judeo-Christian tradition, marriage has a sacramental quality signifying, to borrow from the language of the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer (1662), “the mystical union that is between Christ and his Church.”  The position taken by many within the Church is there is a legal duty to solemnize a marriage according to civil law. To hold this position opens the door for the approval of same sex marriage. While some feel the importance of making marriage "legal" it allows for the state to weaken the autonomy of a religious group and violating the standing principle of marriage between only and man and woman. 

 The Law of Marriage 

Individual states, not the federal government, determine most of the specific details of marriage law in the United States, with considerable variation from state to state. States establish who may marry (traditionally, a man and a woman), who may not (close relatives, of varying degrees of consanguinity), at what age marriage may take place (e.g., 15, 16, 18, 19, or 21), what legal steps the parties must take to enter marriage, and what legal rights and duties the marital contract entails. Every state requires some official act to establish a marriage and authorizes only a specific group of people to solemnize marriages. (Stevens, 2014; Milne, 2011). 

Solemnization laws reflect the unusual combination of religious law and civil law that characterizes American marriage. (Case, 2005). Although religious marriage and civil marriage are two different statuses in some nations, with two different ceremonies, in the United States all state laws authorize both civil and religious authorities to perform civil marriages. (Milne, 2011). Indeed, in many states it is illegal for religious clergy to solemnize a marriage without a valid civil marriage license. (Case, 2005). All states allow some public officials, whether judges, court clerks, or, occasionally, mayors, to perform marriages. The approved religious authorities vary from state to state. For example, six states mention the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is. Weddings performed by Universal Life Church (ULC) ministers have been invalidated in three states; only North Carolina authorizes ULC marriages by statute. (Rains, 2010; Milne, 2011). The ULC allows anyone to be ordained online and encourages applicants to “become a legally-recognized wedding officiant in the space of a couple of minutes for free.” (Universal, 2015). Only Alaska lists a “commissioned officer of the Salvation Army” as a recognized marriage officiant. (Rains, 2010). 

The federal Constitution places some restrictions on state marriage laws. The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes marriage as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because marriage is a fundamental right, states may not prevent fathers who have not paid child custody from getting married (Zablocki, 1978). Nor may states allow prisoners to marry only if a prison superintendent decides there are “compelling reasons” to permit the marriage. (Turner, 1987). 

 The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibit state bans on interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia (1967), and, since 2015, same-sex marriage, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Historically, religious beliefs provided substantial justification for the states’ restrictions on both interracial and same-sex marriage. After “Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man” married in the District of Columbia and returned to their home in Virginia, Virginia prosecuted the couple under the state’s anti-miscegenation laws. The trial judge who upheld their conviction, suspended their sentence, and ordered them to stay out of Virginia for twenty-five years, wrote: 

 “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” (Loving, 1967). 

Similarly, the primary and recurring legal defense of same-sex marriage bans was the argument that all marriages must be procreative, even though, due to age, illness, and reproductive freedom, many heterosexual marriages are not. That procreative ideal of marriage originated with St. Augustine, the fifth-century Christian bishop, who identified three goods that should attend all marriages—procreation, fidelity, and indissolubility. (Griffin, 2015). When “Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons” applied for a Minnesota marriage license in 1971, the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied their application on the grounds that the “institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” (Baker, 1971). On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Minnesota’s legal brief argued for denial of the marriage license because “[our country, and its Constitution, were founded upon basic religious principles and one of the most basic of such principles is that marriage is an institution ordained by God and that such institution is to be entered into by a man and a woman as husband and wife.” (Case, 2005). 

In 1972, the Supreme Court dismissed Baker’s appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” (Baker, 1972). Forty-three years later, the Court overruled Baker and recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Opinion of the Court concluded that sincere religious beliefs must not provide the basis for marriage law: 

 Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. 

 Both Loving and Obergefell were decided on due process and equal protection grounds. The due process and equal protection arguments in the two cases were similar and Loving set an important precedent for Obergefell. The Court ruled that the Lovings and (forty-eight years later) lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) couples enjoy a fundamental due process right to marriage (not just to interracial or same-sex marriage). And the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the states from discriminating based on race or sexual orientation. 

 So, the question is what is marriage as defined by God? We have seen where in some states it is illegal for a religious ceremony to be conducted without a state license. This requirement means the state does not recognize religious marriage.  

Jewish Marriage Laws 

The Israeli legal system organizes their courts into a system of general and specialized courts. Included in specialized courts, which are granted limited authority, are their religious courts. Israel is unique in its use of religious courts; they existed when the territory was still under Ottoman control through the 16th and 20th centuries and their use was continued when Israel became its own sovereignty. Matters of family law, marriage, and divorce are typically under the authority of religious courts, or rabbinical courts, which also use religious law.  

 Israel does not permit civil marriages. Marriages are conducted in rabbinical courts only, and in accordance with their religious affiliation. In Jewish marriages, both persons must be Jewish and heterosexual. Israel does not allow for mixed-religion marriages or same-sex marriages. If both partners are registered as not having a religious affiliation, they are permitted to enter a civil union. Israel does recognize same-sex marriage and marriages of non-religious persons if they choose to marry abroad; for persons who wish to be married that are not in a heterosexual and same-religion relationship, this is the only option. This creates financial barriers to marriage. Despite being subjected to religious law; many Israelis do not practice a religion. About 65% of Israeli’s state that they do not consider themselves to be religious. Still, they must adhere to requirements for marriage and divorce proceedings as well as child and spousal support that are based on religious texts. 

Islamic Religious Marriage 

 Some states have abolished common law and unlicensed marriages. See Yaghoubinejad v. Haghighi, 384 N.J. Super. 339, 341 (2006). (Where a ceremonial marriage in accordance with the religion of Islam was conducted on June 30, 2001, was considered completely void, even though a certificate showed the signature of the person who solemnized the marriage, because the parties failed to obtain a marriage license). While Islamic marriage contracts were found to be enforceable by the court if the contract could be enforced on “neutral principles of law,” in Odatalla v. Odatalla, the opinion never stated that the parties failed to get a marriage license. N.J.S.A § 37:1-10 provides that, no marriage contracted on or after December 1, 1939, is valid unless the contracting parties obtained a marriage license, and then performed, by or before any person, religious society, institution, or organization authorized by Section 13 of the same statute, to solemnize marriages. Moreover, a failure in any case to comply with both prerequisites will render the supposed marriage completely void. N.J.S.A § 37:1-10. 

 When a Western-oriented culture with a constitutional compact based upon equal status of individuals before the law, as well as between each other, begins to accommodate familial cultural practices that assume the inferior legal and social status of one of the marital partners—based solely on gender—the commitment to equal treatment for any in the society comes into question. 

 American family law courts conflict with Islamic law as judges accept Islamic family agreements that disadvantage women. In the name of comity, an expectation judges will extend legal courtesies to agreements made in other states or nations, some courts are following what they see as a sense of multicultural sensibility. This reach for comity conflicts with the prohibition of judicial consideration of legal agreements that are in violation of core American public policy prescriptions. Adoption of Islamic practices or Sharia law to the result of institutional discrimination against women is in conflict with American laws, constitutional protections, and public policy. 

 United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, also chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, wrote this about Islamic law: 

 In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law . . . . Islamic law . . . finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. . . . It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights . . . . Robert H. Jackson, Foreword to Law in the Middle East 6-7 (Majid Khadduri & Herbert J. Liebesny eds. 1955), quoted in Andrew Bostom, How Sharia Undermines Western Justice, 

 For purposes of legally—in distinction to religiously—dissolving a union, marriages are treated as a contract between husband and wife. When American judges attempt to apply contract terms to Islamic marriages, they often find that there rarely is complete conformity with American civil expectations for a recorded marriage license and officiants are often not registered; sometimes they are not even imams. Also, Islamic marital negotiations are regularly conducted by a male representative and without the bride’s participation. Sometimes the bride is underage. In many cases these practices violate American expectations for basic fair bargaining interests in contract creation. The agreement may be considered legally unconscionable if so unfair to the weaker party that a court should refuse to enforce the terms. Also, some of these marriages may qualify to be considered void ab initio (invalid from the start) or voidable. The Islamic marriage is a religious ceremony and not accepted by American civil law. 

Today there are three types of marriages conducted in America that I will address. 

Three Types of Marriages  

Though people may think about marriage in diverse ways, there are only three types of marriage – civil, religious, and social. In some ceremonies, civil and religious are celebrated at once. Couples may have one or both types of marriage ceremony. However, to receive the legal protection of the court for marriage, a couple must have a civil marriage. It is only civil marriage that can be addressed by courts or legislatures.  

Civil Marriage Any couple can have a civil marriage if they meet the government’s requirements. Most of us also think about marriage as a public commitment of love and support by adult couples. The government does, too, and uses the commitment of marriage as a gateway to hundreds of legal protections, responsibilities and benefits established by the state, and over 1100 by the federal government. Ever since the founding of this country, states have regulated who may enter a marriage and under what conditions.  

Religious Rite of Marriage-- Only couples who meet the requirements of a particular faith tradition can have a religious marriage. Religions have complete autonomy in deciding which marriages they will consecrate; they do whatever suits their faith tradition. Some religions will not marry people who were divorced, or people of different faiths, even though these same people could have a civil marriage. Every religious community always has the right to perform or not perform any marriage rite it deems appropriate, regardless of the partners’ sex. Religious marriages do not convey legal rights or responsibilities.  

Freedom of Religion-- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects every citizen’s right to freedom of religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The founders of American government, who fled religious persecution in Europe, made it clear from the beginning that in this new nation religion and government would exist side by side, and the law would not define religious practice. In addition to allowing free rein to religious practice, our Constitution protects freedom of religion by preventing any one religion from dictating the content of law. 

 For all religious views to be protected and respected, it is critical that laws not be made with a particular religious viewpoint in mind, including laws about civil marriage. As a result of American freedom of religion, each faith can independently answer the question of whether they wish gay and lesbian couples to marry within their religious tradition, and this will remain true no matter what the government does regarding civil marriage. 

State Marriage--Getting married requires being wed by an officiant in many jurisdictions. This is a person who has the authority to carry out a legal marriage, such as a religious leader, judge, judicial officer, or justice of the peace. This can be done either in a religious setting or in a non-denominational or secular setting such as a city hall or courthouse. A marriage license is issued and officially recorded once the ceremony is complete. In the U.S., most states require a legal marriage for a couple to exercise spousal benefits such as filing a joint tax return, sharing financial accounts, and so on. 

 

Common Law or Social Marriage--A legally recognized marriage that can arise in some jurisdictions without a license or ceremony. Many states recognize a common-law marriage when two people capable of getting married live together as spouses and hold themselves out as such for a specified amount of time. 

Civil Union--A civil union is a legal status that is like marriage. Civil unions were originally created to offer the same legal protections that married couples have to same-sex couples. In 2015, when the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages, many couples’ civil unions were converted to marriages. However, some couples chose to retain their civil union status. 

Biblical Marriage--Although lots of people are married in the Bible, there are no descriptions of any ceremonies. Adam and Eve are "married" simply because they are made for each other and procreate. Jacob marries Leah by mistake, which happens not because of a disguised bride at a wedding ceremony, but because he consummates the marriage in the darkness of a tent. Jesus attends a wedding in Cana, which consists of a family party, but no ceremony is described. The only "ceremony" I can find is Tobit 7:12-14, in which a father places the hand of his daughter in the hand of the husband and then writes a contract. There are no marriage ceremonies in the Bible because the marriage did not involve a ceremony. Marriage in the Bible consists of a man and woman, with the consent of the woman's father or guardian, living together and attempting procreation. 

There were no vows, no priest, no ritual, no prayer, no pronouncement, no license, no registration. This is quite different from how we define and enact marriage today. Today, for a marriage to be "real," it must be legal; in other words, it must be recognized by the state's laws and registered with the state. Also, for many Christians, marriage is not a "Christian marriage" unless it is officiated by a credentialed minister who makes a verbal pronouncement, preferably in the congregation's presence. But these are all recent innovations. For most human history, marriage has been an agreement, recognized or arranged by the immediate families, for a man and woman to live together—marriage as a legal institution and as a religious ceremony began because of the Reformation. Starting in the Middle Ages, churches kept records of who was married to whom. But Luther viewed marriage as a "worldly matter," so he turned over the recording of marriages to the state. Calvin believed that for a marriage to be valid, it needed to be recorded by the state and officiated by the church. The Catholic Church did not require marriages to be officiated by a priest until 1563, and the Anglican Church did not get around to making this requirement until 1753. So, for the past five hundred years, there have been three kinds of marriage in the European tradition: legal, religious, and social. But social marriage is the most biblical.  

Early Quaker taught that marriage was the work of the LORD. For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests’ or magistrates;’ for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s; and therefore, Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord’s work, and we are but witnesses. George Fox 1669 

Marriage to non-Quakers was never condoned. Friends were expected to marry within their own religious community, and any Friend who married a non-Quaker (by a minister or justice of the peace) was automatically disowned. However, members who were disowned could still worship with Friends, and eventually, with acknowledgment and proven behavior, could regain membership. 

What would happen if the church today were to recognize social marriage once again? It would mean that couples living together, those raising children, could be treated as married even if they are not legally married or have not undergone any religious ritual. Indeed, during most of history, society and the church would have regarded such couples as married. Since a growing number of couples today are choosing to live together and raise children without a ceremony or legal license, it may be advantageous for the church to look kindlier and inclusively upon them. Otherwise, we will alienate these couples, and they will not benefit from the guidance and support of the church. This does not mean the church should stop advocating for religious ceremonies. These innovations have essential purposes. A public ceremony that includes vows and prayers makes the couple's commitment to each other straightforward, links the couple's love to the sacred story of God's love, and gives the community and congregation an explicitly supportive role in helping to maintain the marriage. A legally recognized marriage provides the couple with various rights and benefits, offers additional stability to the relationship, and protects both spouses and children in case of divorce. The church supports marriage and family the best, and it recognizes that couples who intend to share their lives represent a type of marriage. I do not know why an increasing number of couples in our society are choosing not to marry legally, but we are doing them no good by rejecting them. Let us instead welcome them, treat them as if they were married, and advocate for the benefits of public religious rituals and legal status. 

We need a better understanding of what marriage was like in the Old Testament. The biblical marriage required a covenant between a man and a woman. Even though there was no formal ceremony there was an agreement and acceptance of fulfilling the commandment of God to become one and procreate.  

The meaning of the word “fornication” is similar to the word “wandering.” Wandering is having lost the way, using one’s time not to achieve a goal, but on a path to nowhere. Wandering — this is always a waste of time and effort. Fornication — this is spiritual wandering. 

The question is: "Do the Biblical references to FORNICATION apply to two people who are in a commitment, in love, of the opposite sex, who are not married to each other or anyone else, and who have consensual sex? Does the references to the woman as a whore, prostitute, or harlot apply to the woman because she had sex before marriage?" 

The answer is no. Fornication IS NOT pre-marital sex. Fornication is the highest form of sexual sin that is committed during the act of Idolatry. 

Now we are going to have to get a bit technical here; it is unavoidable. What I am trying to do is not simply shout at you that fornication is sinful, but to explain to you why. OK, let us turn now to Revelation 2:14 

 But I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. Rev. 2:14 

 There are several terms and phrases I want you to take note of here in this verse: 

 The first is the phrase “hold the doctrine of Balaam” - or a better translation would be “cling to the teaching of Balaam.” What is that? 

The second is the word “stumbling block.” 

The third is “things sacrificed to idols.” 

And the fourth and last term is “fornication.” 

It is apparent from the verse that all four terms and phrases are linked. But how? You can pick up the story of Balak and Balaam in the Old Testament; more specifically, in the Book of Numbers - beginning with chapter 20 and extending through chapter 25. But let me sum it up for you here briefly: Balak was the King of Moab, a country which bordered up against the boundaries of Canaan, just east of the Dead Sea. He was King of Moab at the time Israel, under Moses, was passing through the Wilderness into the Promised Land. Balak was fearful of Israel; so, he hired the prophet Balaam, from Midian, to curse her - hoping that in so doing he would destroy her. But God prevented Balaam from cursing Israel; and each time Balaam sought to pronounce a curse, God forced him to utter a blessing. 

 Nevertheless, Balaam was not finished. His first strategy - to curse Israel - had failed; but he hit upon a second strategy that proved to be successful. He advised Balak, King of Moab, to send out the women of Moab into the camp of Israel - the men of Israel to commit fornication. And we read about that in Numbers 25. 

 And Israel abode in Shittim, (which is part of Moab just opposite of Jericho on the Jordan planes) and the people (i.e., the men of Israel) began to commit whoredom (i.e., fornication) with the daughters of Moab. 

 And they (i.e., the women of Moab) called the people (i.e., the men of Israel) unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat and bowed down to their gods. 

 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor (i.e., the god of the Moabites): and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. Num. 25:1-3 

 So, Numbers 25:1-3 give us much of the meaning pertaining to the terms and phrases we noted in Revelation 2:14  

The phrase “the teaching of Balaam,” found in Revelation 2:14, is Balaam’s advice to Balak, King of Moab. 

 The stumbling block - is, of course, fornication. The word “stumbling block” translates the Greek word “skandalon” - from which we derive our word “scandal.” And it means a “trap,” or more accurately, “the bait used in a trap.” Fornication is bait for a trap. That is its meaning here in Revelation 2:14. 

 But the trap itself is idolatry, not fornication. Fornication is bait; idolatry is the trap. 

 At this point, we have unraveled much of the meaning of Revelation 2:14; but we still are not there yet; and that is because most of us do not really understand the meaning of “idolatry.” That term has lost its meaning to our 21st century minds. When we think of an idol, we imagine a statue of some kind - a stone statue or a carved image. For me, inevitably, what pops into my mind is a Buddha - with his legs crossed - in a Japanese garden. But that image does nothing to convey the real meaning of idolatry. Let us turn to the Bible again - and read several verses in Isaiah and the Psalms. And it may be that from these verses we can begin to catch the meaning of “idolatry” or the “principle of idolatry” - because that is what we are talking about here - a principle - a spiritual principle. 

 For the Lord is a great God, And a great King above all gods...Ps. 95:3 

 For Thou art the Lord Most High over all the earth; Thou art exalted far above all gods. Ps. 97:9 

 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? says the Holy One. Is. 40:25 

 Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. Is. 44:6 

 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? Is. 46:5 

 Do you catch now the principle of idolatry? Each of the verses we have just read stresses the utter transcendence of God. He is unique - so utterly unique that He is incomparable. That is His nature. There is none like Him. Indeed, it is sinful to even attempt comparisons with God. The very act of comparison profanes God. Do you know what it means to “profane” God? Do you understand the technical meaning of the word “profane”? Let me read two more passages of scripture with you… 

 ...for My own sake, I will (vindicate myself); For how can My name be profaned? And My glory be given to another? Is. 48:11 

 As for you, O house of Israel, thus says the Lord God, Go, serve everyone his idols; but later, you will surely listen to Me, and My holy name you will profane no longer with your gifts and with your idols. Ezek. 20:39 

 Do you see how the word “profane” is used in conjunction with idolatry? That is because idolatry is an act of profanity. And profanity simply means to “make common.” That is its technical meaning. The very act of comparing God profanes Him - because it reduces God to the level of the item to which He is being compared. God is incomparable - beyond comparison. And any attempt to compare Him reduces His majesty. 

 All of us know the Ten Commandments, right? How many of you know that four of the ten commandments warn mankind against profaning God - reducing His majesty? And those four commandments are the first four. Turn with me to Deuteronomy, Chapter five. 

 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Deut. 5:7 

 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth...Deut. 5:8 

 So, the first two commandments forbid comparison. God will not tolerate being brought alongside other gods. Nor will He tolerate anyone making a statue of Him or an image of Him - because that presumes comparison. The third commandment is like the first two - in that it prohibits another form of profanity - blasphemy - taking the Lord’s name in vain - which drags down the name of God to a common level - and serves, therefore, to undermine its utter transcendence. 

 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain. Deut. 5:11 

 Idolatry profanes God Himself; and blasphemy profanes the name of God. Both are acts of profanity. And even the fourth is akin to the first three - in that it is designed to set aside one day of the week to remember to worship God - and call to mind His utter uniqueness - His transcendent nature. 

Idolatry puts God on a par with other gods. The principle of idolatry does not aim at replacing the worship of Jehovah with the worship of another god. All it aims at is to include the worship of other gods item alongside the worship of Jehovah - Jehovah worshipped alongside Baal, alongside Bel, alongside Ashtaroth, alongside Istar, alongside a whole pantheon of other gods - the gods of the heathen. And in putting Jehovah alongside the gods of the heathen, it drags Him down to their level. It profanes Him. True worship - the kind of worship God sanctions and accepts - is, therefore, exclusive. Worship not only expresses adoration and praise, but, in addition, it promises God exclusive adoration and praise. The act of worship is an act of “exclusivity;” it is an act which declares total commitment. Worship is not just an act of passion - an act of adoration and praise; it is, in addition, a declaration - a declaration of total commitment. It is both an act and a declaration. And for the act to be meaningful and acceptable, the declaration must be authentic and truthful. 

 How important is idolatry in the Old Testament? In many respects, it is the story of the Old Testament. The children of Israel never quite seemed to “catch on.” God would not allow Himself to be worshipped alongside the gods of the heathen. It is the story of the Book of Judges. It is the story of Elijah at Mount Carmel. Not even Solomon, with all his wisdom, caught on - and at the close of his reign, idolatry was rampant. The specific sin that called forth God’s judgment upon the Northern Kingdom was idolatry. And, likewise, the specific sin that led to Judah’s demise a century later was idolatry. It was the sin the prophets most singled out and warned against. 

 But how does all this fit into sexual promiscuity? Well, let us go back to Revelation 2:14. We have already established that fornication is the bait that the devil uses to draw believers into idolatry - the act of profaning God. But how are fornication and idolatry related? What is the link? How does fornication bait the trap? Ask yourself, “What do fornication and idolatry have in common?” We have already made the point that worship is not just an act of adoration and ecstatic praise - drawing God and His people into oneness, but, in addition, it is a declaration of total commitment. Worship is not just an act; it is a declaration. And for the act to be meaningful, the declaration must be authentic and truthful. 

 And that is true of sexual intercourse as well. Sexual intercourse, like worship, is not just an act; it is a declaration. And for the act to be meaningful, the declaration must be authentic and truthful. If the declaration of total commitment and exclusivity cannot be made in truth, the act loses its meaning. Let me put it another way. We have been taught that sexual intercourse - and all that leads to sexual intercourse - is merely pleasurable. That is an act that gives pleasure. But sexual intercourse is not first an act which gives pleasure; it is primarily a language that speaks of total and exclusive commitment. And then it is an act that gives pleasure. Just as worship is not primarily an act of adoration and praise, it is first a declaration of total and exclusive commitment. Therefore, if you are a fornicator, you cannot speak the language of love. Sexual intercourse loses its meaning. Why? Because you have profaned it. The words it speaks come out garbled. If you have engaged in repeated acts of fornication, you have profaned sexual intercourse - and, therefore, can no longer use it to declare love to your spouse. It has become a garbled language. 

 And that is the tragedy of fornication. We have a whole generation of men and woman for whom sexual intercourse is not the pure language of love it was meant to be. Spouses can no longer use it to declare love to one another. It has been profaned. It has been made common. That is what fornication does: it makes common what was meant to be sanctified and pure - set aside for one person only. When you make love to your spouse, you can no longer authentically declare to your spouse, “I belong to you alone. I share this joy with you alone. I belong to no one else. I have reserved myself for you only.” And if that declaration cannot be made, the act loses its meaning - and the pleasure becomes very elusive. 

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Exodus 20:3-5 KJV 

 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I, the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Deut. 5:7-Exodus 23:24 

 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Ex. 23:24 

 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. Exodus 23:32-33 

 The 13th chapter of Deuteronomy explains how serious the LORD is about idolatry. 

To understand pre-marital sex, we must know and understand how the Torah, the law of God, addresses such an act. And in the Torah, pre-marital sex is not discussed as a "sin against God" but instead discussed in the context of "Social Order." 

The penalty of pre-marital sex is the DOWRY, not DEATH, which is the penalty for fornication. Pre-marital sex is not a cause for DEATH. It is a cause for MARRIAGE! 

Caution: If you have sex for sex's sake outside of a loving commitment centered on the Lord on the road to marriage, you are in danger of worshipping the creature over the creator and at risk of committing the very act of sexual Idolatry worshipping sex. FORNICATION = IDOLATRY. 

John 8:41 - "we are not born of fornication; we have ONE father, even God."  

Here we see a clear picture of the severity of fornication. The spiritual implication and the physical act are both forms of Idolatry.  

The highest crime against the living God is IDOLATRY. When exploring the spiritual basis for God condemning every sin, we find that the act in question has its roots in IDOLATRY. 

First, let me give you the literal Biblical definition: 

Fornication (porneia) - A sexual act of Idolatry. The sexual act of worship with a temple prostitute, whore, or harlot. (Porne) - The Greek word for harlot is a prostitute in the sexual practice of Idolatry. 

Let us look at references in scripture: 

Genesis 38:15-22 - A "harlot" is a village prostitute. They are serving the purpose of sexual worship to BAAL, the God of fertility. 

Ezekiel 16:15 - the acts of a harlot (prostitution) is called FORNICATION... Worshipping another god through the act of sexual union. Uniting the Temple of God with a Harlot 

Widespread practice from the days of old and very prevalent in the days of the Messiah and the early church is that men would go to the Temple of Baal and have sex with the high priestess of Baal in the act of worship to the fertility god. IDOLATRY! The man having sex with the priestess of BAAL represented the fertility of the land. This is, in context, what Paul was addressing when he commanded, we are not to unite our bodies, the temples of the Holy Spirit, with a Harlot, the temple of BAAL. You can see why this is condemned. This act of sexual Idolatry is called FORNICATION. 

Given the true meaning of fornication, we can clearly understand the consequences of such acts: 

1 Corinthians 615 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of the Messiah? Shall I then take the members of the Messiah and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. 

In Revelation, we again see a clear link between the act of fornication and Idolatry: 

Revelation 2:14 But I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. 

20 Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee because thou suffers that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 

John is speaking out against the practice of committing the sexual act of Idolatry and then eating meat sacrificed to idols in that act of worship. 

If you do a word study on fornication, you will see that it is condemned in context to Idolatry EVERY time. 100% of the references to fornication are in context to Idolatry. 

FORNICATION is the only given as the Reason for Divorce 

Now, if Fornication were pre-marital sex, Yahshua, in the statement below, would have said adultery, not fornication. But He did not. NOW... let us explore the reasoning behind this statement: 

Matthew 199 And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marries her which is put away doth commit adultery. 

Yahshua lists fornication as the ONLY reason for divorce. Understanding the consequences of having a partner who is worshipping another god through sexual union, you can see the danger to a Saint in such a relationship. Consider King David, Solomon, Samson, and many others. Many a man of God has been led astray to the worship of foreign gods by WOMEN. Unequally yoked with women who WORSHIP other gods... i.e., fornication. 

Fornication is translated as Sexual Immortality or Sexual Idolatry.  

How is Pre-Marital Sex Addressed in the Torah? 

In the Torah, God lists EVERY form of sexual sin in detail. Men with men. Men with the mom. Women with animals... etc. NOWHERE in the context of Sexual Sin, will you find a man with a woman, neither of whom are married, and the sex is consensual. 

The laws of Sexual Sin are listed in detail in Leviticus 18. The PENALTY of Sexual Sin is recorded in Leviticus 20. None of these laws or penalties cover an act of sex between two consenting adults of the opposite sex who are not married.  

So, where is this act covered? 

Now leaving SIN and going on to "Social Order" in Leviticus 19: We see an example of a man having sex with a female "slave" not his own we see punishment but NOT TO THE DEATH. Vs. 20-22. The penalty is minimal, and the offense is forgiven? 

That is close-- but not quite. Surely the Bible addresses the issue at hand... two people in a relationship, not married, who have sex? 

Now let us look at "Proper Conduct" in Exodus Chapter 22. God addresses the VERY ISSUE at hand. Let us look at the precedence given by God that we MUST follow: 

16 And if a man entices a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.17 If her father utterly refuses to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. 

And there you have it. Problem solved; mystery understood. It just takes a little knowledge of the Bible. So, we see that fornication is quite different than pre-marital sex. Fornication is joining your body (the temple of the Holy Spirit) with a temple of another god in a sexual act of Idolatry. 

The penalty for pre-marital sex was NEVER death. It was the DOWRY! 

Fornication is the act of worshipping SEX—the creature above the creator in a sexual union. Pornography is fornication. Prostitution is fornication. Having sex for sex's sake outside of commitment with a stream of partners outside of love is fornication. 

Within the Biblical context of fornication, we can see why it is a cause for divorce and why fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God-- because they are IDOLATERS! 

The other issue was adultery. Not to belabor the issue, I will give a summary of Early Church teachings. 

 The views of church leaders and scholars have been guided by their interpretation of the biblical teachings on marriage and divorce. Not all have interpreted these passages in a like manner. Indeed, some have come virtually to opposite conclusions. Because they were writing for men, most of their remarks and illustrations concern women at fault. However, either directly or by allusion, they agree that what applies to one sex applies equally to the other. 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers permitted divorce on the ground of adultery. Some even required it. At the same time, remarriage was usually forbidden. Not only did it cut off any chance of marital reconciliation, but many in the church regarded marriage as an indissoluble bond which continued unbroken until the death of one spouse. Thus (prior to such an occurrence), remarriage was an adulterous act, and the offender was liable to excommunication. There was not, however, unanimity. Some, like Origen, allowed remarriage after a divorce on the ground of adultery. Others (e.g., the Council of Arles), while deploring remarriage, did not require excommunication as a penalty. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers were stricter in their interpretations of Jesus' sayings. No matter what a spouse had done, remarriage following divorce was out of the question it was adultery. 

Augustine's position became the foundation of the Roman Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament. When contracted between two communicants, marriage is indissoluble. Where only one is a believer, spiritual adultery is involved and a divorce may be permitted (along with remarriage, under certain conditions). This position was challenged during the Renaissance by some of the humanists (e.g., More and Erasmus), but it was reaffirmed during the Counter-Reformation by the Council of Trent as official dogma. Numerous impediments to marriage were noted, however, whereby marriages might be annulled. 

The Protestant Reformation brought a fresh examination of the biblical teachings. The Continental Reformers, while holding a high view of marriage, eschewed its sacramental nature. They permitted remarriage by an innocent party after a divorce because of adultery or desertion. 

The Anglicans held positions close to those of Roman Catholicism. While scandalized by the notion of marriage as a sacrament, they nonetheless tended to regard remarriage after divorce as adultery (although there were those who diverged from that opinion). 

The dissenting denominations tended to follow the views of the Reformers. Some, like Milton, were very flexible as to cause, but most followed the Westminster divines in pronounced restraint. 
Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Marriage and Jewish Wedding Customs: The Three-Stage ritual of Bible Marriages 

Introduction: 

Only when you understand the wedding customs of the Bible can you begin to appreciate the rich imagery of our salvation in Christ and our marriage to Christ as his virgin bride. 

The three "C" of bible weddings: Contract, Consummation, Celebration 

These same things exist today in modern marriages. The order and timing of each stage is different. 

Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue. 

The "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after Jesus rose from the dead. 

Modern Jewish weddings are as removed and different from the ancient Jewish marriage culture of the first century as Christian weddings are. 

If you want to understand the many metaphors, illustrations, and figures of speech used by Jesus about "the wedding feast" and the church as the "bride of Christ", you must learn the ancient culture and forget everything you know about modern marriage ceremonies. 

There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:  

Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond. The bride would choose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with him called a "ketubbah". (The woman must accept the man). Once this is signed, the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet. (The covenant was agreed and signed). Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate until of age.  

 Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation. Up to 7 years later, the groom can raise the money as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride's home. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the wedding couple wait and celebrate outside or in the next room. The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.  

 Stage 3: The wedding feast. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage. 

There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in the first century, performed under a canopy where the wedding couple would hold hands and say, "I do" before an audience of friends and family. This has not developed for hundreds of years. This ancient ritual is seen from the time of Abraham, right down to the first century: 

Rebekah contract: “But when food was set before him to eat, he said, “I will not eat until I have told my business.” And he said, “Speak on.”” (Genesis 24:33) 

Rebekah contract: ““Here is Rebekah before you, take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master’s son, as the Lord has spoken.” When Abraham’s servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the ground before the Lord. The servant brought out articles of silver and articles of gold, and garments, and gave them to Rebekah; he also gave precious things to her brother and to her mother.” (Genesis 24:51–53) 

Rebekah consented: “And they said, “We will call the girl and consult her wishes.” Then they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will go.”” (Genesis 24:57–58) 

Rebekah consummation: “Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel. She said to the servant, “Who is that man walking in the field to meet us?” And the servant said, “He is my master.” Then she took her veil and covered herself. The servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. Then Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her; thus, Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” (Genesis 24:64–67) 

 “Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my relative, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in form and face. Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.” Laban said, “It is better that I give her to you than to give her to another man; stay with me.” So, Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her. Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife, for my time is completed, that I may go into her.” Laban gathered all the men of the place and made a feast. Now in the evening he took his daughter Leah and brought her to him; and Jacob went into her. Laban also gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah as a maid. So, it came about in the morning that, behold, it was Leah! And he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? Was it not for Rachel that I served with you? Why then have you deceived me?” But Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the firstborn. “Complete the week of this one, and we will give you the other also for the service which you shall serve with me for another seven years.” Jacob did so and completed her week, and he gave him his daughter Rachel as his wife. Laban also gave his maid Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maid. So, Jacob went into Rachel also, and indeed he loved Rachel more than Leah, and he served with Laban for another seven years.” (Genesis 29:15–30) 

The three stages of Isaac's marriage to Rebekah: Gen 24 

Contract (stage 1) Gen 24:33, Gen 24:51-53. Gen 24:57-58 

An offer of marriage is proposed. The offer is accepted, and Rebekah is married by contract. Gifts and money are given both to the bride and the parents of the bride. Notice that Rebekah was asked if she consented to the marriage. 

Consummation (stage 2) Gen 24:64-67 Rebekah and Isaac go to the tent 

Celebration (stage 3) No mention of wedding feast, but one happened. The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Leah: Gen 29 

Contract (stage 1) Gen 29:15-20 Jacob contracts to work for 7 in advance before he gets the girl. 

Consummation (stage 2) Gen 29:21-26 Jacob pays the dowry price of 7 years and takes Leah into the tent. 

Celebration (stage 3) Gen 29:27-28 He completed the 7-day wedding feast with Leah 

The three stages of Jacob's marriage to Rachel: Gen 29 

Contract (stage 1) Gen 29:27 Jacob contracts to work for 7 MORE years but gets to consummate the wedding at the before he pays the full dowry. 

Consummation (stage 2) Gen 29:30 He took Leah into the tent at the beginning of the 7-day feast, then at the end of the 7-day feast he took Rachel into the tent. 

Celebration (stage 3) Gen 29:27-28 The 7-day wedding feast was for both girls. 

Stage one: the signing of the legal document called, the “ketubbah" 

The ketubbah (plural is ketubboth) was a legally binding document whose primary purpose was to protect the bride, even though she did not even sign it. The father of the bride would use his wisdom to look out for the best interests of his daughter. 

The bride was seen as being completely under her father's control. 

For example, if a man sleeps with a virgin, they got married, but her father had to consent. 

“So then both he [father of the bride] who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.” (1 Corinthians 7:38) 

The groom and the father of the bride would negotiate a legal document with conditions that were clearly laid out: The "Dowry": money to be paid to the father by the groom: “Ask me ever so much bridal payment and gift, and I will give according as you say to me; but give me the girl in marriage.” (Genesis 34:12) 

The "Bride Price": The bride price was usually set at 50 shekels of silver and was a cash penalty for divorce without cause or taking a second wife without consent and permission of the bride and/or her father. (Polygamy was rare at the time of Christ) 

The bride's Estate Inventory: An accounting of assets (cash, property, livestock, businesses etc.) the bride contributed to the new husband's estate when she married him. 

The first Stage of a Jewish marriage, (the signing of the “ketubbah”) is the last stage of modern weddings (the signing of the marriage license that you buy at city hall). 

Since Jewish marriages were sealed when the father of the bride and the groom signed the “ketubbah,” with or without the consent or knowledge of the bride, the "dating" (get to know you stage) began after they were "married". 

Just like today's legal documents, the ketubah was signed in triplicate where the father, the groom each got a copy and a third one was "filed" with the court (synagogue) with a seal to be broken only by a judge. 

Many copies of ancient Ketubboth have been unearthed through archeology. 

Confusion over Jewish Betrothal: When the groom and the father of the bride signed the ketubbah, the couple was 100% legally married. 

The couple was legally married, but sexual cohabitation has not yet begun until stage two up to a year later. 

This is seen in the fact that although Mary and Joseph were betrothed, they had never had sex, even though they were 100% legally married. 

Although called betrothal, it was not equivalent to our modern engagement today, which is nothing more than "monogamous promise dating" with no legal consequences if broken. 

Once signed, a legal divorce was required to dissolve the "betrothal.” 

It does not matter what the church or government does to change the requirements of marriage, marriage is of the LORD. The three requirements have not changed- contract, consummation, and celebration. The two dangers to marriage have not changed--fornication and adultery. Sex is reserved for only a man and women in a committed relationship based on a covenant of mutual acceptance and love, along with a lifelong faithful commitment to one another.