# What makes a lawful marriage in God's eyes?



## Jie-Huli

Could anyone direct me to any articles or sermons that deal with the question of what makes a lawful marriage in God's eyes?

I am thinking specifically of the components of the marriage event itself. What things specifically must a young couple do to become joined in wedded matrimony in God's eyes?


----------



## Pergamum

How does culture play into this as well? 

In many tribal cultures, merely a moving in together and a few words is all that occurs when couples begin life together and having families together. They are often thus joined for life. 

It would appear that, marriage being a creation ordinance, that these tribal couples are not committing adultery but are fully married in the eyes of God - owing to their intentions and the carrying out of culturally-appropriate actions in their tribal context.


I would even assert that the presence of a "religious figure" is not even necessary.


----------



## BrianBowman

... it seems like if the "legality" of marriage can be established by "culturally-appropriate" actions then many, most, or all of the folks in America who are "shacking up" could be construed as being "married". In fact, I think the "common Law" provisions in many USA States recognize that after N years of living together a couple is indeed "married". Should they part ways, this "Common Law marriage status" subjects them to the equitable property distribution laws afforded by the State's divorce laws.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, the common-law marriage laws in our land recognize this. 

At what point that shacking up becomes a true marriage and thus no longer adultery I am not sure - especially since marriage by a religious figure or civil magistrate IS the culturally appropriate means in our culture still (at least for now). 

Where there is no preacher or judge, however, more flexibility in the definition of what initiates marriage seems appropriate.


All those Gentiles in Paul's day had their own cultural ways of marrying and it seems that they were recognized as married, despite never having been married by a Christian pastor (or maybe not even a Greek judge or magistrate..I am not sure).


----------



## Jie-Huli

Interesting observations.

I do find the "culturally appropriate" standard to be somewhat difficult to apply however. Is there no absolute standard of what fornication is? If a society has so far abandoned the institution of marriage such that it is culturally acceptable for individuals to cohabit without any sort of marriage covenant whatsoever, then are such individuals in that society not living in fornication? (Obviously if they separated and found new "mates" that would be adultery under any circumstances, but assuming they did not separate and stayed with one another throughout life, would they be "married" in the moral sense without having made any marriage vows?) 

I tend to believe that a marriage necessarily requires, at the very least, a public proclamation of entering into a marriage covenant. And for people who are already Christians, this should necessarily be undertaken in the Church.

The Bible does not regard marriages undertaken by believers outside the Church to be invalid, that is true, but at the least it would seem that all marriages in the Bible involved publicly entering into a covenant to be joined for life.

So if this public covenant is not undertaken, there has not been a marriage, and any intimate relations would be fornication until such a public covenant is undertaken, correct?

Any private vows made between two individuals, without the public proclamation, could not create a moral marriage, correct?


----------



## Richard King

in the strictest sense couldn't it be when the two become one physically?


----------



## Scott Bushey

One needs to distinguish between the believer and unbeliever here to begin with.

More here on the _Common Law_:

http://www.unmarried.org/common.html

I'll add: Trevor, I don't know if 'shacking up' can be considered 'adultery' as one of the two would need to have been previously married, and according to the link I posted, if the state allowed for common law unions, they would not _even_ be living in sin at that point if they followed the governmental guidelines mandated for their states; otherwise, they would be having _illicit_ sex outside of marriage and in sin (in that regard), not actaully adultery.

For the believer, God acknolwdeges their union at the wedding ceremony and consumation. The unbeliever is at emnity w/ God and neither his CL union or typical ceremony received unless Christ mediates.



[Edited on 1-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> in the strictest sense couldn't it be when the two become one physically?



If this were the way people become married, would that mean that two young people who have intimate relations for the first time, without any prior wedding, are then simply married in the eyes of God, rather than having committed fornication?


----------



## satz

> For the believer, God acknolwdeges their union at the wedding ceremony and consumation. The unbeliever is at emnity w/ God and neither his CL union or typical ceremony received unless Christ mediates.



Scott,

Doesn't this mean it would be impossible for unbelievers to get married in God's sight?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> 
> For the believer, God acknolwdeges their union at the wedding ceremony and consumation. The unbeliever is at emnity w/ God and neither his CL union or typical ceremony received unless Christ mediates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Doesn't this mean it would be impossible for unbelievers to get married in God's sight?
Click to expand...


Is their marriage _in Christ_? Who is their father. What are they slaves to? Can someone have the father and not the Son? In this case, their marriage is NOT in Gods sight per se; Acknowledging Gods omniscience, and acknowledging the compound senses of Gods command, it is there that it is _in_ His sight. Otherwise, is is an abomination without Christ as mediator.

[Edited on 1-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Pergamum

Scott:

Yep, you're right - I got my fornication and my adultery mixed up (not a bad thing to be ignorant of I guess).

Sex before marriage doesn't make one married in the eyes of God - merely a fornicator. The two become one flesh through marriage, though sex seems to do this, but with sex there is no covenant or agreement to abide together.

Jie-Huli: A good point on public proclamation versus a private agreement. I would say that you are right, except for that some tribal peoples "marry" in private and, some time later (once everyody else notices) they are then considered married. To be consistent with my own position, I would have to say that this public versus private issue is also culturally determined. It seems that marriage is a covenant between two people to abide together for life. 

Although by this simple definition, then gay marriage is permitted but polygamy (a form of marriage, though irregular, that still constitutes a marriage once entered into) is not permitted. 

Perhaps my definition should be altered to: A covenant between two or more people of the opposite gender to live together for the rest of their lives (and includes the exchange of sexual relations and often the mutuality of goods).


The Bible's definition seems to be that it is a creation ordinance whereby one man and one women become one flesh and leave father and mother. Even with this; how much can be lacking for a valid marriage? Many young marrieds live with their parents...but they are still married. The OT patriarchs married multiple wives; but these were still valid marriages (as opposed to all being concubines).

Jie-Huli, your post really opened a can of worms. I am having trouble nailing the jello to the wall (sorry for the mixed metaphors).


----------



## brymaes

> Is their marriage in Christ? Who is their father. What are they slaves to? Can someone have the father and not the Son? In this case, their marriage is NOT in Gods sight per se; Acknowledging Gods omniscience, and acknowledging the compound senses of Gods command, it is there that it is in His sight. Otherwise, is is an abomination without Christ as mediator.



Is the unbelieving married couple constantly committing fornication then?


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> Is the unbelieving married couple constantly committing fornication then?



Good point. I don't remember anything in Scripture that directly stated or would imply that 'pagans' that are in a monogomous marriage are commiting fornication.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> 
> 
> 
> Is their marriage in Christ? Who is their father. What are they slaves to? Can someone have the father and not the Son? In this case, their marriage is NOT in Gods sight per se; Acknowledging Gods omniscience, and acknowledging the compound senses of Gods command, it is there that it is in His sight. Otherwise, is is an abomination without Christ as mediator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the unbelieving married couple constantly committing fornication then?
Click to expand...


Worse; They are perishing and at full emnity with God! In the compund sense, God does not even see them. For Him to see them, Christ would need to be mediating. In the divided sense, He see's everything. In the divided sense, their marriage is civil and hence not fornicating. In the compound, their marriage is blasphemous, as is everything else they try and bring to Him.

The original question was "....in Gods eye's?" 

[Edited on 1-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## brymaes

> Worse; They are perishing and at full emnity with God! In the compund sense, God does not even see them. For Him to see them, Christ would need to be mediating. In the divided sense, He see's everything. In the divided sense, their marriage is civil and hence not fornicating. In the compound, their marriage is blasphemous, as is everything else they try and bring to Him.
> 
> The original question was "....in Gods eye's?"



WCF 24


> III. *It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.*(e) Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lordf) and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.(g)
> 
> (e) Heb. 13:4; I Tim. 4:3; I Cor. 7:36, 37, 38; Gen. 24:57, 58.
> (f) I Cor. 7:39.
> (g) Gen. 34:14; Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3, 4; I Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:25, 26, 27; Mal. 2:11, 12; II Cor. 6:14.



I took "in God's eyes" to mean a biblically lawful marriage. Is this the sense in which the phrase was intended? Or am I off base?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Marriage is the lawful union of husband and wife. Marriage is a creation ordinance, applicable and honourable in all, not just in Christians. As the Westminster Directory of Publick Worship teaches:



> *ALTHOUGH marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth*; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.



However, not every union recognized by civil authorities is considered marriage in the eyes of God. The sodomite "marriages" that are gaining traction in our society are not marriages, despite what those who seek to frame mischief by a law might say (Ps. 94.20).

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 24:



> Of Marriage and Divorce.
> 
> I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband; at the same time.(a)
> 
> (a) Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5, 6; Prov. 2:17.
> 
> II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,(b) for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed;(c) and for preventing of uncleanness.(d)
> 
> (b) Gen. 2:18.
> (c) Mal. 2:15.
> (d) I Cor. 7:2, 9.
> 
> III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.(e) Yet is it the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord: (f) and therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.(g)
> 
> (e) Heb. 13:4; I Tim. 4:3; I Cor. 7:36, 37, 38; Gen. 24:57, 58.
> (f) I Cor. 7:39.
> (g) Gen. 34:14; Exod. 34:16; Deut. 7:3, 4; I Kings 11:4; Neh. 13:25, 26, 27; Mal. 2:11, 12; II Cor. 6:14.
> 
> IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word;(h) *nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.(i)* The man may not marry any of his wife's kindred nearer in blood than he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband's kindred nearer in blood than of her own.(k)
> 
> (h) Lev. 18 ch.; I Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7.
> *(i) Mark 6:18; Lev. 18:24, 25, 26, 27, 28.*
> (k) Lev. 20:19, 20, 21.



Jesus said to the woman at the well:



> Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4.16-18)


----------



## brymaes

> Marriage is the lawful union of husband and wife. Marriage is a creation ordinance, applicable and honourable in all, not just in Christians.



That's what I was getting at!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by SharperSword_
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is the lawful union of husband and wife. Marriage is a creation ordinance, applicable and honourable in all, not just in Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was getting at!
Click to expand...


 Another helpful source for considering what constitutes a valid marriage may be found here:



> _Originally quoted by VirginiaHuguenot:_
> E.L. Hebden Taylor, _The Reformational Understanding of Family and Marriage_, pp. 8-9, 14:
> 
> Luther denied that marriage was a sacrament and said that two conditions must be present for a sacrament: it must have been specifically instituted by Christ and must be distinctively Christian. Marriage does not qualify in either respect. Luther also taught that marriage is part of the natural order and *hence it cannot be included in the sacramental system of the Church and that a religious service is not necessary for a valid marriage.*
> 
> A great attempt was made by the Puritans to continue the work of the reformation of family and marriage begun by Luther and Calvin. *Thus they tried to establish it upon a civil rather than religious basis by passing an Act of Parliament in 1644 which asserted that 'marriage to be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God but common to mankind and of public interest to every commonwealth.' The Act added, 'notwithstanding, that it was expedient that marriage should be solemnized by a lawful minister of the Word.' A more radical Act in 1653 swept away this provision and made marriage purely a civil matter to be performed by the Justice of the Peace*, the age of consent for man was established at sixteen years, and for a woman at fourteen.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Let me clearify: If I was ordained and able to perform a marriage ceremony, since marriage is a creationary covenant and since the unregenerate couldn't care less about God and His law, I would refrain from marrying or performing _civil_ ceremonies. They mislead the participants and in my opinion undermine my ministry. I would pass. I would suggest someone else or a _justice of the peace_. 

Godly things and the unregenerate are contradictions. To try and force the two frameworks are like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. 

The WCF ch 24 calls this "all sorts of people" as: infidels, papists, or other idolaters. What can these types bring unto our Holy God. Their marriage does not please Him nor displease; every iota of their being is tainted and they are perishing; thats all God see's. he does not _see_ their marriage in any other way (outside of the compound).


----------



## Pergamum

Scott:

What if they lack other means of getting married (i.e. pagans on the mission field, etc). If they showed no signs of regeneration and yet desired to get married so as not to live together in sin, would you relent and marry them? It would at least be removing their fornication.

I am torn on the issue. Under any circumstances would you marry unbelievers? And if so, what are those conditions?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Scott:
> 
> What if they lack other means of getting married (i.e. pagans on the mission field, etc). If they showed no signs of regeneration and yet desired to get married so as not to live together in sin, would you relent and marry them? It would at least be removing their fornication.
> 
> I am torn on the issue. Under any circumstances would you marry unbelievers? And if so, what are those conditions?



Trevor,
Could you marry them and bless them in the name of the father son and HS? Most unregenerates want that in their weddings; could you do that in right conscience? 

Also, I don't really understand wiping the pigs face as an excuse; he still is a pig!


----------



## mgeoffriau

Consider also that while marriage was indeed intended for all mankind, not just the church of God, it was also given with the purpose of illustrating the relationship of God and His church.

Can unbelievers be married? Of course. But ultimately it remains a marriage that is in rebellion towards God's true intent for marriage.

I find it no different than any other good thing: unbelievers can do good acts, when you consider those acts in relation to other possibilities, but ultimately they must be considered bad acts because of the rebellious heart from which they are done.

Example: it is a better thing for a mother to love her children than it is to hate them, but ultimately even the loving mother is incapable of really being what God intended mothers to be.


----------



## satz

It is certainly true that everything the wicked do is ultimately a sin in God's sight (prov 21:4). Yet it is better for them to avoid the gross outward acts of sin, and if christians can help to reduce these outward acts i do believe that is a good work in God's sight.

Didn't even Ahab receive some mercy for his imperfect repentence?

It is better for unbelievers to marry rather than fornicate. Why shouldn't christians encourage them to marry or even officate over their marriages if in ministrial positions? As Scott noted above it might not be appropriate to give them some of the christian elements of a wedding between believers, but that wouldn't change the general principle.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I believe the Puritans did not have their ministers officiate weddings at all, instead it was the civil magistrates job. Guess that solved the "who does the minister marry and who does he refuse" situation.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by satz_
> It is certainly true that everything the wicked do is ultimately a sin in God's sight (prov 21:4). Yet it is better for them to avoid the gross outward acts of sin, and if christians can help to reduce these outward acts i do believe that is a good work in God's sight.
> 
> Didn't even Ahab receive some mercy for his imperfect repentence?
> 
> It is better for unbelievers to marry rather than fornicate. Why shouldn't christians encourage them to marry or even officate over their marriages if in ministrial positions? As Scott noted above it might not be appropriate to give them some of the christian elements of a wedding between believers, but that wouldn't change the general principle.



I am not against marriage. The inital queastion is how does God _view_ lawful marriages. The unregenerate are _lawless_.


----------



## gwine

For what it's worth my pastor, of the OPC, would marry two unbelievers, but not in our church. They would need to find another church or a park to be married in. He would not marry a believer and an unbeliever, though.

However, he would ask them (the two unbelievers) why they wished to be married by a minister, and he would share the gospel with them as part of his pre-marital counseling.

Don't know how such a ceremony would go, though.


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I believe the Puritans did not have their ministers officiate weddings at all, instead it was the civil magistrates job. Guess that solved the "who does the minister marry and who does he refuse" situation.



If true, that is interesting. I know that the Protestant Church rejected marriage as a _sacrament_, but did the Puritans attach no religious significance to the marriage ceremony itself?

I wonder if this practise is in part due to the fact that the civil authorities at that time were themselves operating on more Scriptural standards? I wonder if the Puritans would take the same view today?

At any rate, to the extent that view is the Biblical one, it would seem that the Biblical requirements for a valid marriage ceremony are minimal. So does that mean that it is truly the man and woman being joined physically which makes them married, morally speaking? What does this mean to the definition of fornication? For example, if a man and woman, before being converted, had intimate relations with one another, but never with any others, and then subsequently took whatever steps are required in the society to be officially married, can we say that fornication has been committed?


----------



## LadyFlynt

No, it was because they held it as a creation order and thus civil. It was needful for society, believer or not. They even felt it was more important that one be in a family situation than I believe their concern over whether the partner was a believer or not. In fact, if a bachelor was not able or refused to set up a house with a wife or servants, then he was forced to live with another family. They didn't approve of "singles on the loose" so to speak. (according to Edward Morgan's "The Puritan Family")


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pro 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.

Charles Bridges writes:

How can the plowing of the soil, in itself a duty, become a sin? The motive determines the act. The most natural actions are inculcated for Christian ends. They become therefore moral actions, good or bad according to their own motives. The man who plows the soil, acknowledging God in his work, and seeking his strength and blessing, does it acceptably to the glory of God. It is essentially a religious action. But the wicked who does the same work, without regard to God for want of a godly end, his plowing is sin. 

The substance of his act is good. But the corrupt principle defiles the very best actions. 

If the fountain head be bitter how can the waters be pure? (the unregenerate) Whether he prays or neglects to pray, it is an abomination. 

Proverbs
Charles Bridges
Pg 368


----------



## Pergamum

If marriage was held to be part of civil law due to being a creation ordinance - this certainly also calls for civil fines for sabbath breaking and the civil sword for sabbth breakers. Is my logic consistent here?


----------



## Jie-Huli

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Pro 21:4 An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
> 
> Charles Bridges writes:
> 
> How can the plowing of the soil, in itself a duty, become a sin? The motive determines the act. The most natural actions are inculcated for Christian ends. They become therefore moral actions, good or bad according to their own motives. The man who plows the soil, acknowledging God in his work, and seeking his strength and blessing, does it acceptably to the glory of God. It is essentially a religious action. But the wicked who does the same work, without regard to God for want of a godly end, his plowing is sin.
> 
> The substance of his act is good. But the corrupt principle defiles the very best actions.
> 
> If the fountain head be bitter how can the waters be pure? (the unregenerate) Whether he prays or neglects to pray, it is an abomination.
> 
> Proverbs
> Charles Bridges
> Pg 368



I understand your meaning, and I agree. Even the things the unregenerate do which are lawful in themselves are surely not pleasing to God, insofar as all the motives of unregenerate man's heart are wicked and vile.

Still, it would seem clear that the Scriptures regard marriages of individuals who were married before conversion as lawful marriages, and do not view them as having lived in fornication until their conversion. So it would seem that Biblially lawful marriage may take place prior to conversion to Christ, notwithstanding the fact that marriage in its fulness is only found among Christians.

Just a quick follow-up question for anyone on the board who might be pleased to answer:

I believer that almost everyone here (including me) would regard any sort of intimate relations before a marriage ceremony to be fornication. Yet if the marriage ceremony itself is not a religious institution, and if there are few Biblical regulations defining what such a marriage ceremony should entail, what evidence can we use to refute those who say that it is the first act of physical joining itself which makes a man and a woman Biblically married?

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> If marriage was held to be part of civil law due to being a creation ordinance - this certainly also calls for civil fines for sabbath breaking and the civil sword for sabbth breakers. Is my logic consistent here?



They had fines for sabbath breaking as well.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> No, it was because they held it as a creation order and thus civil....


Would you give some more explanation of what makes it a "creation order"? I'm suspicious of the authority of the State to regulate and license marriage, which I've always considered a Church function. This is very interesting to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


----------

