Wise counsel needed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brian Lee

Puritan Board Freshman
Here are two scenarios: a brother in Christ is living in a home with an unbeliever (she professes Christ, however), they have a 4 year old son together. They are unmarried. Should he leave? Yes they are fornicating but he desires to be holy and to pursue marriage with her- we (elders) have advised him not to bc they are unequally yoked. Should he stay in the home with her and pursue marriage or not? Why?
I remember R.C. Sproul would not marry any who were unequally yoked, the only exception if the two were expecting, although I’m unsure as to why...?

Second situation: An unbelieving man, a believing woman, they have two young children. The believing woman desires marriage with him, the hope being God would save him- he, desires marriage but isn’t as serious. They both are unmarried. She has been offered a place to stay and pursue motherhood as well as homeschool for her children. What would you advise her to do?

Marriage as being defined in short: a covenant made by two believers before God, and whatever the local governing authority requires. Some would say bc a child is involved, they have assumed marriage, but biblically I can’t see that view being justified.

We are a small plant and are trying to follow Christ in this by judging rightly. Thankyou.
 
Marriage as being defined in short: a covenant made by two believers before God, and whatever the local governing authority requires.
I know you aren't asking, but we should be careful not to limit marriage to an ordinance for believers, or act as though it is a part of God's redemptive providence (à la Roman Catholicism). It's a creation ordinance.

I don't intend by this comment to recommend that either of the parties you mentioned marry. I just wanted to clear up that saving faith on the part of the husband and wife is not a necessary prerequisite to marriage. Obviously, believers should not be unequally yoked in marriage to unbelievers.

The matter before you is a difficult one. Are you under any sort of presbytery?
 
I know you aren't asking, but we should be careful not to limit marriage to an ordinance for believers, or act as though it is a part of God's redemptive providence (à la Roman Catholicism). It's a creation ordinance.

I don't intend by this comment to recommend that either of the parties you mentioned marry. I just wanted to clear up that saving faith on the part of the husband and wife is not a necessary prerequisite to marriage. Obviously, believers should not be unequally yoked in marriage to unbelievers.

The matter before you is a difficult one. Are you under any sort of presbytery?

Our authority, which is a 1689 church a few towns over; have offered differing views, which is why I am asking here: 1) what is a marriage as being defined 2) we are having difficulty establishing whether they are married or not- biblically speaking.
 
Our authority, which is a 1689 church a few towns over; have offered differing views, which is why I am asking here: 1) what is a marriage as being defined 2) we are having difficulty establishing whether they are married or not- biblically speaking.
As to the second, if they haven't contracted to marry, they aren't married. Long-standing fornication and cohabitation doesn't constitute a marriage.
 
Here are two scenarios: a brother in Christ is living in a home with an unbeliever (she professes Christ, however), they have a 4 year old son together. They are unmarried. Should he leave? Yes they are fornicating but he desires to be holy and to pursue marriage with her- we (elders) have advised him not to bc they are unequally yoked. Should he stay in the home with her and pursue marriage or not? Why?

If she professes Christ, then why do you still consider her an unbeliever rather than just a weak believer? If they are both professing faith, and willing to marry, it's not an unequal yoking, no matter how immature their faith may be.

Second situation: An unbelieving man, a believing woman, they have two young children. The believing woman desires marriage with him, the hope being God would save him- he, desires marriage but isn’t as serious. They both are unmarried. She has been offered a place to stay and pursue motherhood as well as homeschool for her children. What would you advise her to do?

Marriage as being defined in short: a covenant made by two believers before God, and whatever the local governing authority requires. Some would say bc a child is involved, they have assumed marriage, but biblicaly I can’t see that view being justified.

She should make it clear she desires to follow Christ and raise her children that way, and be married to a man who shares that conviction. But she also can't manipulate him into the kingdom. And if she chooses to leave, then there will be a custody battle over the kids, and she may not get to homeschool them as desired. The cohabitation needs to stop of course. But I don't think you can issue an immediate ultimatum here if they are not members of your church. Set the biblical goals and standards before them and let them work on it at their own pace. They will make a decision one way or the other eventually.

Another issue for both cases you should research is that some states automatically treat you as married (common law marriage) if you have cohabited for a period of years. Here, I believe it's seven years. You may want to look into the law in your state. It might be that the state has already declared them married.

My two cents...
 
We sometimes take the command to not be unequally yoked as if it were just about marriage, but it isn't.

In both situations you describe, consider the possibility that the couples are already unequally yoked. They share a home. They have children together. That sounds pretty yoked to me. It was unwise, but it's done.

So the issue is not a cut-and-dried matter of marriage making them unequally yoked and therefore creating a situation that goes against God's rules. The unequally-yoked error has already been made and many of the consequences are unavoidable at this point. So now you have a question of whether to (1) deepen their yoke despite the suspicion that one is not a believer, in the hope that it will make things better rather than worse or (2) break the current yoke despite the fact that its destruction may harm the children involved and tear apart a home.

From this distance, it's impossible for any of us to rule on what is best. But I don't think the unequally-yoked rule necessarily takes the marriage option off the table. The line has been crossed already, in a big way that makes it hard to simply retreat.
 
I haven't researched the issue, and folks in New York should consult with a New York family law attorney, but the lists I've seen don't show New York as recognizing Common Law Marriage.
You may be right. I learned this through a conversation with another minister but haven't verified it myself for NY state.
 
In some cultures, choosing a partner and moving in with them is counted as marriage to them, such as in many tribal situations where I live. I am not going to call these couples unmarried when they themselves call each other husband and wife. We need not go through a second time to these tribes and "marry them all properly by the church" in order for them to be truly married. They are already married. So, in some cases, yes, common-law marriage IS marriage.
 
I am not a minister, so this is only a layman's opinion, but I agree with Jack--in both cases a union, however irregular, has produced children. So now there are other players in the game (the children) who must not be sinned against. To break up two de facto families, even if legally they are not married, and even if the original union shouldn't have happened, would add to the iniquity.
We all bring the consequences of past sins into our present lives, but those sins cannot be undone. Best thing in my opinion is for both couples to sign papers at the justice of the peace, formalizing what is already essentially a fact, and move on from there.
 
I haven't researched the issue, and folks in New York should consult with a New York family law attorney, but the lists I've seen don't show New York as recognizing Common Law Marriage.

You may be right. I learned this through a conversation with another minister but haven't verified it myself for NY state.
Even in a case of common law marriage, the couple has to agree to be married--they consider themselves married, and are not merely cohabiting.

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 4:17-18).
 
The law of Moses commanded that if any fornicated they should marry (dt 22:28), and while the civil law has expired and is no longer applied except as the generally equity thereof may require, it seems to me that such a command has a clear moral component. Moreover, it seems to me that if they have already fornicated, much less had children, they are in essence yoked and they should legally marry to legitimize their relationship.
 
The law of Moses commanded that if any fornicated they should marry (dt 22:28)
I don't think so--the law required that a man who humbled a woman had a responsibility to marry her; but he would have only been given her as a wife if she and her father consented. The law is designed to protect the woman, and was written in a time when a single woman who was not a virgin would have an extremely difficult life ahead of her, and wouldn't find it easy to find a husband.

That being said, it could be justly argued that the man who has had a child by fornication has a responsibility to provide for the woman and the child, and so a responsibility to marry her if she consents.
 
I think that what always helps in these situations is to remember that marriage was created in order to show the relationship between Christ and the church. Eph 5:31,32 “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

The problem is that because of our sins we always fall short of the ideal, but the scriptures exhort us to try with all our might to repair what is wrong with our marriages. Husbands and wives do not love each other as they should so they need to work on this failure . In some marriages only one spouse honors the Lord and the other does not. The marriage is not be dissolved if this is so but rather the believer tries to win over the believer that the marriage would emulate the model given by God of Christ and His Church together glorifying God in harmony. If a missionary encounters a culture where couples live together as man and wife he has to think of what can be done to make these relationships more like that of Christ and the Church. One obvious way is to encourage a public commitment, modeled on the way Christ and His Church take vows of commitment. A public marriage vow is an essential component for the work of repairing a marriage. The question naturally arises as to how minimal can a relationship be and yet still be regarded as a marriage worthy of repair.

Deut 22:28 “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

So it looks as if fornication is enough to be regarded as the beginning of marriage, and the process of repair starts with the formalizing of the relationship.

With this in mind the situation of a couple living together with children becomes another candidate for marriage repair. The couple need to be asked if they are willing to make a public oath, a marriage oath. As others have pointed out already, they are already yoked together and they need to move toward the ideal of Christ and the Church as far as they can. The passage forbidding the marriage of believers with unbelievers, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, has to be read in conjunction with all the other scripture passages regarding marriage, and I think it is instructing those who are not yet married, who are not engaged in fornication to not start on the road to marriage. Otherwise it would require believers to separate from their unbelieving spouses, when Scripture teaches the exact opposite.

This explains why RC Sproul would not marry believers and unbelievers, but would if the couple were expecting a child. They had clearly crossed the fornication threshold and moved into marriage repair territory.
 
Is the Deut. 22 law to be understood in the context of the covenant people?
Just a thought. Will try to get back to this.

Update: I took a look. It’s seems like it’s talking about two Israelites. Here’s why:
1) preceding laws concerning marriage clearly talk about the covenant people and use the same terms, “man”, “damsel”, and “virgin.”
2) The man has to pay fifty shekels of silver to the woman’s father, which assumes he is to be found, and unlike the treatment of the captive woman in ch. 21 vv 10-14.

I think this context affects the equity of the text to the OP to some extent, but that would still need to be fleshed out.
 
Last edited:
I don't think so--the law required that a man who humbled a woman had a responsibility to marry her; but he would have only been given her as a wife if she and her father consented.
I don’t see the father’s consent addressed in Deut. 22:28-29. Would you explain?
 
I don’t see the father’s consent addressed in Deut. 22:28-29. Would you explain?
A man wasn't entitled to marry any woman he chose to rape or seduce. A woman's father's consent was considered a normative condition for a marriage. If you'd like me to prove that, I can.
 
A man wasn't entitled to marry any woman he chose to rape or seduce. A woman's father's consent was considered a normative condition for a marriage. If you'd like me to prove that, I can.

If you would, or even P.M. me. I would just like to understand. Also, I see how rape may be addressed in these verses, but I am asking concerning fornication.
 
If you would, or even P.M. me. I would just like to understand. Also, I see how rape may be addressed in these verses, but I am asking concerning fornication.
In the OT system, a man would ask another man's father if he could marry his daughter; if the father consents, he gives his daughter to the man in marriage. There was typically a bride-price, or dowry, paid to the father. The man marries; the woman is given in marriage.

Exodus 22:16-17 is more pertinent to the idea of fornication than the Deut. 22 passage:
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Here, you see that the man owes the dowry/bride-price to the father, but it is ultimately up to the father whether the man will take the woman to be his wife.

Again, "humbling" a woman, as the Deuteronomy passage puts it, does not give a man automatic right to marry a woman irrespective of her father's wishes. She is part of her father's household and is under his authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top