Married in God's Eyes | Boundless Line

Married in God's Eyes
by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 11/05/2009 at 3:45 PM

Not too long ago, I read on the front cover of a Christian college newspaper about a couple who had made their own marriage commitment, spur of the moment, by themselves, on a beach. They told friends and relatives about it later, after they'd secured a marriage license. The couple's justification for their seeming indiscretion was that they were "married in the eyes of the Lord."

Something about this article really troubled me. I suppose you could make a case that the couple had physically made a covenant before God by consummating their relationship. But, to me (and I'm guessing to their family and friends), it appeared to be a lack of self-control. In his article, "Is Living Together Really a Big Deal?" author Ed Gungor makes a similar observation:

Most of us know people who are in love, plan to marry and currently live together. It’s sort of the new premarital counseling program. I visited a church out West that had a “pre-marriage” ceremony for a couple living together. No license. No wedding dress. Just a prayer of blessing to hold them over until the couple walked down the aisle—a kind of marital “appetizer,” I guess. I asked the pastor why they did it. He said, “The couple believes they are married in the eyes of the Lord, and we just wanted them to feel affirmation in our community.”

What did I think about it? I was bummed about it. I actually believe that marriage needs to be public and people need to vow into it in front of those who matter to them—it’s not just a private matter in front of the Lord. Truth is, those who declare they are married “in God’s eyes” seem to reframe their claim when they break up with their live-in partner. Then they claim they were never “really married.” This makes me very dubious about the “married in the eyes of the Lord” doctrine.

Gungor gives one of the best explanations I've ever heard of the emotional and psychological reasons sex should be saved for marriage. Beyond that, he reaffirms the value of a public demonstration of marriage:

If a Christian couple loves each other enough to jump in the hay, I think they should get married in the eyes of God and the rest of us. Marriage is not a private sacrament; it impacts the whole community of faith. It’s the right thing to do, and disciples do the right thing. They don’t just live on love—emotions, feelings and hormones—they live on principles, beliefs and disciplines that develop character. Pagans (and children) only live for themselves—they live for the “now” and feelings alone.

There were moments during our engagement when my now-husband and I had to remind ourselves of the importance of self-control and living above reproach in the courtship process. And it came down to what Gungor expresses here: "Disciples do the right thing." We may be tempted to find loopholes, but in the end it is gratifying and beneficial ... and just plain right ... to follow God's way.

Being Single , Dating & Courtship , Sex | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Latispatha said the following at 5:01 PM on Nov 5:

I would have to correct a minor point in Gungor's comment about pagans living for themselves. Actually, many pagan cultures have been very focused on community needs over individual desires. Pagan communities throughout history have been quite strong in encouraging marriage. Marriage is not just a Christian thing - it's a pre-Fall design for all of humanity, saved or not - and that's why Protestants actually do not consider it to be a sacrament as it is in the Roman Catholic Church.

2. DannieA said the following at 6:15 PM on Nov 5:

You know...I get the whole public wedding thing...really I do, however, I've known people to go off and elope with 2 or 3 witnesses because they just needed to do it that way...(not for any great sin, just either anxiety/social issues or they were older and had gotton over the 500 guests/melodrama that younger people mostly have with daydreaming about a wedding)

Then again, I'm of the strong belief that if you're already living together...by all means go to the courthouse...why on earth would you do the whole wedding thing with an audience as if you were NOW starting your life together...

oddly enough I don't feel the same way if one has slipped up while dating but still isn't living with significant other.

IDK....this should generate interesting comments

3. Sara said the following at 7:24 PM on Nov 5:

Would eloping then not be a true marriage, since it isn't done in front of friends and family? Or would my wedding of 25 people be less real than my friends weddings of 150 to 200 people?

I see your point about it not being as serious without the certificate, but I know people who got the marriage certificate and still didn't treat marriage as sacred.

I was married legally for two reason: The tax benefits, and because I wanted to be married in a Church. If there was no tax benefits and if this was Europe where Church marriages aren't legal, than I wouldn't have bothered with a legal marriage.

So I guess my opinion on the issue is that the legal aspect doesn't make a marriage. However, most couples I know who live together before marriage are "testing the waters" which I do not agree with at all. On the other hand, if couple just did not want a legal marriage or didn't want a huge celebration with friends and family and still wanted to live together and treated it as sacred as a legal marriage, then I think kudos to them.

4. endlessnights said the following at 8:00 PM on Nov 5:

Hmmmmm....

I have recently questioned the place of the 'signing of the register' in today's modern marriage ceremony. I understand the importance of the legal side of stuff - keeping record of who married who - and the need for us as Christians to 'obey the law of the land' which requires us to get a marriage license and have the signing of the register witnessed. HOWEVER, I think the thing I find most important - to me anyway - is quite simply the commitment of vows and love between my future wife and I in front of family and friends.

Hence I have resolved (obviously this is something I would discuss with a fiancee) that I would much rather sign the register in front of witness' - being our groomsmen and bridesmaids - either the day before our wedding, or earlier in the day before we get all prim and proper, and then make the ceremony more about us committing our lives to each other in front of family, friends and God, which to me seems more how it should be. But that's just my view and desire on it all.

5. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:45 AM on Nov 6:

One of the key elements of a covenant, is the presence of witnesses. This is why weddings matter.

That does not mean that the ceremony must be performed at a church, or with a minister officiating. (If you wish to use the State, then the county clerk will do.)

Oh, I can see the skeptics seething here, so please spare me the, "what if you two are on a desert island..." canard.

On a different--but sort of related--note, here is a scenario that gets interesting.

Let's say we have John doe, who is 75 years old. He's widowed, retired, disabled, and supports his income with Social(ist) Security.

Let's say we also have Jane Jones, who also is 75 years old. She also is widowed, retired, disabled, and receives Social(ist) Security.

Let's also assume that they are Christian, and very active in their church.

If they get married, then their incomes take a hit. Why? Social(ist) Security penalizes them for getting married.

The question: what would be the theological problem with them getting married--recognized as such among the faithful in their church--while not getting that established with the State?

That is a very realistic scenario, I've seen this go on myself, and you will see quite a bit more of that emerging as our population gets older.

6. Larissa said the following at 5:38 AM on Nov 6:

What a brilliant quote that applies to everything in life!

7. Adam Sloope said the following at 7:45 AM on Nov 6:

The writer makes the point that he beleives marriages are to be held in front of those who matter.... Really??? Old Testament sort of goes like this....if you rape a woman, you marry her or be stoned to death. Jewish wedding festivals are held after the two have become one, if you know what I mean. There was never a mwedding ceremony in the Bible. The marriage came at consumation. I think the reality that many people overlook is that by sleeping with someone they will not spend the rest of their life with they are taking the burden of that "divorce" upon themselves. I think marriage is an insitution God intended and the unity comes with flesh. I don't buy you have to make it a public spectacle though. When someone shows me in scripture a mandate or even principle of a public wedding and marriage certificate making a marriage valid in God's eyes maybe I'll change my mind, but until then I will cringe at opinions based upon tradition and culture, rather than Bible.

8. obewan said the following at 8:35 AM on Nov 6:

Not to downgrade traditional Christian marriage, but I know of cases where perhaps the people are married on God's eyes.

My former engineering supervisor is a non-practicing Jew. His "girlfriend" is a non-practicing Catholic.

The parents on both sides insisted in a marriage ceremony in the place of worship of their particular faith. My boss refused to become Catholic, and his girlfriend refused to become a Jew. So, the marriage never happened.

They lived both faithfully and happily together for over 40 years. The state they were living in declared they were "husband and wife" after only 3 years of living together.
We used to tease my boss about it though and say that he was technically a "married" man. That would get him spun up since he was a 1960's rebel radical.

At the end of the day, I tend to judge their situation less harshly than some of the Christians I know who have been divorced and remarried multiple times. I mean, I have one “Christian” friend at Church who is working on divorce number five right now.

9. Becky said the following at 11:15 AM on Nov 6:

My husband and I eloped. Less than a month after we set the date for the wedding we found out he would be deploying to Iraq two days after we were married - not enough time to get me into the "system". There was no way in the world I was going to let my husband go off to Iraq and not be his "primary contact". Meaning that if he had been injured or killed I would be the one notified by the nice men in green suites. I was not going to find out second hand days later. Courtship and weddings aren't always a fairy take and thank goodness we have other opitons than a big wedding.

10. A.M.C. said the following at 11:18 AM on Nov 6:

Re: Amir Larijani (#5)

The question: what would be the theological problem with them getting married--recognized as such among the faithful in their church--while not getting that established with the State?

My opinion: the underlying issue is that the law is being unfair here. In other words, the long-term solution is to lobby for the case of NOT penalizing couples financially for getting married, at least in terms of government benefits. (Of course, one could make the argument that the government shouldn't discriminate against singles either, otherwise we'll have the elderly getting married en masse to claim financial benefits. Thus, the only fair solution is perhaps making the benefits of married couples exactly twice the amount for a single person.)

11. Louise from Chicago said the following at 11:42 AM on Nov 6:

I you don't believe unmarried couples should live together, so be it, but people have a right to choose a private wedding.

12. Rachelle said the following at 12:16 PM on Nov 6:

The case for public weddings is not necessarily a case against elopements, it is simply a reaffirmation of what matrimony is and must be. Marriage is a formal, permanent vow--a sacrament. Marriage ought never to be a "partial" thing, we don't claim our spouse on some occasions and deny that they are ours on others. If circumstances force a quick or small ceremony, you can still widely and openly affirm your marriage before others--the problem is when something is a half-way measure or a "secret" because that denies the very nature of the marriage contract.

What Gungor should have said was that hedons or Epicureans seek after pleasure blindly, not pagans! Aristotle's Ethics is a beautiful treatise on why pleasure is not the highest good, but rather contemplation of the divine.

Thanks for the post, very interesting!

13. Zach said the following at 12:20 PM on Nov 6:

I think Ed Gungor's approach in his article was a wise one: "I was bummed about it." He doesn't try to say these couples AREN'T married, but just that this doesn't seem like the right way to do it.

Adam (#7) brought up the Jewish culture of marriage. According to Jewish culture, a man is able to become married to a woman by "being with her" if the intentions of both of them are that the act make them married. However, this kind of behavior was viewed as licentious and was subject to legal punishments -- nothwithstanding the point that it was, in fact, valid. This approach seems to be Ed Gungor's too: perhaps it's valid, but is it really good?

Concerning other aspects of the Jewish culture for marriage addressed by Adam...

It's incorrect to say that according to the Old Testament, if you rape a girl, you marry her or are stoned to death. There are actually two cases:
1) A man who lies with a non-betrothed virgin takes her as his wife and can't divorce her -- provided her father agrees (and according to Jewish culture, the girl must also agree) (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29).
2) A man who lies with a betrothed virgin (or woman) and is found is stoned regardless (whether or not the woman is stoned depends on whether or not she resisted) (Deut. 22:23-27). This is because in Jewish culture, the word "betrothed" meant "married without privileges."

As far as Jewish wedding festivals being held after consummation, this was true (it's no longer customary to do it quite this way). However, there was still (when things were properly done) a formal religious ceremony recognizing that the man took this woman as his wife even before the consummation. The festivities were then more like a reception (but much more elaborate).

14. Chris said the following at 12:21 PM on Nov 6:

Honestly, when I think about it, the thing I want most in my wedding one day is to write my own vows. Whether it's in front of 3 people or 300 people, I want to be able to look into her eyes and tell her what she means to me. Of course, I'll need to find the girl first haha : )

15. Jo said the following at 12:34 PM on Nov 6:

"If there was no tax benefits and if this was Europe where Church marriages aren't legal, than I wouldn't have bothered with a legal marriage."

Europe? I don't know where in Europe you're talking about, but it certainly ain't Britain.

I understand why Americans often refer to Europe as though it were one big country, but it really bugs me. The differences between European countries are immense.

16. Tami said the following at 12:36 PM on Nov 6:

No offense to the faithfulness of your friends, obewan (8), and CERTAINLY not to excuse the behavior of a Christian on divorce #5, but sometimes I wonder if the devil gets after nonchristians' faithful-but-not-married relationships much less than he gets after Christian marriages.

This way he gets to turn* Christians into a crummy example while showing the world, "Hey, why bother with marriage! It's just a piece of paper. You can be faithful without it."

*All this said, of course there is a huge element of human responsibility here. Satanic attack is not an excuse for disobedience to God.

17. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 6:

Adam Sloope says:

The writer makes the point that he beleives marriages are to be held in front of those who matter.... Really??? Old Testament sort of goes like this....if you rape a woman, you marry her or be stoned to death.

That's just the kind of strawman exegesis I would expect from a scoffer. Never mind that this does not fit your model in the slightest.

In the case of a woman who was raped--and who was not married--what would have been the worst possible outcome for her?

(a) put the rapist to death
(b) put the rapist in a prison for the rest of his life
(c) castrate the rapist
(d) force the rapist to marry the woman, but allow him to divorce her
(e) force the rapist to marry the woman, but allow him to divorce her

Answer: (a), (b), (c), and (d) would be far worse than (e). Why? Because any of those outcomes would force the woman to go unmarried, and therefore she would never have children.

By forcing him to marry her--and the Biblical stipulation prohibited him from ever divorcing her--that ensured that (a) she would not go unmarried, (b) she would have the opportunity to have children. This spared her from the ultimate curse of her day: barrenness.

In contrast, the man--forced to marry her without the possibility of divorce--is now between a rock and a hard spot.

(a) his sexual fulfillment must now come from a woman who now hates him, as he has stolen many things from her.

(b) even though polygamy is permissible, no man of character will give him his daughter for marriage.

(d) in his community, his reputation is now one of dishonor, and this impacts his ability to secure employment and engage in business.

Jewish wedding festivals are held after the two have become one, if you know what I mean.

Actually, they are one and the same. The festival involves the man and woman "doing the deed" (out of plain sight), and then demonstrating proof of covenant--the presence of blood, that is--if you know what I mean...

There was never a [wedding] ceremony in the Bible. The marriage came at consumation.

Genesis 29. Read it and weep.

don't buy you have to make it a public spectacle though. When someone shows me in scripture a mandate or even principle of a public wedding and marriage certificate making a marriage valid in God's eyes maybe I'll change my mind, but until then I will cringe at opinions based upon tradition and culture, rather than Bible.

The issue here is not about having pomp and ceremony--or even going through the State--but rather the need for witnesses.

This flows from the premise that marriage is a covenant. (That is Biblical. Read Malachi.)

Covenants were never established in private. Not once.

Given that, the burden of proof is on you to make the case for why there ought not be witnesses when covenants are made.

18. Louise from Chicago said the following at 12:40 PM on Nov 6:

Comment 5, that is why my mother and her live-in boyfriend aren't getting married.

19. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:44 PM on Nov 6:

Becky: I have no beef with elopement. A "wedding ceremony" can be as simple--a trip to the county clerk--or as extravagant--a very large wedding with an enormous reception, as one wishes.

The large issue here is the need for witnesses. That is a key element of the establishment of covenants. This can be two witnesses, or thousands of witnesses.

20. Jessi in GA said the following at 12:57 PM on Nov 6:

I *tried* to have a "big" wedding... but I found the planning to be much too stressful! I know some girls who spend their whole lives dreaming about their wedding day, but I'd never been one of them. To me, working out all those details was too much, even with my family to help arrange things.
I was going through difficult time in my life generally at that point, and trying to plan a wedding on top of it all, I almost had a breakdown. Really! So finally my husband and I gave up on the church wedding and got married at the courthouse, with just a few people present. That worked out great for us. :-)

21. LeeLee said the following at 1:05 PM on Nov 6:

#5 Amir - I've actually heard my pastor address this type of situation. He said that in a specific case like that he would perform a religious ceremony for the couple in their home or something, as a way to circumvent the political system. So it may be cheating the state/federal government out of some tax money, but the couple would be married in the eyes of the church. Definitely an interesting issue.

22. Suzanne Hadley Gosselin said the following at 1:11 PM on Nov 6:

This post actually was not meant to be negative on small weddings, special-circumstance weddings or elopements. Yes, there is something to be said for involving your community, whomever that may be, in your marriage, but the main point I, and Gungor, were making was about the unwed having sex.

The couple mentioned in college newspaper article I referenced decided to have sex before marriage, then proclaimed to friends and family that they were "married in God's eyes." They had no marriage license; nor did they go through any legal ceremony. A few months later they legalized their marriage.

To me, this is a case of doing something you know the Bible says is wrong and they using fancy language to justify it. If nothing else, the testimony they lost in the process made their decision a poor one.

23. Suz said the following at 1:31 PM on Nov 6:

I think alot of you are missing the point that Suzanne is making.

Absolutely if you are elderly and have some financial reason that it's impossible to make it "legal" with the state, of course that is fine to just get married in the eyes of the church, community, and God.

And most certainly, eloping because you have a quick deployment of your military husband, of course that is fine! No one would question that.

But on a more macro level, when two people choose to not legalize their marriage (with no particular reason), you have to ask yourself why? Maybe it is for the reason that Suzanne mentioned--- because the commitment isn't as strong, and when they disolve their relationship, they can say that they were never "really" married. Maybe it's an excessive fear of legal divorce (as if ending a live-in relationships isn't incredibly painful too)

I think it all goes back to the motivation behind the choice. If they cannot provide a reasonable explanation for not wanting to make it official with the state, I would be very suspicious of their commitment level.

Oh and Suzanne-- thanks for the interesting post!

24. Tami said the following at 1:34 PM on Nov 6:

The problem I have with under-the-radar religious wedding ceremonies for those hoping to preserve their Social Security checks is that God's Word instructs us to submit to government authorities (so long as we are not breaking God's law in the process). Hiding your marriage from civil authorities is a really bad idea; marriage still is, after all, a civil institution in this country.

I am with all of you who say it's the *law* that should be changed, not circumvented.

25. Tami said the following at 2:14 PM on Nov 6:

In post 24 I wrote the very American-centric "...in this country." Sorry about that! Should've written "...in the United States."

26. Carol said the following at 2:25 PM on Nov 6:

God recognizes human laws, governments and customs. He also tells us to obey our government as long as it does not cross God's law. (Romans 13) Saying that you are married in the eyes of God because you live together or have sex is ridiculous.

I don't know about any other countries, but in the U.S., marriage is a civil contract by law and by custom. Without the civil contract, there is no marriage, no matter how many ceremonies are performed. That is just how it is. If a couple has a problem with that because they will lose money or lose the ability to skip out whenever they want, then perhaps they are not really committed to the marriage.

27. obewan said the following at 2:25 PM on Nov 6:

The reason we have the "marriage laws" is because of the fall. If we were not sinners maybe a marriage ceremony would not be necessary. Adam and Eve did not have a ceremony or marriage license. But, that is what some liberal people get caught up in. If a couple has their own ceremony and is not faithful to each other "after the fact", in my mind they are the same as a couple that divorces. However, if they only have one "partner" for life and have some kind of legal tie that happened after the fact then I am inclined to not judge them too harshly - "after the fact." And, I do agree with Tami that Satan has traditional Christian marriage under attack and as well that we must obey and be subject to the laws of the land. So, it follows that I am in favor of common law marriage laws because they tend to mitigate some of the problems with people who choose to just “live together”.

28. Anonymous said the following at 3:14 PM on Nov 6:

#17:

Wow. I was raped. If I was forced to marry my rapist, and I say this without exaggeration and with complete honesty, I would kill myself. I think you completely underestimate the level of psychological trauma that comes from sexual violence. Forcing a woman to marry her rapist means, sure, that she might have babies, but it also means that she is most likely condemned to a life of marital rape. I would argue that it is a lot more horrific of a punishment for the woman than it is for the rapist. Is it really necessary to defend verses like that? Can't we just be thankful that we have moved beyond such horrible practices?

29. Danielle said the following at 4:09 PM on Nov 6:

"The couple mentioned in college newspaper article I referenced decided to have sex before marriage, then proclaimed to friends and family that they were "married in God's eyes." They had no marriage license; nor did they go through any legal ceremony. A few months later they legalized their marriage."

Really? Do you know for sure that they had sex before they made the commitment? Is it not a possibility that they made the commitment first?

I think there is a big difference between getting married in God's eyes and doing things legally. And frankly, God is all that matters. Legal issues have nothing, nothing, to do with marriage. They are simply a way for the government to count and tax its people. Marriage is two people making a vow between them and God for life. No papers, no witnesses needed.

30. Adam said the following at 4:29 PM on Nov 6:

Adam,

Really??? Old Testament sort of goes like this....if you rape a woman, you marry her or be stoned to death.

Why in the world would anyone go to a text like Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that is incredibly obscure to try to argue for something like this? There are a whole host of exegetical issues regarding this text, and it is unclear whether we are talking about rape, or whether we are talking about the discovery of fornication. There are things about the texts that argue in both ways. Secondly, even if it is about rape, keep in mind that girls married at the age of 13, and a girl who had been raped like this would, not only probably have been at least ten or eleven years old, but would have a difficult time getting married, and thus, would be financially insecure, as women who were raped were much less desirable in this culture. The law was made to protect the woman and her father economically in the event that something like this would happen. Also, there is nothing in the text that says that the woman cannot opt out of this. This is intended to punish the man, and protect the woman and her father.

Now, are there things that have changed? Sure. We don't marry girls at the age of 13. We don't look upon rape as making a girl less desirable. Also, I would say that something that this society did have that our society does not have is shame. It would be great shame to be convicted of something like this. However, I would say that, since our culture does not see that shame, we have a major disconnect between the culture into which this was written and our modern society.

Hence, what I would say is, not that we should say that we are past this law, but we should understand its intent. Its intent is to protect the victims of an attack from the various social consequences of their attack. Hence, this law would be the basis of things such as fines for emotional and psychological damage as well as physical injury.

And this is all assuming that the text is referring to rape which is questionable in the first place.

God Bless,
Adam

31. Eric said the following at 4:34 PM on Nov 6:

#28

My bible (NIV) says "seduces," not "rapes." A man is forced to marry a virgin only if he seduces her, not if he rapes her by force. In cases of forcible rape, the man is put to death. Interestingly, the woman is also put to death if she was in a position to resist and fails to do so, negating the possibility of manufacturing a rape charge after consenting to sex and later regretting it.

If we're going to argue the fine points of Jewish law, let's get the details right.

32. Mirren said the following at 4:36 PM on Nov 6:

Thank you Carol (comment number 26)!

The issue is how we can best honour God with our lives, and with our bodies. We do this because we love Him and want to follow and serve Him. He has ordained marriage for us because it is a good thing!

I don't think God would mind how big or small a wedding is, or where it is held. The most important thing is that we we marry according to the laws of the place we live- motivated by a desire to do the right thing for God.

33. BDB said the following at 4:50 PM on Nov 6:

#28 wrote:

>>If I was forced to marry my rapist, and I say this without exaggeration and with complete honesty, I would kill myself. <<

Understand the sentiment completely.

I don't see that the Bible commands marrying the rapist. I've heard this charge from some people, but never from Biblical scholars. Here's the verse:

Exodus 22:16-17 (New King James Version)

“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.

Notice the word "entices." This verse is talking about teenagers who get busy without benefit of marriage. NOT RAPE. As someone else pointed out above, once a woman was no longer a virgin, her possibilities in life were limited. So, if she falls for a guy, she ends up married to him. I'm convinced of this in part because of verse 17, which suggests that dad has the option to go along with it - it is not required.

I suspect that we all know people who've gotten married because the girl got pregnant. Not ideal, but often, the marriage endures. There may be consequences like guilt that emerge later - I've seen this happen with some couples, but their marriage can endure.

Notice in Deuteronomy 22:25-26 that if a woman is "forced," the man is executed, but nothing is to be done to the woman:

25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death...

The Hebrew word "force" here is chazaq - to bind, restrain, conquer (Strongs H2388)

Now, in Deuteronomy 22:28 it's more problematic, because it uses the word "seizes".

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

The Hebrew word here is "Taphas" (H8610 in Strongs). Which is "take." But it's not the same as "force" used in the preceding verse. This is similar to laqach (Strongs H3947) - Such as in Genesis 24:4 where they mention "taking a wife" for Isaac.

Now, if I read both Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28 together, they both sound like the situation where the couple decided to move forward without benefit of marriage. Neither of those verses mentions using force.

But the verses that do mention using force consistently require that the rapist be executed. A woman can't be required to marry a dead man. And, even if consummation would result in being married in the eyes of God, the death of the man releases the woman, as Ruth was free to remarry after the death of her husband.

34. Anonymous in #28 said the following at 6:02 PM on Nov 6:

#31:
No need to demonize me. I was responding to what earlier comments had said.

#33:
I should have verified the verses in question in my own Bible before posting. For Deuteronomy 22:28-29, my Bible (NRSV) says, "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." The note for these verses says, "These conditions correspond to M.A.L. section A 55, which implies forced rape. In contrast, Ex 22.16-17 specifies intercourse with, but not forced rape of, a 'virgin who is not engaged.' The conflation of these two models in this law leaves it unclear whether or not it refers to consensual intercourse." If I just look at the text of the Bible, it definitely appears to be rape, but I do agree that the note does make it more ambiguous.

I do still stand by what I said in my first comment. The fact that someone would attempt to rationalize such a heinous law, even if the Bible is ambiguous on the matter, is still very disturbing to me.

35. Kyra said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 6:

I'm going to preface this comment by mentioning that I'm Catholic, because I think the Catholic idea of marriage as one of the sacraments is a little different than other religions, so I might have a different take. For example, in the Catholic church, in order for it to be a true marriage, the ceremony has to be performed by a priest, inside an actual Church, and the couple is required to go through a whole program beforehand.

My understanding of Christian marriage in general, though, is that it is God-ordained and God-blessed, and that blessing doesn't happen until the moment of the wedding ceremony, correct? Which is why all of the privileges of marriage (such as sex) are supposed to wait until after the wedding. And shouldn't this require at least some level of formality? In other words, an officiating priest or minister, in addition to witnesses?

I would be really interested to hear some comments from pastors, people studying to be pastors, or people who have taught pre-marriage courses, led engagement retreats, etc.

Two trends that I find really disturbing in our Church are:

1) Couples getting legally married at the court house and then having a "real" wedding or "blessing" much later. In other words, they take care of the legal end and behave as if they were married even though nothing of religious significance has occurred. It seems to me that usually this is so they can have sex and start living together as soon as possible, yet still get all the time in the world to plan a nice wedding at a nice church. They can also side-step all of the usual pre-marital counseling and retreat business (which no one seems to like!)

2) Couples wanting to be married in the Church and participating in Church-sponsored engagement courses (as Catholics we call it Pre-Cana) but meanwhile they are already living together or having sex the whole time. This really angers me because to me it's like they are mocking marriage somehow. I feel that if they really believed the ceremony itself were the sacrament, they wouldn't be "playing" a married couple before they were actually married. On the other hand, if they don't really have any respect for the sacrament, why do they want to get married into the Church so badly? Why does the Church allow them?

Any thoughts? Does the Church not address this because it would be impossible to prove that people were sleeping together? Or is it because they are afraid to enforce such standards, because no one would get married in the Church anymore?... or am I just being un-Christian by judging such couples? Are the sins a couple brings into marriage only for God to judge, and not the Church community's business?

I know of one young couple (actually they are friends of mine) who were deeply in love, engaged, and sleeping together..and serving as youth ministers. They were called aside after this was found out, and asked to leave their positions. Currently they are married and have two children. But it doesn't take away from the fact that their behavior at the time was innapropriate. Yes, they were in love and engaged, yes God brought them together and they were "meant to be"...but they still weren't formally married yet. Period. No amount of their professing their love to one another counted as a true marriage.

36. Jan said the following at 8:30 PM on Nov 6:

I think that even if a couple is penalized financially for getting married they should be willing to make that sacrifice - as in the case of the hypothetical elderly couple.

37. Cat said the following at 8:57 PM on Nov 6:

A friend and I had a conversation about this the other day. We were discussing how to us the idea of living with someone before marriage seems to make sense. You can get a taste of what marriage is like, find out if that person really drives you crazy when you constantly see them. Decide which way the toilet paper goes. But, neither of us have seen a couple our age move in together and have a prosperous relationship.

What we eventually decided was the "easy come, easy go" factor. When a couple traditionally gets married there is a period of waiting. A testing of commitment. There's the work and the planning that goes into remaining sexually pure, planning a wedding, and preparing for a lifetime together. When a cole just decides to move in together it's too easy. There's no waiting and therefore no commitment.

38. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:13 AM on Nov 7:

Anynoymous (28) says:

Wow. I was raped. If I was forced to marry my rapist, and I say this without exaggeration and with complete honesty, I would kill myself. I think you completely underestimate the level of psychological trauma that comes from sexual violence. Forcing a woman to marry her rapist means, sure, that she might have babies, but it also means that she is most likely condemned to a life of marital rape. I would argue that it is a lot more horrific of a punishment for the woman than it is for the rapist. Is it really necessary to defend verses like that? Can't we just be thankful that we have moved beyond such horrible practices?

You are trying to look at the Scriptures with Western eyes.

In those days, what was the worst thing that a woman could suffer?

(a) rape
(b) domestic violence
(c) denial of job opportunity
(d) barrenness

The answer is (d). For a woman to go through adulthood--without having children--was considered the mother of all curses.

Against that backdrop, the Biblical proscription for marriage--without the possibility of divorce--was (a) the lesser of all evils for her, and (b) a fate worse than death for him.

Oh, and if she was married? The penalty for the rapist was death.

No one here is trying to minimize the effects of rape, or even deny the sufferings that rape victims endure.

Still, when we look at Scripture, we must understand it against the backdrop of the culture at the time. In that light, God's precepts were quite ingenious in terms of mitigating the woman's suffering.

39. rebekah said the following at 7:58 AM on Nov 7:

#35 - there are certain cases where it is necessary for a couple to get married legally before they have a church wedding. For example, if a Canadian girl is engaged to an American guy, and wants to have her wedding at her church in Canada, they need to be legally married in the States at least 3 months in advance so that she can go back and forth across the border. If not, she'll be stuck in Canada unable to come back to the States with her husband. I have a friend who was in this position, but they didn't act like they were married until after the church wedding.

40. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 7:

Kyra says:

1) Couples getting legally married at the court house and then having a "real" wedding or "blessing" much later. In other words, they take care of the legal end and behave as if they were married even though nothing of religious significance has occurred. It seems to me that usually this is so they can have sex and start living together as soon as possible, yet still get all the time in the world to plan a nice wedding at a nice church. They can also side-step all of the usual pre-marital counseling and retreat business (which no one seems to like!)

While there are some who can be motivated by those "advantages"--no counseling, etc.--I would submit that many people simply do this as a matter of economics.

FutureMrsLarijani and myself considered "eloping"--i.e., going to Gatlinburg--purely for logistical reasons. She lives 5 hours from me, and the travel is nasty. Our families are scattered all over the country.

Still, we decided to do it at her home church because (a) eloping--for all the benefits--would not do justice for the church family who is effectively giving her away, (b) it would do no justice to my family, many of whom have been hoping for me to eventually find a wife, and (c) for all of FutureMrsLarijani's problems on her side of the family, we still believed we were under the conviction to honor them.

I know other couples, however, who have eloped. To me, the real issue here is the relations with the families. I believe we should strive to honor our parents to the extent that this is possible. That's Biblical.

But the couples I know who have eloped, did so purely for economic reasons--there were exigent circumstances that both families understood.

In those cases, it was less-than-ideal, but I would not say they were being dishonorable by any stretch.

As for premarital counseling, I've quite enjoyed the process. Her church has been fabulous.

41. Sara said the following at 10:02 AM on Nov 7:

#15 (Joe):

My apologies, and just to save the American's, I was speaking as a Canadian. However, I was still under the impression that a Church wedding alone was not a legal marriage in Britain. Perhaps this was a case of false information, as I heard it from a friend who lived in Belgium, which is certainly not Britain.

My overall point is that I know some countries (such as Belgium)where you must have a civil ceremony preceding the church ceremony in order for it to be valid in the eyes of the government. I would probably skip the civil ceremony completely, and just make it valid in the eyes of the Church, unless there were any specific tax benefits to making it legal.

42. Heidi M. said the following at 1:09 PM on Nov 7:

I've pondered this issue and thus far have reached the conclusion that marriage is well defined as a combination of 1) That which God defines as such and 2) that which the people around you define as such.

Obviously, God's side of the definition is quite basic: the committed giving of each fiance to the other with a specific point at which said committment begins.

Currently the working definition of marriage by this culture is fulfilling the legal requirements. Whether by elopement or a large wedding, if the paper is signed we as a society consider the couple marriage beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In the case of current special scenarios, or if there was some sort of future restriction such as Christian persecution where a marriage license as a Believer would endanger your life-basically any *good* reason-then the "people around you" part of the definition has to get smaller than the general populace. As has already been mentioned, perhaps a pastor would come to the home and perform a simple covert ceremony, but whatever the case people band together and do *something* to signify within that group that the couple is now married, and the second half of my definition would still be fulfilled.

Okay, okay, desserted island scenario with just the couple and no hope for rescue, ever. In that case I suppose it can be argued that there is biblical support for "married in God's eyes" without any other witnesses...unless anyone wants to claim that Adam and Eve had premarital sex. ;)

43. Texas Craig said the following at 10:53 PM on Nov 7:

FWIW, in many states, all you need for a common-law marriage (which is a legally-recognized marriage) is:

(1) an agreement to be married (namely, both parties agree that they consider themselves married)
(2) cohabitation (i.e., they live together); and
(3) a holding out to others that the people are married (namely they tell others they are married, or are husband and wife)

So, a couple who want to be husband and wife, and move in together and tell others they are married are . . . in fact, legally married in most states.

44. Thea said the following at 7:42 AM on Nov 8:

@ Kyra:

I just wanted to help clarify a point in your post, since I'm also from your side of the Tiber :). Not to get into a detailed discussion of the differences between the Roman Catholic tradition and other Christian traditions, but technically, the couple are the ministers of the marriage in the Catholic church. The priest is there to invoke the blessing, to be a representative of the Church, and to witness the ceremony. His presence is another sign to the congregation that the couple marriage meets with the Church's approval (basically, that the couple has acted chastely and responsibly and that no-one is being unequally yoked.) This doesn't mean that Catholic couples can get away with "being married in God's eyes" only though!

In the Orthodox tradition, if I have my facts straight, the priest is the minister of the marriage and therefore a marriage cannot take place without his presence.

And since people *have* been bringing up the difference in sacraments and whatnot on this thread, I just wanted to point us all to an article on Boundless called "Sacramental Journey" written by J. Budziszewski. It's a good explanation of the basics.

And I do agree with you--both the trends you mentioned in your post are deeply upsetting, and it's difficult to know what to do. Obviously, it's important to make sure that those seeking to enter Christian marriage take it very seriously, but how do we give proper pastoral care to those that do not?

45. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:17 AM on Nov 8:

Something to add which is not directly in response to Suzanne's post, but something related nonetheless.

There seems to be two "definitions" of marriage: The legal definition as according to secular law, and the religious definition as according to a particular religion. Usually these two intersect, but not always.

For example, some states recognize what's called "common law marriage". You never formally had the ceremony (religious or otherwise), but for all intents and purposes, you lived like you were married and thus legally are consider as such (interesting that no States currently have "common law divorce"). However, from a religious point of view, it might not be considered "real" marriage.

I remember one year I stood as a witness in front of a clerk for a couple of friends of mine. The "ceremony" was very formal and quick. The actual pomp and circumstance wedding wasn't until months later. The reason why they did this is at the time both were military and wanted to be stationed together for their next assignment. Intending to marry wasn't good enough. They needed the bona fide piece of paper and legal status. And as far as I know, they never consumated until the ceremony date. In God's eyes, when were they truly married that day? I'm not sure to be honest, but I would lean towards "yes".

Personally, I don't believe that marriage in God's eyes requires the whole family/friends/ceremony, although it certainly is preferred. However I would also say that almost certainly it does require some sort of religious authority recognized by the government or the government itself (in the case of the clerk-type wedding). Finally, I do believe that common law marriages in certain circumstances are considered "married in God's eyes". All three of course require a declaration to the other person of the commitment to marry and consumation (no consumation would be grounds for annulment [i.e. the marriage never happened in the first place]).

46. Zach said the following at 3:14 PM on Nov 8:

It's good to see how many people instinctually turn to Scripture to try to answer questions about life (like #7, 17, 30, 31, 33, and 34).

I think it's worthwhile trying to put forth a word of caution, though. One common habit that can have destructive consequences is to fail to be careful when interpreting biblical passages and then applying the results to people's lives (post #28 is one example of the damage that can be done to people by this). Two of the common errors that have shown up in the posts here are:
1) a rapist has to marry his victim (even against her wishes)
2) a rapist is put to death for any rape

I'd like to re-state the two points I made in my first post (#13) which address these errors. What I said before was:
=================
It's incorrect to say that according to the Old Testament, if you rape a girl, you marry her or are stoned to death. There are actually two cases:
1) A man who lies with a non-betrothed virgin takes her as his wife and can't divorce her -- provided her father agrees (and according to Jewish culture, the girl must also agree) (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29).
2) A man who lies with a betrothed virgin (or woman) and is found is stoned regardless (whether or not the woman is stoned depends on whether or not she resisted) (Deut. 22:23-27). This is because in Jewish culture, the word "betrothed" meant "married without privileges."
=================

By case 1), a girl couldn't be compelled to marry a man who raped her (which, as has been pointed out, is certainly not the sole subject of the verses, and may not be included in the verses whatsoever), because she and her father have to agree first. Case 2) shows that a man is not killed unless the woman he sleeps with is betrothed (which is basically the same as married) -- this is because he's violated the laws against adultery, which carry the death penalty. We could speculate that the reason the language of the man with the betrothed woman (Deut. 22:23-27) implies rape is because it's much less likely that a man could seduce a woman into adultery (which carries the death penalty), so the more common case would be that where the man forces the woman.

The cases that aren't explicitly covered in these verses are:
1) a man who lies with a non-betrothed non-virgin
2) a man who forces an un-betrothed girl (I'm not familiar with these laws, but I suspect this is covered under general physical assualt, rather than being considered on its own)

47. Kelly-1 said the following at 6:52 PM on Nov 8:

I'm surprised at how many of you think it's okay for two pensioners to NOT get legally married, so that they won't lose financial benefits.

Um... so it's okay for them to cheat the government/the state? To claim more of YOUR TAXES than people who do the right thing and do get married?

I mean, if 2 people are married, presumably they are going to share a house. So they automatically have less expenses than 2 single people living on their own.

Seems fair enough to me that their benefits would be lowered.

48. Kelly-1 said the following at 6:53 PM on Nov 8:

This very issue is a huge problem for my family at the moment.

My sister's wedding is only a few weeks away and she and her fiancee have just bought a house together. And apparently couldn't wait any longer to be together so have moved in.

She says they're still not being intimate, but they are youth leaders, and most of the family has taken aside my sister and spoken to her about how it's not appropriate.

Yet she refuses to move back home.

Any ideas on what else we could do or say?

49. Jessi said the following at 8:48 PM on Nov 8:

Hi...great article. I couldn't agree more. I definitely think that if you are "married in the eyes of God" and are enjoying all of the benefits of marriage, why wouldn't you make the actual commitment? I have a close friend who doesn't live with her boyfriend (he hasn't even proposed yet) but they sleep together on a regular basis and she told me that they searched scripture and think it's biblical as long as they are considering themselves married. I don't understand it...

On the other side, I do agree with some of the comments on all of the craziness of weddings. I got married to my best friend in the whole world on July 18 this year. We kept our relationship pure through dating and engagement. We wanted a small wedding - mostly friends and family - and we wanted it to be about the commitment we were making...not the dress, the cake, how many guests, etc. We ended up spending only $800 for about 100 guests and a really nice day. It was the best.

Now being married, I can't imagine why people who are in love would not want to make the jump.

50. Adam Sloope said the following at 8:10 AM on Nov 9:

Wow people...I'm astounded by the misunderstanding here to my post. I had no intention of it going or being taken out of context like you all have so brilliantly done. My point in all of it was that it seems to me that marriage is more about a physical covenant not to be broken than a over priced ceremony full of people who will not talk to you in a couple years anyways. Any one offended by my post, I apologize that I did not clarify and meant no harm or to drag up trauma.

So again, read people, read what I'm writing here, I think that marriage was originally a physical covenant one goes into by becoming one rather than the westernized ceremony taht we see in our culture.

51. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:01 AM on Nov 9:

Kelly-1 says:

I'm surprised at how many of you think it's okay for two pensioners to NOT get legally married, so that they won't lose financial benefits.

Um... so it's okay for them to cheat the government/the state? To claim more of YOUR TAXES than people who do the right thing and do get married?

I mean, if 2 people are married, presumably they are going to share a house. So they automatically have less expenses than 2 single people living on their own.

Seems fair enough to me that their benefits would be lowered.

Except for the fact that we are talking about a system that, as taxpayers, they have been sacrificing 12.4% of their paycheck over the course of their lives. It is hardly "cheating" for them to hope to get a return for the money they put in--with interest.

(The "social security tax" is 12.4%, not 6.2%, because employers pay the other half, and that is a price that is passed to you.)

Moreover, if I died today, my estate--in spite of every dime I have paid over my 20+ years in the workforce--would only get $255. It will be another 25 years before I would even qualify to start collecting on my "investment", assuming (a) they don't jack up the age limit before then, and (b) Social(ist) Security doesn't go belly up before then. For the record, I'm betting on the latter.

Any reasonable discussion about "theft", must fundamentally begin with the largest case of grand larceny in world history in Social Security itself.

The only fundamental difference between Bernie Madoff and Social Security? Government does the latter.

It's like that sign in Ron Paul's office: "Don't Steal...the government hates competition!"

The larger issue: if you are merely trying to get out what you paid in, is it stealing?

52. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 9:

Zach: My comments were provided under the assumption that the one raped, was one who was (a) not married and (b) not already betrothed.

The requirement of marriage (a) ensured that she would not go unmarried and therefore childless, (b) punished the man by not allowing him to divorce her, and (c) in a stealthy way, protected the man from a false rape accusation.

If it was otherwise consensual sex, then the two are simply pronounced as married. If she had sex under compulsion, then he must marry her without the possibility of divorcing her.

Therefore, if the sex was consensual, there is a built-in risk for the non-betrothed trying to protect her honor by crying "rape" after being caught.

53. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:13 AM on Nov 9:

Adam Sloope says:

So again, read people, read what I'm writing here, I think that marriage was originally a physical covenant one goes into by becoming one rather than the westernized ceremony taht we see in our culture.

And that is also my point: marriage is a covenant, and covenants were never established without witnesses.

There is no need for an elaborate ceremony; merely witnesses. This can be two witnesses; this can be two million witnesses.

But for a couple to just say, "we're married in God's eyes, so it's okay if we have sex", when in fact there has been no public recognition--i.e. witnesses--to the vows that are consistent with a covenant relationship, is out of character with any Biblical standard of what is honorable.

54. Jo said the following at 11:54 AM on Nov 9:

Sara, 41:
Haha, my apologies for assuming you were American! :) I do get why it's easier to refer to 'Europe', I just think a lot of people don't realise how diverse the countries are.

I can't speak for Belgium, but in Britain a church wedding is legal as long as the person performing the marriage is registered and there are witnesses to the marriage and a couple of specific things said. Most ministers etc are registered and all these other things are incorporated into the church ceremony.

Civil ceremonies in Britain are a completely separate option, and if you have a civil ceremony you aren't allowed any religious content at all. Which I think is a bizarre rule, but there you go.

55. Adam Sloope said the following at 1:01 PM on Nov 9:

Amir, good stuff...

56. Renee said the following at 7:30 PM on Nov 13:

When's Jesus getting here? I'm over all this of nit-picking.

57. IMO said the following at 10:56 PM on Nov 13:

#56
Nice that you think you are better than everybody else commenting...

Yea who cares about being discerning and thinking through everyday issues? God only cares about the big stuff, right?

58. Renee said the following at 8:30 AM on Nov 18:

#57
You're not sick of it? I am praying each day for Christ's Kingdom to come.

My concern lies with this...there is right and there is wrong - God defines that. I have a problem with Christians reading the same text (the Bible) and getting vastly different interpretations from it. Where's the unification of the Church, which is the sentiment I want to convey, and surely the way Christ's wants it to be? Something's got to be off...

So, I'll write it again - when's Christ coming back?

59. Joshua said the following at 7:12 AM on Jan 27:

Those are ALL GOOD POINTS BUT NOT A SINGLE SCRIPTURE IN THAT ENTIRE PIECE WE DONT GO BY MANS WORD BUT BY THE WORD OF GOD

60. Shox NZ said the following at 9:41 PM on Jul 2:

Great news! In regards to the difficulties, I haven't believed about them additional.thank you particularly a whole lot best sharing i'm coming everday.

61. JeannieBlair said the following at 12:04 AM on Jan 21:

I am one who is getting married and will loose social security as well as my deceased military husband's retirement. Why is your focus money when God's word is if you trust in Him, He will provide for all of your needs. SURRENDER!!!

Matthew 6:31-32
Do not worry then, saying, 'What will we eat ' or 'What will we drink ' or 'What will we wear for clothing ' For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.

Philippians 4:19
And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

2 Corinthians 9:8
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything; you may have an abundance for every good deed;

AMEN!

62. Piece of mind said the following at 10:21 PM on Aug 13:

Lets say: U ever think about this if there was no legal system to control mankind in which that is why it is present.

How would we marry then? In God's eyes in my belief is the only way the heart must be sincere in that belief. Paper does not make it any more valid than that.

Women marry men for money these days which we all know in some cases. What a terrible heartless thing to do stand in front of hundreds and take a vow knowing your true intent. So lets go deeper how was Adam and Eve married did they have a piece of paper? Was there even a such thing as paper then?

This is why i find it very disturbing that man is blinded with truth and importance in life by tradition and what others think is right or wrong and its all passed down to us how do you know your right?

People don't even take vows seriously half the time these days and marriage is becoming less and less important to the new generation grows i wonder why?

If GOD blessed them with the love and what is in their hearts would it be different?

Lets not forget about the helpless women that are trapped with a Psycho husband who traps her in a slaved relationship because they threaten to end her life if she leaves he wasn't always that way but he manipulated her just ask the ex girlfriend o wait she's dead buried away in the woods. Did she commit fornication for the Lord bringing her, her prince charming to rescue her? Wow i wonder?

My point is paper is paper and thats all it is before we hand records and paper what was it?

God gave us all free will for a reason and all he asks is that u acknowledge him that you are a sinner always will be weather married or not. Man is judged separately and so is what lies in the heart.

If you are asleep i hope these thoughts helped you wake up people God loves us all and bible says it very clear only he sees and controls all things.............

Somewhere along the line mankind lost sight of that or think he controls it all it is wrong all wrong trust me.

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post