What constitutes a biblical marriage?

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Where is the one opinion saying she hadn't been married?


This is an assumption placed on the text: "Jesus says to her, 'Correctly you have spoken "A ἀνήρ I have not" for five ἀνδρός have you had, and he whom you now have is not your ἀνήρ.'" If you think she has been married/divorced 5 times you then translate ἀνήρ / ἀνδρός as husband/husbands (and that may be the predominate interpretation). But it could also be translated man/men.

Consider passages such as Mark 10 - which is talking specifically about marriage: "Then the Pharisees came and asked him, if it were lawful for ἀνδρὶ to put away his wife, and tempted him....And if a woman put away her ἄνδρα, and be married to another, she commiteth adultery." (vv.2,12). Some translations like the KJV and NAS translate it "man" in v.2 and "husband" in v.12. In Matthew 1.16 these same translations translate this word as "husband" in reference to Joseph as the "husband of Mary" but in Luke 1.27 they translate the same word "man" when they refer to the "man whose name was Joseph." Was Joseph her husband or her man? Scripture is clear they were not married and that no marriage had been consummated (Matt. 1.18, Luke 1.34 & 2.5).

We cannot assume what have become cultural norms in our societies (and churches) regarding marriage back into these texts (we cannot even assume Jewish legal norms in John 4 as Jesus is interacting with a Samaritan).

The words for marry/married/marriage are not used in John 4 - saying she had been married 5 times is an interpretation. Jesus does not say she had been married multiple times - he says she has had 5 husbands or 5 men (and He is not teaching about marriage here so is it profitable to be dogmatic about one specific interpretation in this discussion?). For what it's worth, I do believe she was married 5 times prior, but I believe such an interpretation is derived from other Scripture defining marriage, not from John's text standing alone.

I don't really think that "'A MAN I have not' for five MEN have you had, and he whom you now have is not your MAN" is a tenable alternative.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I appreciate the concern - I'm trying not to quibble or be disingenuous.

...the Jewish world didn't countenance shacking up, but it did happen... but that didn't make them married.

Actually, it required them to formalize the marriage: "If a man find a maid that is not betrothed, and take her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her, shall give unto the maid’s father fifty shekels of silver: and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her: he can not put her away all his life." (Deut.22-28-29)

Similarly, you cherry pick some verses and leave out others, such as Matt 1:19 which calls Joseph "her husband" and notes that (although no consummation) divorce would've been necessary)... and then v.24 says he "took his wife" but (v.25) didn't consummate until many months later.

I'm also certainly not cherry-picking - I didn't, for example, think I had to quote Matt.1.19 which calls Joseph "husband" when I had just quoted Matt.1.16 which calls Joseph "husband":

In Matthew 1.16 these same translations translate this word as "husband" in reference to Joseph as the "husband of Mary"

Look at the linguistic absurdity you introduce into John 4 to suggest that marriage isn't "necessarily" in view

Maybe you missed it when I said:

For what it's worth, I do believe she was married 5 times prior...

What is it exactly that you're trying to justify?

I'm not trying to justify anything - I'm trying to figure out why people turn to John 4 to define marriage when (as I've now said several times) it is not a passage where Christ is teaching about marriage.

If I am the "one opinion" being referred to in the OP and elsewhere, then what I originally stated in the thread referenced in the OP is being misconstrued. I was trying to pretty careful to not be dogmatic - I was in fact intending to ward off such an approach to this topic. I'll refrain from any further comments on the topic rather than be viewed as being a disingenuous quibbler and taking this thread off course. I think the OP has asked good questions and I don't really see them being answered.

 

[MW]

I think my main question would be, for those who, like me, do not see living together as a biblical marriage, what route does one take to guide them toward thinking biblically about marriage?

I'm reluctant to get involved because of time constraints and this is an intricate subject. My only concern is to clarify what one means by "biblical." The Bible addresses a number of situations related to marriage that "stretch the rules," so to speak, because the situation itself is not ideal. Are these "biblical?" Will the exceptions become the rule? Or does one mean that the Bible sets certain norms and standards with regard to marriage? In this latter sense of the word "biblical" I think there are very clear directions that we should follow as we seek to please God, especially in light of the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, as a creation ordinance, we also have to recognise the role of society and government. So it may be that we end up with two different notions of marriage -- one that is ideal and one that is less than ideal -- one that follows the norms of Scripture and another that recognises the "bare bones" of what it means to be married because society doesn't always respect God's ways. Even in this less than ideal view we must still feel ourselves constrained to reject anything that doesn't enter into the biblical definition of one man and one woman for life.

So far as the church and her membership is concerned, there is no reason why the standards and norms of God's word should not be implemented as a part of the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" within a covenantal context. And in that respect I would say that we should press the three Cs -- ceremony, covenant, and consummation. Or, in biblical language, leaving, cleaving, and becoming one flesh.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The point of John 4 is not marriage. But in his soul-hunting mission, Jesus pricks the woman's conscience by poking her directly where she smarts - the matter of her husband. Jesus reveals thorough knowledge of her intimate life - obviously a source of shame even in her Samaritan context, leading to her ostracism. She has been married 5 times and is now shacking up with a 6th man. Anyone who says Jesus is saying otherwise is not to be taken seriously.

Jesus isn't teaching us about marriage, per se. But his statement does illustrate some basic points about marriage. For what matters here: (1) cohabitating and/or copulating do not constitute being married, (2) whether or not a couple is viewed as married is not left to the subjective private judgment of that couple, but to the community.

 

[Andrew35]

The garden is utterly unique… for instance, we speak spiritually about God bringing people together… In the garden God literally did. So since God literally brought them together, he was the social context.

But for everyone else acknowledgment by the human social context its required for the two to be viewed as a married. Consummation is normal and ordinary, and to be expected… But it’s not absolutely required. It is possible for two people to get married, who are to put it delicately, perhaps physically incapable of having sex.

Mostly agree, although I have thought of hypothetical situations where, e.g., an eligible man and woman are marooned on a desert island with little hope of rescue. Are they then barred from legitimate marriage due to no human society? I think essentially they become the de facto representative human social context themselves. Although vows calling on the witness of God or, should they not be believers, at minimum, heaven and earth as witness would be appropriate.

Not something that comes up often, naturally, but an interesting thought experiment.

But yes, generally what we individualized, modernized Westerners tend to forget is that marriage is a societal event with society's interests in play, and that fact as well as all its implications in the current society must be navigated.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I'd suggest that it's not a two-way street: The church may rightly refuse to acknowledge two men as married, despite the State saying they are... but the church may not say two people ARE married when the State says they are not. Convince me otherwise.

 

[Andrew35]

I'd suggest that it's not a two-way street: The church may rightly refuse to acknowledge two men as married, despite the State saying they are... but the church may not say two people ARE married when the State says they are not. Convince me otherwise.

Hmm... so what about in a state where interracial marriage is banned and a pastor agrees to perform the marriage? Legit or no?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hmm... so what about in a state where interracial marriage is banned and a pastor agrees to perform the marriage? Legit or no?

This would be an example of a legitimate authority (the State) acting perhaps inappropriately (restricting marriage on the basis of race).

Trying to say that marriage may be what marriage can not be (i.e., two men) is of a different class than simply regulating which man and woman may be permitted to marry.

Many states permit a minister to officiate, but then it is in conformity to state law. There is no inherent power to unite a man and woman as husband and wife that must then be accepted by the State. But even if the minister were to conduct a ceremony where prohibited, they aren't married because the state has restricted it and so the church would simply be play acting.

Again, as frustrating as it may be: we must not confuse spheres of government and that which is in the proper domain of each sphere. Marriage is a creational ordinance regulated by the state. The church, in her prophetic role, may call the State to be faithful in its regulation of marriage, but ultimately, it must be remembered that it is the State, not the church, who regulates marriage.

 

[Andrew35]

This would be an example of a legitimate authority (the State) acting perhaps inappropriately (restricting marriage on the basis of race). Many states permit a minister to officiate, but then it is in conformity to state law. There is no inherent power to unite a man and woman as husband and wife that must then be accepted by the State. But even if the minister were to conduct a ceremony where prohibited, they aren't married because the state has restricted it and so the church would simply be play acting.

However, I'm assuming, should the couple visit a neighboring state where the marriage is considered legitimate and had the ceremony performed there, they would be married, even should they move back to the state that rejects the marriage. They wouldn't be considered unmarried, right? Or should they be counseled to leave because, in this state, they are living in sin--I mean morally, not just in terms of reputation?

This brings up all kinds of interesting questions and implications.

 

[SolaScriptura]

However, I'm assuming, should the couple visit a neighboring state where the marriage is considered legitimate and had the ceremony performed there, they would be married, even should they move back to the state that rejects the marriage. They wouldn't be considered unmarried, right? Or should they be counseled to leave because, in this state, they are living in sin?

This brings up all kinds of interesting questions and implications.

You have too much time on your hands... you should come on over to the PB Pick'em and submit your picks for week 10.

 

[Andrew35]

You have too much time on your hands... you should come on over to the PB Pick'em and submit your picks for week 10.

Don't mind me! I'm having some fun with this b/c my marriage was overseas and highly irregular due to the various legal circumstances involving my host country and their various weird legalities. It forced me to think about this issue more than a normal person should.

 

[EvanF]

This would be an example of a legitimate authority (the State) acting perhaps inappropriately (restricting marriage on the basis of race).
...
Again, as frustrating as it may be: we must not confuse spheres of government and that which is in the proper domain of each sphere. Marriage is a creational ordinance regulated by the state. The church, in her prophetic role, may call the State to be faithful in its regulation of marriage, but ultimately, it must be remembered that it is the State, not the church, who regulates marriage.

Why is this a legitimate authority of the state?

On what basis is marriage to be apportioned to the state sphere or to the church sphere? Is it merely that some states presently claim this authority and so it is legitimate due to the fact that it is not clearly given to the church? If so how is that any more legitimate than a claim of authority to deny marriages on the basis of skin color?

 

[Edward]

Where is the one opinion saying she hadn't been married?

You could always try reading the original post at the top of the thread.

 

[pgwolv]

If I am the "one opinion" being referred to in the OP and elsewhere, then what I originally stated in the thread referenced in the OP is being misconstrued. I was trying to pretty careful to not be dogmatic - I was in fact intending to ward off such an approach to this topic. I'll refrain from any further comments on the topic rather than be viewed as being a disingenuous quibbler and taking this thread off course. I think the OP has asked good questions and I don't really see them being answered.

Hi, it was your opinion being referred to; I think the problem is that different definitions of marriage are being used. You did say, in the previous thread, that "I don't think Christ is saying the Samaritan woman was married and divorced 5 times and was on to #6." And I did use the words "legally/officially" to try and capture this.

 

[pgwolv]

What exactly does "one flesh" mean? I understand that it is one of the aspects of being in a marriage relationship, but I do not think one can define a marriage by it. Becoming one flesh with a harlot, as in 1 Co 6, does not mean becoming married with her; but it does mean that one is engaging in an act that is only sanctioned within the marriage bond. Is that correct?

So is becoming one flesh a joining of one's body to another's (1 Co 6:16) in such a way that one gives authority over one's body to another (1 Co 7:4), pledging to take care of that person as one does of oneself (Eph 5:28-31), and signifying that God joined one to another into a new family unit (when done licitly; Gen 2:24 and Mat 18:5-6)? Therefore, doing so illicitly, outside of the marriage covenant, is making a mockery of God's design, divorcing it from its meaning, joining together two whom God has not so joined together?

 

[MW]

What exactly does "one flesh" mean? I understand that it is one of the aspects of being in a marriage relationship, but I do not think one can define a marriage by it. Becoming one flesh with a harlot, as in 1 Co 6, does not mean becoming married with her; but it does mean that one is engaging in an act that is only sanctioned within the marriage bond. Is that correct?

So is becoming one flesh a joining of one's body to another's (1 Co 6:16) in such a way that one gives authority over one's body to another (1 Co 7:4), pledging to take care of that person as one does of oneself (Eph 5:28-31), and signifying that God joined one to another into a new family unit (when done licitly; Gen 2:24 and Mat 18:5-6)? Therefore, doing so illicitly, outside of the marriage covenant, is making a mockery of God's design, divorcing it from its meaning, joining together two whom God has not so joined together?

That is the traditional understanding. You would probably add cohabitation from 1 Peter 3.

 

[pgwolv]

That is the traditional understanding. You would probably add cohabitation from 1 Peter 3.

Thank you for taking the time to respond

 

[Alive in Christ]

But civil authorities above the family level were not part of God's created order, nor, when he instituted them for Israel, did they seem to play a role in solemnising marriages. There is no evidence of priestly or civil sanction of marriage either in the old testament or the new. At best there was sanction of marriages by the families of the man and woman, although even this doesn't seem to be strictly true or may have been purely transactional in some cases. Again with divorce, there was no requirement for civil or priestly sanction, only a unilateral letter of divorce, although elders did become involved with cases of abuse or abandonment, as with other matters of justice.

It wasn't until the 12th century and the Cathar heresy that Rome declared marriage a sacrament and it became a matter of church and civil sanction.

The created order seems to have much less accountability in terms of marriage as an official status than many Christians now would be comfortable with.

I respectfully disagree, and whether or not marriage is a sacrament has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that marriage was instituted by God as part of His created order, and our Lord Jesus Christ affirmed in Matthew 19:4-6 that it is God who joins a husband with his wife in the same manner that He joined Adam with Eve. And whereas it's true that civil authority above the family level was not a part of God's created order, authority itself was. And Romans 13:1-2 tells us that we are subject to civil authority, as there is no authority except that which has been instituted by God. Indeed, even in godless societies, marriage is still a lawful practice to which men and women are subject. Whether it be under the authority of the bridegroom's father, with a covenant being ceremonially declared in the tribal leader's tent, or whether it's done at a municipal center in a communist country with a private civil ceremony taking place after, it is still a marriage because God has vested that authority in those to whom we are subject, just as Adam and Eve were subject to God. If there is no authority and no covenant, then there is no marriage. This was established in the beginning.

So to answer the topic of debate as to what constitutes a biblical marriage, my conviction is that a valid marriage can only be established by means of a public lifelong vow between a man and a woman under an authority instituted by God.

 

[Ploutos]

I am curious: how do we know that civil authority above the family was or wasn't part of the original creation order?

 

[EvanF]

I am curious: how do we know that civil authority above the family was or wasn't part of the original creation order?

Which created human was placed in authority over which other created human not part of his family as a civil authority? There were only two of them, and they were the same family. In fact, almost everyone was in the same family for a good while. Where could civil authority fit into the order displayed to us on the seventh day?

 

[MarrowMan]

Which created human was placed in authority over which other created human not part of his family as a civil authority? There were only two of them, and they were the same family. In fact, almost everyone was in the same family for a good while. Where could civil authority fit into the order displayed to us on the seventh day?

This argument is a bit specious. There was no civil or ecclesiastical authority (formally speaking in terms of offices) at all for a particular period in the beginning. However, civil and ecclesiastical authority were both eventually instituted and that by God's design. I highly doubt we're going to argue about the illegitimacy of civil/ecclesiastical authority because they were absent in the Garden. The Garden is a unique circumstance that we all recognize. Adam and Eve were the sum total of society and, thus, no civil/ecclesiastical authority was needed. That is no longer the case. Now, society is greater than two people and is regulated by civil and ecclesiastical authority. Marriage is a social institution, indeed the institution that is the bedrock of society itself, and thus falls under social governance, ecclesiastical and magisterial. We all recognize this when civil/ecclesiastical authority rightly administers penalties to dissolving marriages or provides support to sustaining ones.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This argument is a bit specious. There was no civil or ecclesiastical authority (formally speaking in terms of offices) at all for a particular period in the beginning. However, civil and ecclesiastical authority were both eventually instituted and that by God's design. I highly doubt we're going to argue about the illegitimacy of civil/ecclesiastical authority because they were absent in the Garden. The Garden is a unique circumstance that we all recognize. Adam and Eve were the sum total of society and, thus, no civil/ecclesiastical authority was needed. That is no longer the case. Now, society is greater than two people and is regulated by civil and ecclesiastical authority. Marriage is a social institution, indeed the institution that is the bedrock of society itself, and thus falls under social governance, ecclesiastical and magisterial. We all recognize this when civil/ecclesiastical authority rightly administers penalties to dissolving marriages or provides support to sustaining ones.

Indeed. Government is not a consequence of the Fall, it's the God-given means by which groups are ordered. Even angels have government. So too, if Adam and Eve had not fallen, eventually as their progeny grew in number governance would have emerged. Thus we see government implied in Gen 9 - when God recapitulates the creation mandate to Noah (though it is inferred even earlier when "cities" are founded by various entities, etc.)

 

[MW]

On government as a law of nature, see Rutherford Lex Rex, chapter 2, for clarity and distinctions.

 

[MarrowMan]

I think it should go without saying that if a marriage cannot be dissolved without ecclesiastical and civil involvement, it cannot be instituted without either.

 

[Ploutos]

As mentioned in the thread that lay behind the genesis of this one, I have been reading Marriage: Sex In The Service Of God, by Christopher Ash. In chapter 11 ("Public Choice and Private Intimacy"), he addresses precisely the issue of what constitutes marriage. His argument is that the only proper place for sex is within marriage, and that sex ought to properly signify a marriage, such that he advocates for a return to the idea of common-law marriage, where a couple engaged in sexual union and co-habitation (I didn't see him explicitly discuss the situation of the former without the latter) ought to be recognized as de facto married and treated as such in the eyes of the law and the community.

BUT... he argues that the element of public recognition is integral to marriage, such that a properly constituted marriage can never be a purely private or individualistic affair, but must be accompanied by public vows of permanence and by the social and legal expectations of faithfulness imposed by the community and the magistrate.

He is deliberately not exhaustive, and so there are situations and angles he doesn't address, but overall he seems to be saying that while sex OUGHT to be indicative of marriage (meaning "if you're having sex, you're married"), sex alone is not constitutive of marriage. However, any sex outside of marriage, whether premarital or extramarital, is to be viewed as an inherent contradiction, something that should not ever be. The discussion is sufficiently nuanced that it seems to provide a good way to see sex as NOT being equal to or coterminous with marriage, but without diminishing the importance of locating sex only within marriage or downplaying the destructiveness and sinfulness of removing sex from its proper concept.

One interesting Biblical reference he provides is in Exodus 22:16-17, where a father refuses to consent to the marriage even after intercourse has happened. This certainly seems to provide a Biblical argument AGAINST the idea that sex is solely constitutive of marriage. For Ash, marriage involves consummation, consent, and community.

It's a long and meaty chapter, and I tried to find some quotes to pull from it; what I would recommend is that those who have access to the book simply read the chapter. It's better than any summary or de-contextualized quotes I can provide.

 

[Polanus1561]

John 2..

 

[Theoretical]

One note about common law marriage that I think is important as to its context is that it's usually a defensive, make-the-best out of a bad situation legal provision and not designed to be the status quo or preferred situation.

Example 1 would be American frontier situations where there might not be a magistrate or minister for miles around, in the days where a horse was the fastest form of transportation, if you had one. The closest analogy that could still happen, aside from a nuclear war survivors situation, would be the desert island/cut off from all outside communication and the two people were eligible to marry. If the plot of The Martian happened with an unmarried man and woman from the crew, before contact with earth was reestablished, that would be a more modern situation that could happen. But these are extreme situations, and equitable exceptions for extreme situations, by their nature, should not be ironclad laws. Importantly, and what's often not done in these situations is that the couple doesn't end up getting formally married even though they should.

Example 2 is the situation where one party really wants to get actually married and the other party is playing games. Historically, it's been the man duping a woman into "but we're already married" and the situation becomes shacking up and the guy calls her his "wife" and she calls him "husband" including in public. As sin usually does, it festers into an unfortunate shack-up situation where he maybe keeps promising to formalize things, but by this point they've had a few kids and she's stuck. Eventually, he gets tired of her, finds a new woman, etc... and leaves her out in the cold with nothing "because we weren't really married." Common law marriage is meant to protectively override the husband's desire to ditch his wife when he's taken her to himself in all but form and acted like it.

There's a somewhat related concept called putative marriage in which the couple through no fault of their own didn't actually get married by a proper official. For example, if the clergy who married them was actually a fraud who wasn't licensed by the state but represented himself to be able to perform marriage. That marriage gets treated as valid pretty everywhere at least in the US, whether common law marriage is in place or not. Where this would come up is one of the spouses becomes tired of the other and discovers that Rev. Bob actually was a charlatan and "aha! it's my get out of marriage free card." In a common law marriage state, it's an even more moot point since once the newly married couple checks into their hotel room, all three boxes check that they've lived together, held themselves out to be married, and agreed to be married - in this case, publicly. That's even if the preacher's a total fraud.

The point of all of these is that it's similar situations to why God provided for divorce in Deuteronomy - hardness of men's hearts. A couple in situation 1 with a right heart should be leaping for joy at meeting a minister or magistrate who could formalize their union properly. Basically, think about the Ethiopian eunuch's desire to be baptized immediately for a suitable analogy. None of them should be taken as a situation to be promoted as a positive good.

 

[Ploutos]

Some additional reading on the topic of what constitutes marriage:

Tim Challies
John Piper
D.A. Carson

All three of these writers acknowledge that marriage in some way is more than, but not less than, sexual union. None of them address the issue with the penetrating insight that Ash does, though I thought that D.A. Carson made some helpful points. Of course, none of these writers are addressing the issue from an explicitly confessional viewpoint either. I'm not putting these links here as a sign of whole-hearted agreement; I just found this extra reading material to be worth a couple minutes of my time. All of them address the sort of less-than-ideal situations that @Theoretical was referencing above.

 

[iainduguid]

Some additional reading on the topic of what constitutes marriage:

Tim Challies
John Piper
D.A. Carson

All three of these writers acknowledge that marriage in some way is more than, but not less than, sexual union. None of them address the issue with the penetrating insight that Ash does, though I thought that D.A. Carson made some helpful points. Of course, none of these writers are addressing the issue from an explicitly confessional viewpoint either. I'm not putting these links here as a sign of whole-hearted agreement; I just found this extra reading material to be worth a couple minutes of my time. All of them address the sort of less-than-ideal situations that @Theoretical was referencing above.

In my sermon on Song of Songs 4:8-5:2, where the couple consummate their marriage, I argue that the passage highlights three aspects that properly make up marriage: the legal, the relational, and the sexual. You can read it in the REC commentary on the Song of Songs, or PM me if you want an electronic copy.

 

[No Other Name]

In my sermon on Song of Songs 4:8-5:2, where the couple consummate their marriage, I argue that the passage highlights three aspects that properly make up marriage: the legal, the relational, and the sexual. You can read it in the REC commentary on the Song of Songs, or PM me if you want an electronic copy.

Brothers, Dr. Duguid's commentary on the Song of Songs is an essential pastoral commentary on a book of the Bible that has historically been one of the most challenging and confusing. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I bought mine two years ago and have read it through several times.

It is an astonishing gift that you have today an offer of a free digital copy. Jump on it, especially if you are a husband and father or have pastoral access to teens and young adults - newly married or considering marriage in their future. PM him today.