In reply to Linda.

Linda,

Praise the Lord indeed! And you are most certainly correct that God is in control of both kingdoms.

The difference here is indeed our own sinfulness. We live in a broken and fallen world. By God's design, He would be walking with us, leading us, guiding us, answering our questions, each and every day. Even post-fall, God continued to do so, at least in so much as remaining a theocracy, that He was our leader and guide. But that changes in 1 Samuel 8. There, in our continued sinfulness, we demanded of Samuel a king, so we could be just like all of our neighbors (wrong on so many levels...envy, coveting, not trusting God, just to name a few). Ultimately, God chose to allow this, and we have had human government ever since. And He promised us, warned us, that government would do evil things to us. And there we then enter into Romans 13, where we learn: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Those two Scriptures are where the idea of the doctrine of two kingdoms comes into play, evidenced with centuries of church teaching. Marriage itself is not specifically mentioned in this matter, but was an issue of legal standing even in the Old Testament (note the certificate of divorce needed to send away one's wife, Deuteronomy 24:1-3). The Pharisees noted this to Jesus, as well (Mark 10:4). Marriage is, as Luther would argue, the foundational institution of human society (the basic relationship, the only relationship God instituted Himself, the relationship from which children are given life, etc.). Safeguarding human society is indeed the responsibility of government (although they may not always see it that way). In a sense, then, it's the transitive property, that God created marriage to be the building block of His creation, God created government in order to maintain good order of His creation, that government then is responsible for marriage.

There are others who could easily articulate this better than I have, but I hope this was helpful!

One other thought, and this becomes a major issue with cohabition, is the witness we give to the people around us. In cohabitation, a couple is saying marriage is not necessary, that although they are living together, having sexual relations, having children, indeed all the things that Scripture teaches come with marriage, they are telling the rest of the world we don't need the foundation that God laid. At best, they themselves are living a lie by not simply admitting they are married, but at worst, they are calling God a liar and a fool by saying that His way is not the only way.

My reason for making this comparison is that we have a choice to make. If the government decides to change the definition of marriage, we can continue on in the two kingdoms doctrine acknowledging our brokenness, thereby using our own families as a witness to the value of marriage as God designed it. Or, and I'm not sure I'm ready to take this step, we can disobey the government (as with Acts 5:29 - "We must obey God rather than men.") and reclaim marriage on our own, likely calling it matrimony while altogether ignoring the government's newly created marriage. I'm not sure what kinds of legal recourse might stem from that. This bucks the two kingdoms doctrine, and I'm not sure I'm ready for it (thinking of what Paul wrote in Romans 13 when Christians were being openly persecuted by government figures, including the Roman emperor Nero, or also what Peter penned in 1 Peter 2:13-17). But, perhaps through the study of His Word in the months ahead, our leadership will come to the conclusion that that would be the faithful response.

Linda, please join me in praying for the Lord's church! God's blessings to you, sister!