• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

When is a marriage a 'Marriage'?

docburkhart said:
"Marriage is a verbal and spiritual covenant between a man and his wife before God and witnesses, consummated by the act of intercourse, with the intent and purpose of establishing a family. This covenant will be evidenced through the ongoing outward identification of the man and his wife as belonging to one another, such as through name change, exchange of dowry or rings, public proclamation, and the common care of children."
Click to expand...
Well, my friend challenged me on part of my previous definition with the point of "witnesses" as a prerequisite for marriage. Do we have a specific Scriptural reference where witnesses (beyond the husband and wife) to the marriage are required? Obviously everything is witnessed by God Himself. I know the parents witnessed them going into the closed room together and not coming back out, but other than for ceremony, do we know that witnesses are required for anything?

I'm not sure how it might be worded, but there should probably be some additional clarification regarding "name change" specifically as the wife taking on the name of the husband (not vice versa), and also possibly something regarding the "exchange of rings", which implies "ownership" of the husband. My wife, after studying patriarchy and polygyny, realized that I should no longer wear a wedding ring because I am not a wife (which is fine by me as I hate wearing jewelry regardless). Either way, public proclamation and recognition of the marriage is clear in Scripture.

Love in Him,
David
 
Do we have a specific Scriptural reference where witnesses (beyond the husband and wife) to the marriage are required?
Click to expand...

So far as I know, no. But "let everything be confirmed in the mouths of two or three..." is handled well by a husband and wife before God. I would add that, ultimately, that is what matters, since it is those two plus One who will keep, and guard, the Covenant.

Blessings,
Mark




PS> Some would add that witnesses to the contract itself are 'helpful', since they tend to make the couple responsible before the community. While that may be nice, it is not necessary, and will not save those who cannot keep a solemn Covenant before God.
 
rusty_armor said:
If the groom or bride is unable to perform sexually because of age, injury or impotency, and the spouse to be was aware of the condition prior to the marriage, would they still be married in the eyes of G-d even thought the consummation requirement was not performed?
Click to expand...
That's a really good question. Obviously, once married, always married, so this question really only applies to a pre-existing condition prior to marriage. The only passage that comes to mind is...

Matt. 19:10-12: "His taught ones said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is good not to marry." And He said to them, "Not all receive this word, but only those to whom it has been given, for there are eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the reign of the heavens. He who is able to receive it, let him receive it."

The word was "it is good not to marry". Clearly, those men who lacked the physical ability to engage in sexual intercourse were the ones to whom this word was given and to whom were able to receive this word.

1) "only those (eunuchs) to whom it has been given"

2) "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it"

This is the only passage I can think of that suggests that a man who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse should abstain from marriage. I guess it makes sense. Both the sexual passion and reproduction issues are non-existent as far as the eunuch is concerned. I realize this is a single witness in Scripture and it doesn't specifically state that such a man MUST not take a wife, but it does suggest marriage and intercourse go hand-in-hand.

Love in Him,
David
 
I love this thread..... :D

"Do we have a specific Scriptural reference where witnesses (beyond the husband and wife) to the marriage are required?"

ok, you got me on that one. I don't guess that witnesses are required, because Adam and Eve certainly didn't have any. However, public identification as man and wife and the "belonging together" to the general community is a given, wouldn't you agree?

So, lets tweak it a bit more:

"Marriage is a verbal and spiritual covenant between a man and his wife before God, consummated by the act of intercourse, with the intent and purpose of establishing a family. This covenant will be evidenced through the ongoing outward identification of the man and his wife as belonging to one another, such as through name change, exchange of dowry or rings, public proclamation, and the common care of children."

Blessings,
 
Doc

Your point about Adam and Eve is profound and yet much of the interaction between the two of them, since they were the only two around, complicates the question.

I do note that in Ruth 4:9-13 we see some shading of the aspects of witnesses and marriage. Boaz assembles the elders to establish righteous intent and order, first in the question of redemption of land, but most importantly in the taking of Ruth to be his wife. Can we infer from the assembly of the elders a sense of witnesses? This witness is not under the hand of a pastor or of some government but under those to whom Boaz is accountable.

Ray
 
Ray

I see where you get that from the passage in Ruth.

I think what is important is not only that the man and wife identify themselves as 'married', but that the community to which they are a part of recognize the union. This is the ongoing witness, whether there were initial witnesses or not. Even with Adam and Eve, the family they created 'witnessed' Mom and Dad as man and wife. Your point on accountability is a good one as well. We should all be accountable to someone, and often we neglect the marriage union as an accountability issue.

This thread just keeps getting gooder all the time..... :D
 
docburkhart said:
I don't guess that witnesses are required, because Adam and Eve certainly didn't have any. However, public identification as man and wife and the "belonging together" to the general community is a given, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. There need not necessarily be witnesses to the acceptance of the marriage proposal per se, but there should be public acknowledgment and recognition of the union to hold them accountable to their covenant. Whether the state chooses to legally recognize the union is another matter entirely. We as believers should hold each other accountable to our marriage covenants.

Love in Him,
David
 
This is interesting, I see y'all are having fun with it.
I'm not sure why we think sex has to be a part to make it a valid marriage. Covenant is the part, and generally a covenant was witnessed by 2 or 3, or in the gates of the city by the elders. We aren't specifically told how a marriage covenant is to be done, thus I'm thinking there's flexibility on it.
We have in other threads discussed the civil involvement of the state, the pros and cons, so that's not relevant to this thread except if that's who the man and woman used as witnesses.

I'm thinking sex is just a natural part of marriage, something that goes hand in hand with it, but it's not a required part that I can see, neither from a scriptural perspective, nor a logical, nor a moral. Nature tends to take care of that it'self unless something else intervenes.

I tend to focus more on the covenant, because I see scripture taking covenant very seriously and think that's where the rubber meets the road. Sex is sex, it can be done with or without covenant, but I just can't see how that becomes what makes a man and woman into an item. Yes, if they do it and are found out, they are to covenant, even if it's forced on them. But we all know that is putting the cart in front of the horse, the covenant is more a remedy in that case, because otherwise it's whoring, and it's much better to have a provision for such, it gives room for repentance and restoration.
 
I'm thinking sex is just a natural part of marriage, something that goes hand in hand with it, but it's not a required part that I can see, neither from a scriptural perspective...
Click to expand...

This particular passage seems to me to say otherwise, ^_^ :

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her -- Gen. 24:67

And, of course, there's 1 I Cor. 7. While I don't want to over-emphasize the point, there's a certain part of the converse argument, OTOH, that smacks to me too much of asceticism and gnosticism. It always seemed that He "made us male and female" for a reason. And the Bible certainly seems to have a lot to say about the relationship.

Blessings,
Mark
 
This thread has forced me to examine my views on what marriage is. I had always held that marriage was a commitment (vows) and the desire for children (consumation).

But now, in my later years, I could see me in some instances bringing in a bride to the family who for some reason medical/genetic reason was not able to perform. I would not in that instance treat her any differently than I would to a wife who met all the requirements, nor would would her contribution to the family be diminished.

I would still call her wife . . .
 
Hello,

The Scriptures do not plainly state that witnesses were required for marriage. However, if one thoroughly studies Biblical Covenants, one will see that having witnesses were a natural part of making covenants.

We also know from the Word that Marriage is called a covenant.

Moreover, ancient marriage covenants have been found and these covenants included witnesses, not only in Israel but throughout the nations surrounding Israel.
 
Please forgive me for momentarily disregarding all the previous commentary to the question put forth on the leaderboard on this thread. Sometimes I like to jump in with both feet regardless of going in over my head. It would seem that baptism would have this effect on people. I believe that a few years ago GOD confirmed the answer to this quesion for me. Like many sound answers that rarely ever seem all that profound, this answer is no exeption among them: it was before my eyes the whole while. It was also before the eyes of the first man and woman and it was plainly before the eyes of all previous generations before us. It was before the eyes of the Pharisees when they looked beyond marriage toward divorcement (the breaking of marriage) for every and any cause, and it is still before the eyes of every divorce lawyer and every judge of every nation concerning that same union which the Holy Bible plainly called "one flesh". Oh, how our rulers, leaders, secular governments, priests and kings alike, would call it anything but what the LORD GOD called it from the beginning!

Marriage between a man and a woman is indeed ONE FLESH. No more, no less. I would turn the words of our Lord and Saviour to the attention of the reader if I were able, but only GOD can open the eyes of the blind:

Matthew 19

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

It is an hard saying but nonetheless true. Every single person that a man or woman voluntarily joins with in the flesh has indeed married. GOD doesn't miss a thing. Can there be a greater witness? Were Adam and Eve married? Although marriage is verily honourable in all, not all marriage is honourable.

1 Corinthians 6

15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Marriage between an husband and wife is one flesh . . . Every time. This is why the persecutors of plural marriage are such hypocrites. Most of them have engaged in it at some point and do not desire to be reminded of their past. . . The broken promises, the high school lies, the treachery and deceit. Many have sold such unions for a morsel of food . . . Aborted birth rights discarded as empty husks to be forgotten evermore. Yet it is not so easy to forget these unions — no matter how many layers of unions upon unions one might enage in, they do linger and are not so easily relinquished. Even the flesh has memory. Rather such unions today are readily sold to fornication and adultery, without honour and without dignity, without virtue or veracity. So are marriages bought and sold around the globe nearly every hour of the day. These are the whoredoms of the flesh and the deeds of the dogs that commit them. "And such were some of you", says the scripture, and so it was with me also. The things I used to do, I do no more.

The answer is so simple it seems it can't be possible that marriage can be reduced to such a basic thing as "one flesh"; but that is what our Lord called it and GOD does not lie. Verily, our Lord cried out from that cross, "Father forgive them. They know not what they do!" How many today know what marriage is? Yet it is also clearly stated that in the last days men would be marrying and giving in marriage even as in the days of Noe. Yes, one can indeed marry a dog. Yes, one can marry an whoremonger. Yes, one can even marry an harlot. Yes, it is also true that not all marriage is honourable and yes, it is possible to marry an adulterer or an adulteress. If fornication does not compromise what the Lord called marriage then what, pray tell, does? No, the words "Marriage is honourable in all" do not magically translate to "All marriage is honourable". Marriage is easy and often it is far too easy because marriage between a man and a woman is simply union in the flesh. Most people already know that a wedding ceremony does not amount to a marriage.

What is not so easy is what GOD called sanctification. Whoremongers and adulterers. . . Those who neigh after their neighbours' wives, GOD will judge. These will lose any sanctification they have received from the Lord because there is no veracity in such unions. They are in every wit compromised. They are polluted and unclean. This is adultery and fornication. It is a mockery of what the LORD GOD intended marriage to be and such unions cannot be held to the honour and glory of GOD. Such marriages are not honourable, but they are unions in the flesh nonetheless and they are also greatly compromised. No good can come of them because they fly in the face of our LORD's Holy Word, despising all that the LORD GOD called holy. The lost are lost and the dead are dead. There is nothing that can be done about the past. What was put under the Blood remains under the Blood. Jesus said to go and sin no more; but afterwhich one has tasted of that heavenly gift and has known the LORD GOD there remaineth no more sacrifice for one to go and to willfully continue in adultery and fornication. Here is where the proverbial "buck" stops and it is where GOD draws the line. Marriage, between a man and a woman, is one flesh. . . Every time. The only thing that can turn that little "m" into a capital "M" is the sanctification of the Blood of the Lamb.
 
Take it back to the BEGINNING, men. GOD called marriage ONE FLESH. You married in the flesh with every person you voluntarily joined with whether it be an harlot, whore, or otherwise. Man up to the Word of GOD. Yes, you can marry a prostitute, a slut, an whore, a strumpet, an harlot, a floozie, a trollop, or even an adulteress. Without the sanctification of the Holy Spirit none of it is honourable and all of it is prone to fornication. Read Romans 7. A wife cannot be called an adulteress. A wife who commits adultery is no longer a wife in the sight of GOD. To marry another man's wife is adultery. Sure. You can marry another man's wife but the sanctification of GOD will not be on that marriage. Not all marriage is honourable. It is the law of the husbandman that looses the woman in a divorcement — not the law of the wifewoman. This is what is required for a woman to be called "another man's wife" in the sight of GOD. There is NO LAW OF THE WIFEWOMAN.

It is not possible to divorce a spouse that one is not married to because it is not possible to be married to someone who is not a spouse. Ironically, marriage is a prerequisite to divorcement. That is why Christ brought the matter back to the BEGINNING. In the BEGINNING Adam and Eve were husband and wife. They were ONE FLESH. NOW that is all the basic and essential requirements for a marriage. A man, a woman, and the witness of GOD. No pastors, no wedding party, no frills. It was still marriage.

Matthew 19

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Just marrying someone does not necessarily make them your spouse. In order for them to be your spouse the marriage must comply with GOD's Moral Law. It is not lawful to have another man's wife for example, yet this does not mean that men are incapable of marrying other men's wives. In fact, it happens all the time, with or without a ceremony: It's called adultery and an adulteress cannot be called a wife any more than an adulterer can be called an husband. A wedding ceremony does not make any one more married than a funeral ceremony makes any one more dead. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of GOD but marriage between a man and a woman is indeed ONE FLESH ... Every time. Without the sanctification of GOD the covenant is dead. . . The marriage is spiritually dead. Even if both parties twain married as virgins that union has no more hope than a union between an harlot and an whoremonger without the sanctification and atoning blood of JESUS. I am not sorry that no flesh should glory before my LORD and SAVIOUR. Only the Witness of GOD can sanctify a marriage. I hope this helps clarify a few matters.

GOD bless the reader

Edward
 
If a man and a woman are together, and she is exclusive to him - and providing that there is not an agreement of prostitution beforehand - then they are married.

To put it another way, when a single woman hooks up with a man, there is one of two understandings:
1. it is a temporary union-- this would classify as prostitution

or

2. there is an understanding in which the woman is exclusive to the man and that he is her protector and provider.

Anything that falls into the latter category, and the woman is not attached to another man, then that is marriage and the two should consider themselves joined for life.
 
Sorry everyone....

WHAT THE HECK IS A EUNUCH??


"and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."


Sorry all, I speak modern English. :geek:
 
:?

Mark,

For those of us who don't live in America and have no idea who those people are (except Bill Clinton) can you just enlighten us in plain language?
 
Sorry, davidtee -- I was trying to be both clever & subtle, while avoiding being too blunt (thanks, Lissa! :D )...

...I actually did a quick web search on those two names, though, just to make sure I got the spelling right. Details are available on Wikipedia, et al, or old news items.

So, Juanita was one of several women who accused the former president of rape, while Mrs. Bobbitt became infamous for the act of using a common sharp household implement to convert Mr. Bobbitt into a eunuch. (He later had the missing item surgically reattached, according to news reports.)
 
djanakes

Where do you get the idea that the 'prior commitment' is a condition of marriage? Rather, in the Law of moses it was the man who made the decision to be married, and even when he seduced a woman he was forced to take her as a wife, or rather, she was forced to have him as a husband.

I will agree so far as to say that intercourse is a condition of marriage. I will also agree that divorce is not permitted (except in the case of fornication - which is yet to be properly defined). But I cannot agree that the 'consent' has anything to do with the marriage, or the becoming one flesh. That is purely sexual.

Now, before you answer this, I would like to say, I am not into debating things in trying to prove a point. I just prefer to state my views and leave it at that.

By the way, are we allowed to post links in this forum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top