What constitutes a biblical marriage today, is a license or ceremony necessary? If not, what is?Biblical Marriages Today
Biblical Marriages Today
What constitutes a biblical marriage today, is a license or ceremony necessary? If not, what is?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Bud,
As I understand it, the core reality of a marriage is a covenant made between the two partners in God's sight (Malachi 2:14). In ancient Hebrew civilization, this sometimes amounted to nothing more than a man saying to a woman, "You are my wife," and her replying, "You are my husband." Everything else (lifelong fidelity, shared accommodations, agreed-upon roles of husband and wife) was implied in these brief statements, and the two were bound for life by their words. Yea meant yea; nay meant nay—even without stated vows or legal documents, the couple’s integrity was taken for granted, and enforced by family and community.
Both Jewish and Christian "marriage ceremonies" developed over time. In the latter, the expectations of lifelong commitment were spelled out more thoroughly in specific vows. Though such may not be mandatory, it is probably a good thing to include, since we live in a day where not everyone understands what they are committing to in marriage, and delineating exactly what is involved can remove any excuse of ignorance from one who wishes to default later on his/her vows.
It is best for the marriage vows to be witnessed by family, friends, church, etc., rather than to be done "secretly" or privately. This is because the whole community, church and extended family (not just the couple) have something at stake in the success of the marriage, and the witnesses can (and should) hold the couple accountable to keep their vows, in the event one or the other decides to default.
State licensing is the most recent innovation in the modern concept of marriage. I believe that the decision of Christians to submit marriage to state licensure was a mistake—innocently made, perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless. I do not mean that it is a sin to get a marriage license (I have gotten them myself, and have signed many others for other couples, and feel no need to repent). However, I think Christians who are not presently married (like myself) should reconsider, before getting married, just how much business the State rightly has in the matter. Before deciding to get a marriage license, consider:
1. A license is the State's "permit" or "authorization" to do a certain thing. Since marriage is not intended by God to be a three-way contract among bride, groom and government, but, rather, a covenant made between bride, groom and God, I do not see how the State's permission was ever thought to be necessary by Christians for this arrangement;
2. Whatever the State licenses, it may also revoke. Hence, by seeking the State's licensure for marriage, there is the implied right of the State to issue a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage. Thus, though God, the church, the spouse and the children all disapprove of the dissolution of a marriage, a divorce will be imposed upon them anyway, if only the State approves (and the State never disapproves of the dissolution of any marriage in any court in America);
3. There is mounting evidence that the State does not (and never did) have the competence to decide when a marriage should be permitted to be formed, or when it should be dissolved. Here are three examples of this: First, the State will dissolve a marriage where there has been no biblical grounds for divorce, thus demonstrating an unwillingness on the part of the State to protect the institutions that it licenses. Second, the State will license the marriage of persons who have divorced previous spouses lacking biblical grounds, thus licensing what God calls "adultery." Third, the State now has begun licensing marriages between same-sex couples, and will soon do the same for men who wish to marry their pets, their grandmothers, their bicycles, etc. The State has proven itself 100% untrustworthy as a judge of who should and who should not be married, and thus should be viewed as incompetent to license or dissolve Christian marriages;
4. In many states (e.g., California), if the State licenses the marriage, the fruit of that marriage (i.e., children) are legally regarded to be the property of the State. Is this what you want?
5. Paul tells Christians to leave the courts out of their relationships, and to handle all legal matters “in-house”—that is, by Christian mediation (1 Cor.6:1, 4-5). Paul argues for this policy by pointing out the incompetence of secular courts to make righteous judgments from a Christian point of view. It is difficult to see why Christians would hold the sacred matters of marriage and divorce to be exceptions to this general rule.
Because of these considerations, it would seem that the preservation and integrity of Christian marriage will increasingly depend upon the church licensing its own unions and leaving the State out of the mix entirely. There was a time when bringing the State into the matter actually offered more legal protection to the marriage—and especially to the wife, if she was deserted—but this is no longer the case. A woman can now get as much child support from the children's father whether or not she ever married him, and, we have seen, committed partners to a "licensed" marriage will receive no protection from an unwanted divorce even if they have done no wrong.
A treacherous mate can, over the protests of the faithful spouse, the children, the friends and extended family and the church, unilaterally renege on sacred vows, and take half of the family assets with him/her—all with the unconcerned approval of the same courthouse that licensed the marriage in the first place. A suit for divorce is the one lawsuit in modern jurisprudence wherein the victim is allowed no opportunity to prove innocence, no immunity from being financially and emotionally devastated, even if known to be innocent, and no appeal of the decision to a higher court.
There are some who say that Christians should make their marriages "legal" because of a Christian's obligation to "obey the laws of the land." However, there is no law in the Western world that prohibits a couple from living together under whatever arrangements they may choose, to bear children, to jointly own property, etc., with or without a marriage license. Is it not time for the church to take back its proper role of authorizing, enforcing, and protecting the marriages of its own members?
As I said earlier, I do not believe it to be a sin to seek a state license for a marriage (for example, if the State eventually required it, it would be no sin for Christians to comply), but since there is no obligation in this regard, I think Christians ought to reconsider and perhaps not allow the State to stick its dirty hands into God's sacred business.
As I understand it, the core reality of a marriage is a covenant made between the two partners in God's sight (Malachi 2:14). In ancient Hebrew civilization, this sometimes amounted to nothing more than a man saying to a woman, "You are my wife," and her replying, "You are my husband." Everything else (lifelong fidelity, shared accommodations, agreed-upon roles of husband and wife) was implied in these brief statements, and the two were bound for life by their words. Yea meant yea; nay meant nay—even without stated vows or legal documents, the couple’s integrity was taken for granted, and enforced by family and community.
Both Jewish and Christian "marriage ceremonies" developed over time. In the latter, the expectations of lifelong commitment were spelled out more thoroughly in specific vows. Though such may not be mandatory, it is probably a good thing to include, since we live in a day where not everyone understands what they are committing to in marriage, and delineating exactly what is involved can remove any excuse of ignorance from one who wishes to default later on his/her vows.
It is best for the marriage vows to be witnessed by family, friends, church, etc., rather than to be done "secretly" or privately. This is because the whole community, church and extended family (not just the couple) have something at stake in the success of the marriage, and the witnesses can (and should) hold the couple accountable to keep their vows, in the event one or the other decides to default.
State licensing is the most recent innovation in the modern concept of marriage. I believe that the decision of Christians to submit marriage to state licensure was a mistake—innocently made, perhaps, but a mistake nonetheless. I do not mean that it is a sin to get a marriage license (I have gotten them myself, and have signed many others for other couples, and feel no need to repent). However, I think Christians who are not presently married (like myself) should reconsider, before getting married, just how much business the State rightly has in the matter. Before deciding to get a marriage license, consider:
1. A license is the State's "permit" or "authorization" to do a certain thing. Since marriage is not intended by God to be a three-way contract among bride, groom and government, but, rather, a covenant made between bride, groom and God, I do not see how the State's permission was ever thought to be necessary by Christians for this arrangement;
2. Whatever the State licenses, it may also revoke. Hence, by seeking the State's licensure for marriage, there is the implied right of the State to issue a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage. Thus, though God, the church, the spouse and the children all disapprove of the dissolution of a marriage, a divorce will be imposed upon them anyway, if only the State approves (and the State never disapproves of the dissolution of any marriage in any court in America);
3. There is mounting evidence that the State does not (and never did) have the competence to decide when a marriage should be permitted to be formed, or when it should be dissolved. Here are three examples of this: First, the State will dissolve a marriage where there has been no biblical grounds for divorce, thus demonstrating an unwillingness on the part of the State to protect the institutions that it licenses. Second, the State will license the marriage of persons who have divorced previous spouses lacking biblical grounds, thus licensing what God calls "adultery." Third, the State now has begun licensing marriages between same-sex couples, and will soon do the same for men who wish to marry their pets, their grandmothers, their bicycles, etc. The State has proven itself 100% untrustworthy as a judge of who should and who should not be married, and thus should be viewed as incompetent to license or dissolve Christian marriages;
4. In many states (e.g., California), if the State licenses the marriage, the fruit of that marriage (i.e., children) are legally regarded to be the property of the State. Is this what you want?
5. Paul tells Christians to leave the courts out of their relationships, and to handle all legal matters “in-house”—that is, by Christian mediation (1 Cor.6:1, 4-5). Paul argues for this policy by pointing out the incompetence of secular courts to make righteous judgments from a Christian point of view. It is difficult to see why Christians would hold the sacred matters of marriage and divorce to be exceptions to this general rule.
Because of these considerations, it would seem that the preservation and integrity of Christian marriage will increasingly depend upon the church licensing its own unions and leaving the State out of the mix entirely. There was a time when bringing the State into the matter actually offered more legal protection to the marriage—and especially to the wife, if she was deserted—but this is no longer the case. A woman can now get as much child support from the children's father whether or not she ever married him, and, we have seen, committed partners to a "licensed" marriage will receive no protection from an unwanted divorce even if they have done no wrong.
A treacherous mate can, over the protests of the faithful spouse, the children, the friends and extended family and the church, unilaterally renege on sacred vows, and take half of the family assets with him/her—all with the unconcerned approval of the same courthouse that licensed the marriage in the first place. A suit for divorce is the one lawsuit in modern jurisprudence wherein the victim is allowed no opportunity to prove innocence, no immunity from being financially and emotionally devastated, even if known to be innocent, and no appeal of the decision to a higher court.
There are some who say that Christians should make their marriages "legal" because of a Christian's obligation to "obey the laws of the land." However, there is no law in the Western world that prohibits a couple from living together under whatever arrangements they may choose, to bear children, to jointly own property, etc., with or without a marriage license. Is it not time for the church to take back its proper role of authorizing, enforcing, and protecting the marriages of its own members?
As I said earlier, I do not believe it to be a sin to seek a state license for a marriage (for example, if the State eventually required it, it would be no sin for Christians to comply), but since there is no obligation in this regard, I think Christians ought to reconsider and perhaps not allow the State to stick its dirty hands into God's sacred business.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
I received the following response by e-mail. Since it was not posted on this forum, I am pasting it in here, followed by my reply. I will keep the sender's name anonymous.
Hi Steve:
I heard your comments on marriage the other day and mostly agree. I do suggest you consider this:
1. Since the church is no longer monolithic the record of marriages would be unreliable.
2. Since many give little regard to the authority of the local church, the church has little impact on those contemplating divorce.
3. Since many disregard any responsibility to financially support to the local church, churches come and go and the recording of births and marriages would come and go with them.
4. Since the church isn't consulted on the dissolution of a marriage, a person would have no way of making sure their intended was eligible for marriage.
5. While I agree that having the government do this is less than perfect, I see having the church do this as less effective.
6. Further, if you have a real marriage license, it enhances your claims to real property and to custodial issues in the event of the death or divorce.
I do see the day coming, perhaps already here where the government has made such a mess of marriage that we may have to devise another system. The danger of your view is a person easily entering into sin with a person whom they cannot before God marry and then seeing that terminate because there is no legal bond between them.
Respectfully,
R—
Hi R—,
You make good points. It is a shame that the church isn't more central in the community life of Christians, so that it could effectively serve as a long-term monitor of the marriages of its members. It is possible that my ideas would have worked better for church people a couple of generations ago, when people tended to stay in the same community and the same church for generations. It is clearly less workable in our present situation, where people usually don't remain in the same communities or churches for even a lifetime, to say nothing of several generations.
But I think there is a dilemma that we face. It may be the tension between pragmatism and principle. I could be wrong, but it seems like the government has so corrupted the concept of marriage (i.e., in licensing same-sex unions, granting divorces without grounds, and illegitimately marrying divorced couples who are not really free to remarry) that Christians may need to visibly separate themselves from the state's involvement so as to preserve a separate and Christian conception of marriage alive for our children and their children. This is what I am referring to as "principle."
Pragmatically, all the problems you mentioned are real challenges. Some of them would not be easily remedied. Perhaps most could be remedied by every church that licenses marriages having a separate department of ministry set aside simply to research the marital history of couples seeking to be married, to carefully interview the couples previous to licensing, in order to decide whether they are really Christians and have really counted the cost of the decision they are making, to instruct them that there is no divorce (apart from biblical grounds) that the church will honor, and that a wrongful divorce will result in disfellowship from all conscientious Christians, to file some kind of affidavit with the courthouse declaring that a binding covenant has been cut between these two people (which will remain on record even if the church were to be dissolved), and to intrude with confrontational marriage counseling when serious marital problems are seen to arise. The long-term friends and family of the couple should also be strictly charged to hold the couple accountable for keeping their vows. Even if the church ceased to exist or the couple removed themselves to another geographical area, these long-term relationships will continue to exert pressure to keep vows made in their presence. Even after all of these precautions, I am sure there would be some marriages that would wrongfully break-up, but probably not as many as currently do. Some attrition in the church membership, unfortunately, is to be expected (Matt.13:20-21/1 John 2:19/ Heb.10:25/ 1 Cor.11:19).
It is true that the church has little impact on those contemplating divorce, but the state has even less. At least churches usually frown upon divorce and discourage it, whereas the state is 100% apathetic, and even rewards the guilty perpetrator by granting 50% of the family property and, sometimes, full custody of the children. The church's involvement might make negligible difference in the divorce rate, but it could hardly make things worse than they are now with the pagan government in charge of marriages and divorces.
As for the legal protections afforded by state licensure, I am not sure that there are any anymore. The state will often settle custodial and child-support disputes between an unmarried couple who split up in the same way it would handle the same if the couple had been married by the state—thus eliminating any advantage in this area of being licensed.
It seems to me that major property holdings of the family could be held in a trust, a corporation or escrow account, available at the consent of both spouses together, but not to one or the other without the other’s consent. I would think things could be set up so that the consent of a third party (an agent of the church or a close mutual Christian friend) would be required for access to or disposition of the family assets by one party without the permission of the other. This way, if the couple divorced, the property could be legally divided according to the decision of the church, even to the point of granting nothing to the deserting spouse and all to the abandoned party.
Since Christians are forbidden to bring lawsuits against brethren (every divorce requires a lawsuit of one party against the other), and Paul advises that a wise Christian be appointed to settle disputes (including child custody and property distribution between a divorcing couple), it seems that Paul would support my suggestion that the church enforce its own binding contracts between members, and to leave city hall out of it.
Innocent parties to a divorce might receive a more just disposition from the church than from the state. If the disgruntled party, against whom the church arbitrated, should ignore the church's decision, he/she might indeed go to the state courts to seek a settlement more to his/her liking, but the situation is the same with any legal conflict in which the church gives its counsel—it might be ignored by a rebel, and taken to another court. In the situation I am advocating, at least the violator would have to pay the cost of excommunication from church, family and friends. The church's discipline of those who sinfully divorce, or who reject the church's settlement decree, might not eliminate all problems, but it would provide at least some consequence to be paid by the covenant breaking party...something altogether absent in the present, state-licensing system.
I guess what I am thinking is that the system I am recommending would not be problem-free, and might not reduce the divorce rate one iota (though I think it could), but it certainly would not increase the present problems, and the church, in any case, would have stood true to its principles, regardless how those whom it instructs may react. "Whether they hear, or whether they refuse, yet they will know that there was a prophet among them" (Ezek.2:5).
What do you think?
Blessings!
In Jesus,
Steve
Hi Steve:
I heard your comments on marriage the other day and mostly agree. I do suggest you consider this:
1. Since the church is no longer monolithic the record of marriages would be unreliable.
2. Since many give little regard to the authority of the local church, the church has little impact on those contemplating divorce.
3. Since many disregard any responsibility to financially support to the local church, churches come and go and the recording of births and marriages would come and go with them.
4. Since the church isn't consulted on the dissolution of a marriage, a person would have no way of making sure their intended was eligible for marriage.
5. While I agree that having the government do this is less than perfect, I see having the church do this as less effective.
6. Further, if you have a real marriage license, it enhances your claims to real property and to custodial issues in the event of the death or divorce.
I do see the day coming, perhaps already here where the government has made such a mess of marriage that we may have to devise another system. The danger of your view is a person easily entering into sin with a person whom they cannot before God marry and then seeing that terminate because there is no legal bond between them.
Respectfully,
R—
Hi R—,
You make good points. It is a shame that the church isn't more central in the community life of Christians, so that it could effectively serve as a long-term monitor of the marriages of its members. It is possible that my ideas would have worked better for church people a couple of generations ago, when people tended to stay in the same community and the same church for generations. It is clearly less workable in our present situation, where people usually don't remain in the same communities or churches for even a lifetime, to say nothing of several generations.
But I think there is a dilemma that we face. It may be the tension between pragmatism and principle. I could be wrong, but it seems like the government has so corrupted the concept of marriage (i.e., in licensing same-sex unions, granting divorces without grounds, and illegitimately marrying divorced couples who are not really free to remarry) that Christians may need to visibly separate themselves from the state's involvement so as to preserve a separate and Christian conception of marriage alive for our children and their children. This is what I am referring to as "principle."
Pragmatically, all the problems you mentioned are real challenges. Some of them would not be easily remedied. Perhaps most could be remedied by every church that licenses marriages having a separate department of ministry set aside simply to research the marital history of couples seeking to be married, to carefully interview the couples previous to licensing, in order to decide whether they are really Christians and have really counted the cost of the decision they are making, to instruct them that there is no divorce (apart from biblical grounds) that the church will honor, and that a wrongful divorce will result in disfellowship from all conscientious Christians, to file some kind of affidavit with the courthouse declaring that a binding covenant has been cut between these two people (which will remain on record even if the church were to be dissolved), and to intrude with confrontational marriage counseling when serious marital problems are seen to arise. The long-term friends and family of the couple should also be strictly charged to hold the couple accountable for keeping their vows. Even if the church ceased to exist or the couple removed themselves to another geographical area, these long-term relationships will continue to exert pressure to keep vows made in their presence. Even after all of these precautions, I am sure there would be some marriages that would wrongfully break-up, but probably not as many as currently do. Some attrition in the church membership, unfortunately, is to be expected (Matt.13:20-21/1 John 2:19/ Heb.10:25/ 1 Cor.11:19).
It is true that the church has little impact on those contemplating divorce, but the state has even less. At least churches usually frown upon divorce and discourage it, whereas the state is 100% apathetic, and even rewards the guilty perpetrator by granting 50% of the family property and, sometimes, full custody of the children. The church's involvement might make negligible difference in the divorce rate, but it could hardly make things worse than they are now with the pagan government in charge of marriages and divorces.
As for the legal protections afforded by state licensure, I am not sure that there are any anymore. The state will often settle custodial and child-support disputes between an unmarried couple who split up in the same way it would handle the same if the couple had been married by the state—thus eliminating any advantage in this area of being licensed.
It seems to me that major property holdings of the family could be held in a trust, a corporation or escrow account, available at the consent of both spouses together, but not to one or the other without the other’s consent. I would think things could be set up so that the consent of a third party (an agent of the church or a close mutual Christian friend) would be required for access to or disposition of the family assets by one party without the permission of the other. This way, if the couple divorced, the property could be legally divided according to the decision of the church, even to the point of granting nothing to the deserting spouse and all to the abandoned party.
Since Christians are forbidden to bring lawsuits against brethren (every divorce requires a lawsuit of one party against the other), and Paul advises that a wise Christian be appointed to settle disputes (including child custody and property distribution between a divorcing couple), it seems that Paul would support my suggestion that the church enforce its own binding contracts between members, and to leave city hall out of it.
Innocent parties to a divorce might receive a more just disposition from the church than from the state. If the disgruntled party, against whom the church arbitrated, should ignore the church's decision, he/she might indeed go to the state courts to seek a settlement more to his/her liking, but the situation is the same with any legal conflict in which the church gives its counsel—it might be ignored by a rebel, and taken to another court. In the situation I am advocating, at least the violator would have to pay the cost of excommunication from church, family and friends. The church's discipline of those who sinfully divorce, or who reject the church's settlement decree, might not eliminate all problems, but it would provide at least some consequence to be paid by the covenant breaking party...something altogether absent in the present, state-licensing system.
I guess what I am thinking is that the system I am recommending would not be problem-free, and might not reduce the divorce rate one iota (though I think it could), but it certainly would not increase the present problems, and the church, in any case, would have stood true to its principles, regardless how those whom it instructs may react. "Whether they hear, or whether they refuse, yet they will know that there was a prophet among them" (Ezek.2:5).
What do you think?
Blessings!
In Jesus,
Steve
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
I clicked on this post from another discussion and I was curious about one of the things that you mentioned...
Another thought -- if I had not gotten a marriage license (which means nothing to us as an "approval" of our marriage) then I would not be able to get a driver's license in my married name. I guess I would prefer to have to always use my maiden name to my children being owned by the state! But it seems there might be some practicality purposes to getting a state marriage license (even though it wouldn't be regarded as anything before God.)
I clicked on this post from another discussion and I was curious about one of the things that you mentioned...
I had no idea about this and was wondering if you, or anyone else, could give me more information (or where to look for information).4. In many states (e.g., California), if the State licenses the marriage, the fruit of that marriage (i.e., children) are legally regarded to be the property of the State. Is this what you want?
Another thought -- if I had not gotten a marriage license (which means nothing to us as an "approval" of our marriage) then I would not be able to get a driver's license in my married name. I guess I would prefer to have to always use my maiden name to my children being owned by the state! But it seems there might be some practicality purposes to getting a state marriage license (even though it wouldn't be regarded as anything before God.)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
-
_kaufmannphillips
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
- Location: SW Washington
Reply to Rae
Hi, Rae,
Shalom,
Emmet
I think it is possible to legally change your name regardless of whether or not you have become legally married. Then you could have your driver's license, bank accounts, etc. in the name of your choice.Another thought -- if I had not gotten a marriage license (which means nothing to us as an "approval" of our marriage) then I would not be able to get a driver's license in my married name.
Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Huh! Hadn't thought of that! Thanks! (Not that I need to, but it's good to know in case someone else has that dilemma!)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
Very well said, Steve.1. A license is the State's "permit" or "authorization" to do a certain thing. Since marriage is not intended by God to be a three-way contract among bride, groom and government, but, rather, a covenant made between bride, groom and God, I do not see how the State's permission was ever thought to be necessary by Christians for this arrangement;
While I do think its a good idea to get a license to protect our loved ones, I ask myself "does lack of a license from godless ceasar relieve me from a vow made to a woman before God ? "
The only conceivable answer is 'no, it does not'.
License or no, if Ive bound myself in marriage to her before God, then married I am. There is no walking away from this and joining with another without committing sin against her unless she has apostated herself from the covenant already.
Something else that I find quite odd is that not even Moses really got very involved with marriage UNTIL divorce was in the picture. Marriage seems to be one of the most vague teachings in the scriptures as far as procedure goes.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: