# Marriage from a strictly Biblical point of veiw



## ModernPuritan?

something ive wondered... 

Before God, what constitutes marriage?
1) when she says yes?
2) consummation?
3) after a lengthy 4 hour ceremony?? 

I know there are various traditions and such..- the Orthodox Jewish weddings, the Christian weddings.

but scenarios!!

a) no physical witness, no pastor, etc.. the woman says yes- then they consummate. is this valid?
b) they state their intentions before a pastor and sign a family Bible. (only 3 physically present)

why does one get a hunting license? because to hunt without a license is against the law- hence a license gives permission for something that would otherwise be illegal- hunting, fishing, beer, food, business, etc.

so why marriage licenses? is getting married without the states permission illegal?

and wouldn't a family Bible hold up in a court of law as acceptable proof of marriage or something?


----------



## CatechumenPatrick

This is a very interesting question; particularly for me, because I've been engaged for at least a year (I go to school 500 miles away from my fiance, and her parents won't pay for her school if she get married and unless I can support her). I look forward to hearing some answers based on the Bible.


----------



## Mathetes

It really _is_ interesting...to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't give any information about how a marriage ceremony is to be conducted. Sometimes it gives details about the events surrounding a marriage, like with Ruth and Boaz, but not about the actual ceremony itself. And a post-exile Jewish wedding ceremony would've been very different from a 2nd century Christian wedding ceremony, which is different than our own wedding ceremonies.

In a way, that's good, because it's an instance where God lets our own creativity and customs come up with something that we think is special. But it's curious that even some basics (like having a pastor present) are absent.My guess would be that since it's a fairly straightforward affair that people have been doing right for centuries, the Lord didn't see the need spend time on that particular detail.


----------



## TimV

Marriage is a contract, so the answer is in the oath, not the sex. Adultery in the Bible is much broader than a sex act, as the WCF shows. It's a violation of an oath. That's why you have witnesses. There are rules for oaths (vows).


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Mathetes said:


> It really _is_ interesting...to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't give any information about how a marriage ceremony is to be conducted. Sometimes it gives details about the events surrounding a marriage, like with Ruth and Boaz, but not about the actual ceremony itself. And a post-exile Jewish wedding ceremony would've been very different from a 2nd century Christian wedding ceremony, which is different than our own wedding ceremonies.
> 
> In a way, that's good, because it's an instance where God lets our own creativity and customs come up with something that we think is special. But it's curious that even some basics (like having a pastor present) are absent.My guess would be that since it's a fairly straightforward affair that people have been doing right for centuries, the Lord didn't see the need spend time on that particular detail.



there is also the wedding feast at cana too.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

TimV said:


> Marriage is a contract, so the answer is in the oath, not the sex. Adultery in the Bible is much broader than a sex act, as the WCF shows. It's a violation of an oath. That's why you have witnesses. There are rules for oaths (vows).



okay, but elaborate further. 

assuming that the father of the bride has given permission to the man to propose

assuming the man proposes, the woman accepts. and they sign the family Bible infornt of another person. or the woman accepts infront of another person (inother words having a verifiable witness that she did accept)

would the contract be in full effect at the moment she says yes? meaning that relations would then be permissible and not sinful (fornication)

fyi to all. so we are clear im not promoting alternatives and such, but simply asking is the alternative acceptable before God.


----------



## Davidius

I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.



> Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.



He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.


----------



## Poimen

Davidius said:


> I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?


----------



## Barnpreacher

Poimen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?
Click to expand...


That's what Peter Ruckman and his sect of fundy independent Baptist's teach.


----------



## Poimen

According to OT law one is _betrothed _to their husband or wife to be (Deuteronomy 22; cf. Matthew 1:18) which includes the 'bride-price' (Exodus 22:15-16) paid to the father. This indicates a commitment on the part of the man, even a promise to leave his father and mother and cleave with his wife. And thus, by implication, we may speak of an oath to be taken on the part of the man if not the woman. 

Was not even Christ wedded to His bride by an oath? Psalm 2:7-8


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Poimen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?
Click to expand...


no i don't think so. Because a reasonable inferrance would be that there was a contract- proposal and acceptance of marriage. where as what you are suggesting would be without any contract. so the copulative acts are done outside a contract, and without any commitiment. 

hence a proposal of marriage is a proposal of a contract. and acceptance of proposal is acceptance of contract

again the giving and accepting of a contract would be the key that differentiates between proper spousal relations and fornication?


----------



## BertMulder

Tell me if I am wrong, but my feeling on this issue is, that as God also has given us the magistrate to regulate society, 

that the rules of the society (magistrate) in which one lives have much to do with what constitutes marriage. As well, of course, the rules of one's church.

Thus, Isaac, in the rules in existence at that time, properly married Rebecca. Same as the marriage between Jacob and Lea.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

BertMulder said:


> Tell me if I am wrong, but my feeling on this issue is, that as God also has given us the magistrate to regulate society,
> 
> that the rules of the society (magistrate) in which one lives have much to do with what constitutes marriage. As well, of course, the rules of one's church.
> 
> Thus, Isaac, in the rules in existence at that time, properly married Rebecca. Same as the marriage between Jacob and Lea.





if i sign a business license- im entering into agreement between me, and the state, thats fine

but if a husband and wife were to sign a marriage licenses- wouldn't that be a 3 way agreement (state, wife, husband) ?


----------



## Poimen

ModernPuritan? said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.
> 
> 
> 
> He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no i don't think so. Because a reasonable inferrance would be that there was a contract- proposal and acceptance of marriage. where as what you are suggesting would be without any contract. so the copulative acts are done outside a contract, and without any commitiment.
> 
> hence a proposal of marriage is a proposal of a contract. and acceptance of proposal is acceptance of contract
> 
> again the giving and accepting of a contract would be the key that differentiates between proper spousal relations and fornication?
Click to expand...


I didn't read the first post properly. You were asking what _constitutes_ a marriage not necessarily what makes up a proper approach to marriage. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

Poimen said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't think so. Because a reasonable inferrance would be that there was a contract- proposal and acceptance of marriage. where as what you are suggesting would be without any contract. so the copulative acts are done outside a contract, and without any commitiment.
> 
> hence a proposal of marriage is a proposal of a contract. and acceptance of proposal is acceptance of contract
> 
> again the giving and accepting of a contract would be the key that differentiates between proper spousal relations and fornication?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't read the first post properly. You were asking what _constitutes_ a marriage not necessarily what makes up a proper approach to marriage. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...


no problems!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

BertMulder said:


> Tell me if I am wrong, but my feeling on this issue is, that as God also has given us the magistrate to regulate society,
> 
> that the rules of the society (magistrate) in which one lives have much to do with what constitutes marriage. As well, of course, the rules of one's church.
> 
> Thus, Isaac, in the rules in existence at that time, properly married Rebecca. Same as the marriage between Jacob and Lea.



You make a good point, though I'm not sure I agree. I think Poimen is right on: it's when we promise, or make an oath, to marry that person. To me the state has no business determining who is or who is not legally married. I would be happy with the state not recognizing marriage at all - as some others have pointed out, in many ways a marriage license seems silly. But you do make a valid point that we should follow the state's laws concerning marriage. But God doesn't follow the state's definition of marriage, so in His eyes marriage no doubt begins with the promise.


----------



## Davidius

Poimen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for consummation since there are no prescribed forms for oaths or ceremonies. Isaac took Rebekah straight to the tent when she got back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He brought her into the tent, "took" her, and she became his wife. Ceremonies are nice aspects of culture but they aren't necessary to have a legitimate marriage in God's eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't, then, any copulative act between a man and a woman be looked upon as a 'marriage'?
Click to expand...


*shrug* I thought about that, but it looks like the problem is more Isaac's than mine. Maybe BertMulder is right and we should just do whatever our society does.


----------



## ServantOfKing

I considered this quite a bit before getting married also. To be in a state of marriage is to be in a covenant of sorts with one another where two people have made promises/ oaths to one another. The reason why any sexual act doesn't create a marriage is because there is not always the promise/ oath involved. 

Also, there is a change of authority involved. Sons leave their parents and cleave to their wives. Daughters are _given_ from the authority of their father to the authority of their husbands.


----------



## Bladestunner316

What about when Jesus tell's the woman at the well she has five(?) husbands? Is this not suggesting that the act of physical union is marriage in itself?


----------



## py3ak

Nathan, it would actually indicate the opposite, because Christ goes on to say, "and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband" (John 4:18). He did not treat "boarding together" as equivalent to a covenantal union.


----------



## Bladestunner316

Thank you


----------



## ModernPuritan?

so, now I think we would aggree that
1) marriage is a contract, that is accepted by the man and woman.
2) regardless of other circumstances that God knows.

however, the next question is.........(still Bible only)

1) does the state have to be involved for it to be acceptable to God? (I.e is a couple sinning if they refuse to sign a state marriage license?)
~ If it is a sin, if the couple has been married without the state, and has consummated it, are they guilty of fornication- relating to the state being involved?
[ FYI, im not advocating any particulars, simply a hypothetical investigation]


----------



## Grymir

You have to have the License in order to be married. (The Civil Magistrate). We only see the secularness of government today, but this was not always so. It has religious roots. The Pastor officiates it for the state in the eyes of God. When the Man of God says I now pronounce you husband and wife, that's when you are. And not until. Saying your committed, signing your Bibles, the sex act, none of these are even close to what a real marriage is.

"b) they state their intentions before a pastor and sign a family Bible. (only 3 physically present)" - any pastor who would do this isn't being a good overseer of God's flock. In days of old, you would have a real ceremony in church and the Pastor would do the ceremony. That counted because he was acting for the State. The church was almost the state and controlled marriages. And they had a much higher view of marriages than the shallowness that we see today.

Marriage is so much more than the piece of paper (license). Stating your intention before each other is what I did when I shacked up with someone. If you don't go the full route, a person cheapens marriage, and can't come to the full depths of what makes a marriage. Because it is a commitment to each other in the eyes of society and God.


----------



## Davidius

Grymir said:


> You have to have the License in order to be married. (The Civil Magistrate). We only see the secularness of government today, but this was not always so. It has religious roots. The Pastor officiates it for the state in the eyes of God. *When the Man of God says I now pronounce you husband and wife, that's when you are.* And not until. Saying your committed, signing your Bibles, the sex act, none of these are even close to what a real marriage is.
> 
> "b) they state their intentions before a pastor and sign a family Bible. (only 3 physically present)" - any pastor who would do this isn't being a good overseer of God's flock. In days of old, you would have a real ceremony in church and the Pastor would do the ceremony. That counted because he was acting for the State. The church was almost the state and controlled marriages. And they had a much higher view of marriages than the shallowness that we see today.
> 
> Marriage is so much more than the piece of paper (license). Stating your intention before each other is what I did when I shacked up with someone. If you don't go the full route, a person cheapens marriage, and can't come to the full depths of what makes a marriage. Because it is a commitment to each other in the eyes of society and God.



Uh...would you care to support any of that (literally, like even one sentence, but particularly the bolded one) with scripture?


----------



## TimV

> What about when Jesus tell's the woman at the well she has five(?) husbands? Is this not suggesting that the act of physical union is marriage in itself?



As Reuben said, that story is rather proof that sleeping together doesn't have anything to do with the validity of marriage.


----------



## Davidius

TimV said:


> What about when Jesus tell's the woman at the well she has five(?) husbands? Is this not suggesting that the act of physical union is marriage in itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Reuben said, that story is rather proof that sleeping together doesn't have anything to do with the validity of marriage.
Click to expand...


Oh come on, now you're just being hyperbolous (I made that word up). Surely you don't mean that consummation has _nothing_ to do with the validity of marriage.


----------



## TimV

No, think about the passage. The one you are living with is not your husband.

The lack of consummation or subsequent lack of marriage rights can arguably used as a case for breach of contract, but that's all. A couple gets married, on the way to the motel there's a car accident. One of the parties can't consummate. So what then?


----------



## Grymir

The institution of marriage is found in all cultures and societies at all times in history. However, the definition of when marriage occurs varies from place to place and changes in history. By the standards of early medieval Europe the great majority of American marriages would be considered invalid given the absence of a dowry for the wife from the husband's family. With the development of the Roman Catholic idea of marriage as a sacrament, consecration by a priest became the defining point at which husband and wife were married. Unconsecrated marriage was recognized in certain cases, especially among the poor. (The ancient church did not view marriage as a sacrament.) In America the Puritans were the first to establish the current definition of the point at which the couple are married: issuance of a license by the civil authority signed by one of those given this power by the state, that is, the justice of the peace, minister, or ship's captain that heard the mutual consent of the bride and groom. Of course, a variety of ceremonies "solemnize" marriage.

To do anything less would be to disobey the Civil Magistrate, which is sin. 

The roots for marriage are in the OT. Of course you know that the bolded passages will not be found in the Bible per se, but I trace the development above. Just reading this thread and the things people are putting forth other than a Real Marriage sound like the things I said to my shack ups. Now that I'm married, I realize how stupid I was. God will not honor anything less than the real deal. And not all 'marriages' that the state recognizes are marriages in the eyes of God either, so it goes both ways.

God Bless - Grymir


----------



## Wannabee

Davidius said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about when Jesus tell's the woman at the well she has five(?) husbands? Is this not suggesting that the act of physical union is marriage in itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Reuben said, that story is rather proof that sleeping together doesn't have anything to do with the validity of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, now you're just being hyperbolous (I made that word up). Surely you don't mean that consummation has _nothing_ to do with the validity of marriage.
Click to expand...


Exod 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.​
Deuteronomy would seem to support both - that either consummation or a vow constitute valid marriage.

Deuteronomy 22:23-29
23“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 
25“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. 
28“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.​

Also consider the fact that engagement is considered a contract. If a woman backs out of her agreement then she has to, by law, return the engagement ring.


> In some states of the United States, engagement rings are considered "conditional gifts" under the legal rules of property. This is an exception to the general rule that gifts cannot be revoked once properly given. See, for example, the case of Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), whose ruling found the following reasoning persuasive: "the so-called 'modern trend' holds that because an engagement ring is an inherently conditional gift, once the engagement has been broken, the ring should be returned to the donor. Thus, the question of who broke the engagement and why, or who was 'at fault,' is irrelevant. This is the no-fault line of cases."



And I thought that Jewish culture made it clear that betrothal was the same as being married. Consider Matthew 1:18-25. Mary is clearly betrothed to Joseph (18). He didn't want to make her a public example (19, cf Deut 24:1). The angel said, "Do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife," not "Mary to be you wife" (20). Joseph "took to him his wife, and did not know her..." (24-25). 

All of these together would seem to indicate that each of these three, 1) "knowing" a woman, 2) engagement and the 3) ceremony would individually constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of God. However, only number 1 and 2 are really concerns because number three is almost impossible without number 2.


----------



## TimV

> Exod 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.





> All of these together would seem to indicate that each of these three, 1) "knowing" a woman, 2) engagement and the 3) ceremony would individually constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of God.



No, it's just more proof that sex wasn't a factor. Read the above verse again, and you will see that she isn't his wife until he pays the bride price.


----------



## Wannabee

TimV said:


> Exod 22:16 “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of these together would seem to indicate that each of these three, 1) "knowing" a woman, 2) engagement and the 3) ceremony would individually constitute a valid marriage in the eyes of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's just more proof that sex wasn't a factor. Read the above verse again, and you will see that she isn't his wife until he pays the bride price.
Click to expand...


It seems you are correct. I remembered this verse, but the following verse shows that they were not yet considered married. My bad.

Exodus 22:17
17If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.​
Ergo, the promise made constitutes a valid marriage. Thanks for catching that. It makes it clearer in my mind now. It also affirms the headship of the father.


----------



## JohnOwen007

The Bible teaches clearly:

[1] Marriage is a *covenant* (Mal. 2:14 etc.). Hence, it is a formal contract between two parties an unmarried man and unmarried woman (who aren't closely related).

[2] The blueprint for this is found in Gen. 2:24 in which a man *leaves* his father and mother and is *united *(Heb. glued / cemented) to his wife. Hence, here were have a *public* leaving from previous families and then a cleaving together in a new union.

So it is a covenant + public leaving. Most cultures will have their way of performing this, and its optimal to follow those so that people see two people publicly leaving their previous families to begin a new union.

If you're on a desert island with the woman of your dreams ... then do it in a way that respects the biblical principles. But how did you end up on a desert island with the woman of your dreams in the 1st place?

The Roman Catholic idea that sex consummates marriage is fallacious. Sex is to be enjoyed once there is the security of a covenant between the two people. People who live together are not married, because there is no contract / covenant between them. _Defacto_ relationships are causing our country no end of problems societally.

Every blessing.


----------



## ModernPuritan?

JohnOwen007 said:


> The Bible teaches clearly:
> 
> [1] Marriage is a *covenant* (Mal. 2:14 etc.). Hence, it is a formal contract between two parties an unmarried man and unmarried woman (who aren't closely related).
> 
> [2] The blueprint for this is found in Gen. 2:24 in which a man *leaves* his father and mother and is *united *(Heb. glued / cemented) to his wife. Hence, here were have a *public* leaving from previous families and then a cleaving together in a new union.
> 
> So it is a covenant + public leaving. Most cultures will have their way of performing this, and its optimal to follow those so that people see two people publicly leaving their previous families to begin a new union.
> 
> If you're on a desert island with the woman of your dreams ... then do it in a way that respects the biblical principles. But how did you end up on a desert island with the woman of your dreams in the 1st place?
> 
> The Roman Catholic idea that sex consummates marriage is fallacious. Sex is to be enjoyed once there is the security of a covenant between the two people. People who live together are not married, because there is no contract / covenant between them. _Defacto_ relationships are causing our country no end of problems societally.
> 
> Every blessing.



okay, so now the last thing to be hammered out..

so the happy couple meets the things you mentioned- covenant and public leaving- assuming some sort of ceremony. now.

need the state be involved? signing a marriage license (with 3 parties involved- state-husband-wife)? or can they get married in a church, skip the license and become a happy couple???


----------



## DMcFadden

Man, I thought a marriage was finally real when the dad takes out an equity loan on his house that he will be paying for until he is 83 (oops, am I whining again?) in order to pay for the daughter's wedding and receptions(s)!

in my opinion, our brother from down under came the closest.

1. More than a mere contract, marriage in the eyes of God is covenantal. The pattern of Gen 2:24 suggests that it is to be exclusive (leave), enduring (unite), and engrafted (becoming one flesh).

2. Biblically, God makes himself a witness to the marriage, regardless of the particular local customs (Mal 2:14). Even here in the U.S. we have considerable diversity of local practice in terms of what makes a marriage "legal." Some municipalities require the officiant to be "registered." A few require only a modest fee for the license, others a larger one. But, regardless of the particular legalities and specific customary requirements, because of the Lord's role as a witness to marriages, Jesus proclaims: "What God has joined . . ." We simply do not have the permission to decouple marriage from the biblical meaning of it as a covenantal union which God has "joined."

3. The issue of obedience to the magistrate is an interesting point. I know of sr. citizens who have remarried after having been widows/ers. Yet, under current social security regs, they did not want to suffer a reduction of benefits. So, they were married by a (consenting!) pastor in a church setting in front of hundreds of guests. They "simply" never plan to complete the paperwork. From the state's standpoint, they are merely co-habiting. That is something I do not believe is right or that should be accepted, merely noting that it occurs in some church circles.

4. With the shifting definitions of marriage in our culture (e.g., greater openness to same-sex unions), some have suggested that in the future Christians will handle marriage as an ecclesiastical issue, somewhat separate from whatever the state elects to do. Why be "married" in the U.S. if it includes that which the Bible specifically proscribes as unlawful?


----------

