Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 20:28 "Take care and be on guard for yourselves and for the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd (tend, feed, guide) the church of God which He bought with His own blood. |
Subject: Married by church and not state? |
Bible Note: Doc, You stated: "First of all, rightly or wrongly, the government is attempting to provide for you in lieu of your having a husband. Were you to marry, it is your husband who ought to be providing for you. If it appears that he will be unable to do so, then he would not be a fit mate." Perhaps I had miscommunicated, but I am male. Would you conversely suggest that it is the wife's responsibility to provide for the husband, if he is physically handicapped? Does this work both ways, or is it solely the husband who is required to support the wife? Shall the wife support the husband? Or would you further argue that a permanently medically-handicapped male would be unfit for marriage, if unable to generate an independent income? - You further stated: "Secondly, what you are proposing is concealing from the government your true marital status. Consequently you would be receiving money from them that would not properly belong to you, making you cupable of stealing, adding another vice to lying." Actually, there would be absolutely no concealment whatsoever from the government. If such a church-ordained marriage were to occur, it would be very much public. Please be aware that the government does not prohibit marriages, which are solely church-ordained. No concealment would be present. - You further stated: "Thirdly, you would be failing to submit to the government in a matter over which God has granted them authority. Indirectly, therefore, you would be resisting the Lord. Finally, in the eyes of the law, this would be considered fraudulent behavior, something to be more expected by the world than the children of God!" Again, the government does not ban church-ordained marriages (for example, between homosexuals, although this would be purely a heterosexual marriage). Rather, the government would simply not extend marriage tax benefits, under the guise of legal marriage authorization. In other words, although the government does not support such marriages, it does not ban them either. Again, there would be no legal violation occuring. - Lastly, you provided three scripture units: Eph 4:25a Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour No concealment of any kind would be taking place here. Rather, a full public proclamation of a church-ordained marriage would be present. 1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Would a medically handicapped male, unable to work, also be termed as being worse than an infidel? 1 Pet 2:13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake The law does not necessitate church-ordained marriages to also be state-ordained, as in the case of homosexual marriages, for example. Again, however, we are here speaking of heterosexual marriage. - Blessings, Reighnskye |