Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED INSEPARABLY TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? [Gen 1:27; 2:24; Mark 10:7] |
Bible Question:
Hi Jeff, How can a legal contract be valid if the people going into that contract INTENTIONALLY lie about the provisions of that contract? If the state was aware the contract was entered under false pretenses, the state would make the contract null and void and the deception would have legal consequences. So to follow your logic, if the state is informed that the people intentionally lied and the state anulls that contract, will then God recognize that contract as valid or as if it never took place? Is God bound to the law of man here in this instance? Or does he say “too bad, you signed on the dotted line, you now have to be married to a person who you falsely vowed to marry” I would agree with your logic if the two parties entered into the contract genuinely and intentionally and it would not matter if they did it without understanding the seriousness of marriage. It would not matter whether it was in a church or on a ship, whether they were christians or satanists, whether they were in love or in an arranged marriage....a marriage vow is a marriage vow and since the institution of marriage is from God, he holds all those who made that vow accountable. The problem in this case is that these people did not make a real spiritual vow to each other or to God and the verbal vow they made to the state was not only a lie, but unfulfilled. According to your thinking these people really married and since they got a legal divorce, they are sinning. By divorcing unjustifiably (since there was no unfaithfulness or dissertion), their divorce is not recognized by God and therefore if they enter into any other relationship, they are committing adultery. Now, let's suppose after all this, the people go to the state and admit to their deception and apart from the legal consequences (fines, jail, deportation),suppose the state then declares that this marriage was never valid and dissolves it as if it never happened, are these people according to God, then absolved and free to marry under God's moral law? I'm not trying to philosophize or find loop holes, I am trying to understand what, according to God, makes a marriage valid. I am trying to use logic to understand what you are claiming. It seems to me that a vow can only be broken if that vow was intended and meant, but if that vow was a KNOWINGLY false vow it makes the vow invalid to begin with even if the state was unaware that it was a false one. God knew it was false and since he is the ultimate determiner only he can decide. Marriage, as scripture emphasizes, is not merely a legal contract, but a spiritual/sacred one. If marriage is a God made contract, not only a legally recognized one and part of the stipulations of that contract requires to intentionally promise certain things on a spiritual plane and false testimony was given and God knew this, how can God accept it as a true vow? I guess my point is how can God accept the falsity of that vow to be true if He knew it was false to begin with? The fact that the state was unaware of the falsity of that vow does not make the vow genuine, it just means that they were deceived. If a marriage covenant is defined by 2 key things: 1). 2 people vowing to each other and to God to love, cherish, be faithful and stay with the other till death parts them. 2.) The 2 people vowing to uphold this covenant publically with witnesses that can testify to this vow. If this is the definition and the first stipulation did not take place and the second one was a false one, I can't help but question the validity of the covenant. |
Bible Answer: Hello again rodent tamer, I see that there are other responses to you and honestly, I am very busy with my studies and can not spend time reading so I will just respond briefly to your post here. It's important to understand that I am not taking this up as an opportunity to oppose you and/or simply argue. The truth is, your entire argument falls ridiculously short of making sense. No offense intended. But what I did notice in this post was a little more information. The two were divorced. HUMM. Interesting, but at least now we have the motive and can understand the need to invalidate the original vow in the first place. Friend, you simply make too many assumptions and go off on too many tangents for me to truly address it all in the forum setting. In all honestly, I don't believe it would be appropriate in any case. I believe the biblical perspective has been presented and beyond that, well, the forum is not intended to go beyond that. finally, I will simply suggest that you re-evaluate your understanding of the marriage covenant. Try to focus on the biblical perspective of marriage while considering the typical "vows" verbalized in most secular ceremonies. You might find that there is some significant differences in emphasis. And yes, when you sign a contract, regardless of your intentions, you become legally committed to that contract. Might I pose a question using "your logic"? If you borrow money to buy a house and sign the contract "knowing you don't intend to pay the loan off" what happens? Your logic suggests that you simply are not held accountable because, well, you really didn't mean it. Please refer back to my other post and consider it honestly. "My logic" was not "my logic". My argument was biblically based and supported by scripture. Please consider your true motives for your line of questioning. God bless, Jeff |