When do 2 become 1?
For a while now, I have wondered when exactly a couple is considered married. Let me offer 3 points and a conclusion.
1) Biblical View
First, sex without a public commitment is not a marriage:
A couple that has the cart before the horse must make their marriage public by the standards of their culture.
On the other hand, neither does marriage consist only of a ceremony:
Jesus says there are 3 types of people who don't marry:
1. Those who were born unable to marry
2. Those who were disabled from marriage in some way after birth
3. Those who have chosen not to marry
This is strange - How can someone be born unable to marry if marriage is simply a public ceremony? What disability can prevent someone from standing before witnesses and pledging their lives to one another? The answer, of course, is nothing.
However, if sexual union is required for marriage, then those who are physically unable to join with the opposite sex are therefore unable to marry. (I'm sure there willl be debate about this point)
2) Possible Implications
If marriage is just a lifelong commitment to love one another, exchange of rings, and a ceremony, what necessarily prevents two men or two women from marrying? On the other hand, if sexual intercourse is foundational to marriage, then only a man and woman can be married.
3) To Consummate
What is the definition of "consummate" in the context of marriage?
Consummation is not an optional bonus - it is the completion of the marriage. In other words, by this definition, a couple isn't married until the marriage is consummated.
Conclusion - I see that marriage requires two essential components - public commitment and private consummation.
As always, I could be wrong. If you disagree with this post, let's chat!
1) Biblical View
First, sex without a public commitment is not a marriage:
16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. - Exodus 22
A couple that has the cart before the horse must make their marriage public by the standards of their culture.
On the other hand, neither does marriage consist only of a ceremony:
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19
Jesus says there are 3 types of people who don't marry:
1. Those who were born unable to marry
2. Those who were disabled from marriage in some way after birth
3. Those who have chosen not to marry
This is strange - How can someone be born unable to marry if marriage is simply a public ceremony? What disability can prevent someone from standing before witnesses and pledging their lives to one another? The answer, of course, is nothing.
However, if sexual union is required for marriage, then those who are physically unable to join with the opposite sex are therefore unable to marry. (I'm sure there willl be debate about this point)
2) Possible Implications
If marriage is just a lifelong commitment to love one another, exchange of rings, and a ceremony, what necessarily prevents two men or two women from marrying? On the other hand, if sexual intercourse is foundational to marriage, then only a man and woman can be married.
3) To Consummate
What is the definition of "consummate" in the context of marriage?
To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony (Dictionary.com).
Consummation is not an optional bonus - it is the completion of the marriage. In other words, by this definition, a couple isn't married until the marriage is consummated.
Conclusion - I see that marriage requires two essential components - public commitment and private consummation.
As always, I could be wrong. If you disagree with this post, let's chat!
posted by Vijay Swamidass | 1:44 PM
7 Comments:
This is not entirely on the same subject, but I would like to know if anyone out there is opposed to marrying people outside the church (from a pastoral point of view). If we say that we cannot marry a couple because they are not believers, then what right do we have saying that they must marry the opposite sex. Are there two kinds of mariages; one in the church and one outside? I'm pursuaded to marry unbelievers becasue they too are subjected to God's Law. And, unless we view marriage as a sacrament, we have no right to claim it as our own ceremony. And, if it is a sacrament, let's marry only believers and make a clear anouncement that people who marry outside the church are not really married. And let's go to court over it to retain the sacramental name of "marriage." The secular government, under this view, cannot even use the name. It would be like the government giving The Lord's Supper to people in the courthouse. Do you get what I'm saying?
Vijay, I agree with your conclusion. I wonder what the implication is for people who marry in verbal covenant, but are unable to consummate. I know this is rare, but I do think it happens. I can imagine a war vet who has been injured such that he cannot consummate his marriage. Would it then be sinful for him to join with a women in marriage vows?
Also, does this mean that C.S. Lewis was possibly not married to Joy Gresham after all (at least for the first part of their marriage)?
Hi, Vijay,
Here on a quiet Holy Saturday afternoon, I'll peck out a few comments.
Like a lot of things in our faith, the “definition” of marriage isn't given completely (that I'm aware of) in a nice convenient list of theological definitions. You've mentioned several things which are commonly mentioned, so I'll address those.
Contract/covenant: this seems to be essential from Malachi, who explains why the wicked men of Israel were finding that their prayers were being ignored by God:
14 Yet you say, “For what reason?”
Because the LORD has been witness
Between you and the wife of your youth,
With whom you have dealt treacherously;
Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
The notion of bride-price in the Law implies a covenant as well, but the verses above are significant in making God a party to the marriage covenant in two ways: (a) as a witness to the contract, and (b) as the One who creates the unity that results from the marriage [echoing Genesis 2:24 and anticipating Jesus' words in Matt. 19:6].
So, I'd say that whatever else constitutes a marriage, a covenant is required.
You mentioned consummation as a condition for marriage. I'd tend to agree, but I'm not sure. Here are the things I can't put together very well.
Sex is clearly in mind in Genesis 2:24. At the least, it is the ordinary expectation of any marriage that sex is a feature of its ongoing life. Does this mean that sex, all by itself, can create the “state” of marriage? I do not think so for a number of reasons.
You mentioned one: the seduced virgin who is NOT given in marriage to the man who seduces her, though he must still pay the bride price as compensation. It would seem that we here have sexual congress, but no marriage. Sex, from Genesis 2:24, seems to be the ordinary consequence of marriage, not its cause or ground. If sex “does” anything, it would seem to be the dynamic through which “one flesh” is brought into being.
A passage that has always disturbed me, and puzzled me, is Paul's warning against fornication in 1 Cor. 6:15-17:
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.”[b] 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Have those who are members of Christ ever fornicated with a harlot? Of course. And the result, according to Paul at this place, is to make the harlot a member of Christ's body via the agency of the sexual congress.
Whether that “state” is permanent or transient I cannot say. Either answer leads to difficult conclusions. I cannot see, however, that fornication in this sense results in a married state, though it envisions a one-flesh state outside of marriage.
So far, I conclude, then, as regards sexual congress that (a) it does not create a married state, but (b) it is the ordinary way in which one-flesh is realized, either within marriage (ideally) or even outside marriage.
Can a marriage obtain without sex? I do not think Jesus' words in Matthew 19 have any bearing on this question. The larger context is Jesus' outright prohibition of divorce, which caused the disciples to propose that the never married state was to be preferred to being married and not having divorce as an “escape” if things didn't work out. It was to the notion of never being married that Jesus' words have reference. Some never marry for reasons of birth, others for reason of the actions of other men. In both cases, I think, he is probably referring to “problems with the plumbing,” whether genetic or imposed by others. In those days, some men were, indeed, castrated for any number of reasons.
So when we consider marriage without sex, I think we have to resort to other criteria or examples for puzzling this out.
I'd opt for marriage being possible as the result of a covenant without sex in the conventional sense. As Drewdog indicates, this has surely happened, and I know of a couple of cases of this myself. I also know that in these cases that many of the concomitant details of sex are present in the relationship, but because of injury (genetic, accidental) to the man, his capacities are less than ordinary. In such situations it is possible today, though probably not in earlier times, for children to be sired and birthed.
So, I'd disagree that the absence of consummation in the ordinary sense means that there is no marriage. May I point out in this connection, that in the Jewish understanding of the Mosaic marriage laws, betrothal prior to the final marriage covenant – surely a place where sex was not expected – was viewed as subject to violation by sex with someone outside the pending covenant. Joseph was confronted with this apparent situation in the Virgin Mary's pregnancy. Marriage without sex is surely abnormal, but not unknown for reasons unconnected with misdeed by the married partners.
Mike's questions and comments can easily take this discussion in another direction. I'll add just a couple of comments to them and await to see if others here want to travel further afield.
If we say that we cannot marry a couple because they are not believers, then what right do we have saying that they must marry the opposite sex. ... I'm persuaded to marry unbelievers because they too are subjected to God's Law.
I am not opposed to marrying two unbelievers for a version of the reason you give. I wouldn't say they are subject to God's law – at least not in the sense that they have any covenental duty to comply with it, as the Jews did. However, they are human, created by God for marriage by virtue of their being male and female. As a practical pastoral matter, I ordinarily decline invitations to marry unbelievers, as this will very likely result in poor stewardship of my time as a pastor to members of my flock. The possibility of evangelization is simply not a reason to take on all the other pastoral duties. Better to start with evangelization, and take up marriage counseling if the evangelization is fruitful for both of the engaged.
I do decline to marry a man and woman if (a) one cannot give a coherent and clear testimony of the gospel and his submission to it; or (b) if there is someone living to whom one of them was married in the past. I also in one case declined to marry two Christians who declared during marriage counseling that they were not going to bring children into the world.
Are there two kinds of marriages; one in the church and one outside?
Many times and places in church history this has been the “policy.” I don't buy it for the reasons given above. And, while the Pharisees were religious, I don't know anyone who wants to make a case that they were “believers.” On the contrary, Jesus called them sons of the Devil to their faces. Yet, he was applying the true sense of the Mosaic teaching on marriage to them in Matthew 5 and 19.
...unless we view marriage as a sacrament, we have no right to claim it as our own ceremony.
This is an area where I am still sorting through my previous Christian formation and my present attempts to move back to the catholic (note the small “c”) center of the faith. It is just about the universal idea in the church, except for certain small streams from the Reformation, that marriage is sacramental, that it is a means whereby divine grace is imparted to those in marriage. The primary Biblical ground for this view is Ephesians 5, though many other passages in Old and New Testament would contribute to this idea. But, if marriage is a channel of grace, it would seem to be a channel of common grace rather than saving or sanctifying grace. Or, possibly, it is a means of common grace for all, and sanctifying grace for believers.
Unfortunately, the distinction between sacramental marriage and non-sacramental marriage has usually been applied to do an end-run around Jesus' prohibition of divorce.
BQ:
Wow. Thank you. I am going to mull this over, and if I have anything worthwhile to comment, I'll do so. In the meantime, thanks for your insight.
Isn't procreation fundamental to the concept of marriage? In other words, as God establishes the concept of marriage it is done with the explicit command, "Be fruitful and multiply." Therefore, not only do I agree with Vijay's statement: "Consummation...is the completion of the marriage" but I would add that it is the command of the marriage and the way in which God is ultimately glorified.
Jeff, while procreation is indeed one of the main commands given within the context of marriage, it cannot be essential. In fact, almost a century of Sarah's marriage to Abram was spent glorifying God without bearing children. While everyone that can have kids should have kids, those that cannot are no less married.
Not disagreeing, just clarifying.
Drew,Great point. In fact an interesting study can be done by observing the lives of men born to "barren" women, especially in the O.T.
Consider:
Isaac
Jacob and Esau
Joseph
Samson
Samuel
John the Baptist
Post a Comment
<< Home