Marriage from a strictly Biblical point of veiw

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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???
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top