What constitutes a biblical marriage?

[Graceandtruth]

What constitutes a biblical marriage?

 

[Ed Walsh]

What constitutes a biblical marriage?

I thought this definition was pretty good:

A couple, then, must fulfil four conditions in order to be married: they must give their voluntary consent to marry this man/woman, they must promise that the relationship will be permanent, they must do so in the presence of witnesses, and they must consummate (or intend to consummate) their marriage in sexual union. Such marriages are ‘joined together by God’ (Mark 10:9 Matt. 19:6). This teaching of Christ’s which represents by far the most important event that takes place at marriage, has nothing to do with whether the wedding takes place in church or in a registry office, whether a minister of religion is present or not, whether the couple are Christian believers or atheists. God joins together every couple in every valid marriage. He has been doing so, according to Christ, since ‘the beginning of creation’ (Mark 10:5–9 Matt. 19:4–8).

Cornes, A. (2002). Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principle and Pastoral Practice (pp. 43–44). Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.

 

[Pergamum]

Unbelievers may have a valid marriage.

Also, in some cultures there is no official registry and tribal folks pair off and call themselves husband and wife. This is less formal, but is recognized by the tribes as marriage and so I would not say that these are not marriages.

 

[Graceandtruth]

Unbelievers may have a valid marriage.

Also, in some cultures there is no official registry and tribal folks pair off and call themselves husband and wife. This is less formal, but is recognized by the tribes as marriage and so I would not say that these are not marriages.

Agreed that ultimately it seems like as long as people submit to the cultural norms and those norms don't include a legal document then God would see it as a valid marriage so long as it is not sin. Would you agree though in America where in order to be recognized as married one must obtain a legal certificate, that unless one follows that pattern out of obedience to Romans 13 it would not be a recognized marriage in Gods eyes biblically speaking?

 

[VictorBravo]

Would you agree though in America where in order to be recognized as married one must obtain a legal certificate, that unless one follows that pattern out of obedience to Romans 13 it would not be a recognized marriage in Gods eyes biblically speaking?

Just a clarification. Not all states require a certificate. Montana, at least, recognizes common law marriage.

In that state, all you need to become married is (1) be competent (of legal age, basically), (2) mutual consent and agreement (3) cohabitation and public repute. In other words, you don't just live together, but you also hold yourselves out as married.

And of course, once married in Montana, you are married anywhere.

I understand that your question ties the legitimacy of a marriage to obeying a state's laws. But I'm having trouble understanding the significance of it being valid in "God's eyes." Is your question directed to the idea that it would be sin for couples cohabit even if they are committed to each other but have not had the marriage recognized? If so, yes, I think it would be sin. At a bare minimum the elements listed by Ed Walsh (and essentially included in the Montana common law elements) are needed: consent, promise, holding out to the public, cohabitation (including consummation). That's been marriage from the beginning. You see it clearly in Isaac's marriage and some variation of that pattern has always been recognized.

 

[Pergamum]

Unbelievers may have a valid marriage.

Also, in some cultures there is no official registry and tribal folks pair off and call themselves husband and wife. This is less formal, but is recognized by the tribes as marriage and so I would not say that these are not marriages.

Agreed that ultimately it seems like as long as people submit to the cultural norms and those norms don't include a legal document then God would see it as a valid marriage so long as it is not sin. Would you agree though in America where in order to be recognized as married one must obtain a legal certificate, that unless one follows that pattern out of obedience to Romans 13 it would not be a recognized marriage in Gods eyes biblically speaking?

Yes, I would agree (unless the originating country of the couple was overseas, eg., refugees or tribal folks moving to America. If they moved here, legally they might not be considered officially married until paperwork was procured, but this doesn't mean they are not married or are suddenly living in sin once they cross a border, etc).

 

[Graceandtruth]

Would you agree though in America where in order to be recognized as married one must obtain a legal certificate, that unless one follows that pattern out of obedience to Romans 13 it would not be a recognized marriage in Gods eyes biblically speaking?

Just a clarification. Not all states require a certificate. Montana, at least, recognizes common law marriage.

In that state, all you need to become married is (1) be competent (of legal age, basically), (2) mutual consent and agreement (3) cohabitation and public repute. In other words, you don't just live together, but you also hold yourselves out as married.

And of course, once married in Montana, you are married anywhere.

I understand that your question ties the legitimacy of a marriage to obeying a state's laws. But I'm having trouble understanding the significance of it being valid in "God's eyes." Is your question directed to the idea that it would be sin for couples cohabit even if they are committed to each other but have not had the marriage recognized? If so, yes, I think it would be sin. At a bare minimum the elements listed by Ed Walsh (and essentially included in the Montana common law elements) are needed: consent, promise, holding out to the public, cohabitation (including consummation). That's been marriage from the beginning. You see it clearly in Isaac's marriage and some variation of that pattern has always been recognized.

Hey thanks for taking the time to respond. Yea what I meant by valid in "God's eyes" was that some people would claim they can simply in private make a vow to one another and have a "secret marriage" per se, with no witnesses but God and call that a recognizable marriage. My question was do any of you think biblically that God would see that as a valid marriage. Are there certain stipulations needed in order for a couple to truly be married. Which no doubt you and Ed answered. Thanks Ed for the quote. But what would be the biblical basis for saying it must be public? Would it more be an implicit thing rather thing explicitly said in scripture?

 

[Graceandtruth]

I agree with that for sure. By the way, love the Livingstone quote, such a sweet reminder! Praise God.

 

[cmaglaughlin]

VOWS to each other and to God form a one flesh marriage. Forget exception clause found only in Matthew for an excuse to divorce. Pertained only to Jews during(betrothal) engagement. Marriage is for life. No such thing in scripture as "remarriage." Those standing around Jesus understood what He was saying..."two shall become one. NEVER to be twain again." Paul echoed the same(He said it was a command directly from Jesus). " If you separate(not divorce)remain single until reconciled." State or certificate can't "break" vows or union. ONLY death. Pharisees and others understood what He was saying. They exclaimed, "Why get married"? "Marry" someone else when your original one flesh mate is still alive...Jesus calls you an adulterer. Why so little is written about or preached from the pulpit on this is beyond my comprehension! If adulterers don't repent before their last breath, do they lose their salvation? Scripture says they won't make heaven. Calvinists...what say YOU? Does the Bible contradict itself, or have we had it all wrong? This is why I am at a loss finding any pastor and church that can answer this. D. James Kennedy, my late beloved pastor, said the covenant and vows are broken when the guilty party has sex with his new mate. The so-called innocent party is free to "remarry." This is in direct contradiction to scripture and early church teaching. Vows are for "'til death do us part." The guilty party must repent, but the ONLY way to "repent" is to remain single or return to your first original one flesh mate. Now you know why I get so frustrated with the Body. This should be answered ONCE and for all...honestly and with great prayer and scholarship. Nothing more important in this world than family! Adult children even suffer from their parents' divorce. And it's rampant in the Church.

 

[SRoper]

Joshua, it seems to me that a secret marriage is not possible. One of the purposes of marriage is children which are public. How do you deal with issues of inheritance, adultery, and divorce with a secret marriage?

Chuck, you said:

VOWS to each other and to God form a one flesh marriage. Forget exception clause found only in Matthew for an excuse to divorce. Pertained only to Jews during(betrothal) engagement. Marriage is for life. No such thing in scripture as "remarriage." Those standing around Jesus understood what He was saying..."two shall become one. NEVER to be twain again." Paul echoed the same(He said it was a command directly from Jesus). " If you separate(not divorce)remain single until reconciled." State or certificate can't "break" vows or union. ONLY death. Pharisees and others understood what He was saying. They exclaimed, "Why get married"?

Westminster Confession Chapter 24:5-6:

5. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to
dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce,to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.
6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:n wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.

 

[VictorBravo]

Joshua, it seems to me that a secret marriage is not possible

Just to clarify, you were responding to Chuck, not Joshua.

Calvinists...what say YOU? Does the Bible contradict itself, or have we had it all wrong?

The excerpt from the WCF posted by Scot is probably what most Calvinists would say.

To be clear, if you arguing for a secret marriage, I think that is contrary to the examples in Scripture. It needs to be public (in some form) to demonstrate the sanctity of the union.

The rest of your post was off-topic and contrary to the Confessions. Your take on the adultery exception being only applicable to the Jews strikes me as novel, strange, and dispensational.

 

[Edward]

VOWS to each other and to God form a one flesh marriage. Forget exception clause found only in Matthew for an excuse to divorce. Pertained only to Jews during(betrothal) engagement. Marriage is for life. No such thing in scripture as "remarriage." Those standing around Jesus understood what He was saying..."two shall become one. NEVER to be twain again." Paul echoed the same(He said it was a command directly from Jesus). " If you separate(not divorce)remain single until reconciled." State or certificate can't "break" vows or union. ONLY death. Pharisees and others understood what He was saying. They exclaimed, "Why get married"?VOWS to each other and to God form a one flesh marriage. Forget exception clause found only in Matthew for an excuse to divorce. Pertained only to Jews during(betrothal) engagement. Marriage is for life. No such thing in scripture as "remarriage." Those standing around Jesus understood what He was saying..."two shall become one. NEVER to be twain again." Paul echoed the same(He said it was a command directly from Jesus). " If you separate(not divorce)remain single until reconciled." State or certificate can't "break" vows or union. ONLY death. Pharisees and others understood what He was saying. They exclaimed, "Why get married"? "Marry" someone else when your original one flesh mate is still alive...Jesus calls you an adulterer. Why so little is written about or preached from the pulpit on this is beyond my comprehension! If adulterers don't repent before their last breath, do they lose their salvation? Scripture says they won't make heaven. Calvinists...what say YOU? Does the Bible contradict itself, or have we had it all wrong? This is why I am at a loss finding any pastor and church that can answer this. D. James Kennedy, my late beloved pastor, said the covenant and vows are broken when the guilty party has sex with his new mate. The so-called innocent party is free to "remarry." This is in direct contradiction to scripture and early church teaching. Vows are for "'til death do us part." The guilty party must repent, but the ONLY way to "repent" is to remain single or return to your first original one flesh mate. Now you know why I get so frustrated with the Body. This should be answered ONCE and for all...honestly and with great prayer and scholarship. Nothing more important in this world than family! Adult children even suffer from their parents' divorce. And it's rampant in the Church.

So you reject the Westminster Confession?

 

[SRoper]

Joshua, it seems to me that a secret marriage is not possible

Just to clarify, you were responding to Chuck, not Joshua.

Actually I was responding to Joshua and Chuck in turn without an adequate transition. Sorry for the confusion. Now to really confuse things I added the transition to my post to clarify who I was responding to in each section. I'm afraid your post won't make sense anymore.

And to clarify something else, I don't interpret Joshua to be advocating secret marriages. I am assuming that he is wondering how to respond to someone who does.

 

[VictorBravo]

And to clarify something else, I don't interpret Joshua to be advocating secret marriages. I am assuming that he is wondering how to respond to someone who does.

Thanks. It makes it clear to me, at least!

 

[cmaglaughlin]

Sorry, not scriptural, and contradicts both Jesus and Paul. Go with the Confession and remain in good standing with the Puritan Board, or go with God and His Holy Word. Choose THIS day whom thou shalt serve. http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/divorceandremarriage.php

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sorry, not scriptural, and contradicts both Jesus and Paul. Go with the Confession and remain in good standing with the Puritan Board, or go with God and His Holy Word. Choose THIS day whom thou shalt serve. http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/divorceandremarriage.php

The church-courts are the place to challenge whether the Confession of Faith is or is not biblical. So, TAKE YOUR STAND, Chuck, and confront your Session, the Presbytery, and the Church with your alternate proposal of what the Bible really says. However, by conversing here, you agree to abide by a common set of rules.

Our "good-standing" policy is erected to keep the sandbox we're all playing in nice and orderly, and in conformity with what God-ordained ecclesiastical authority over us teaches, pointing to Scripture as it does so. Our Confessions are a sincere attempt to summarily express the stance taken by the Word.

You are free to withdraw from the PB generally for conscience sake, or abstain from certain conversations. But you may not freely denigrate the standards.

 

[psycheives]

VOWS to each other and to God form a one flesh marriage. Forget exception clause found only in Matthew for an excuse to divorce. Pertained only to Jews during(betrothal) engagement. Marriage is for life. No such thing in scripture as "remarriage."

Sounds like the Roman Catholic view, which the Bible disagrees with.