Copyright © 2007 by Paul Housley
New King James Version, Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved.
Bible text from the New King James Version is not to be reproduced in
copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas
Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions,
The red links will open the GOSHEN Bible Study Tools/Online Study Library© at the appropriate passage of the bible, in its own window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever since I became a Christian I have felt that dating without a view to marriage is wrong, and I have found that many Christians have the same feeling. When I came across one who did not, I found myself unable to justify my position intellectually. Inspired by my conviction, I began exploring the question of the relationship between marriage and dating.
Some things that all Christians did find obvious though is that we should only date people of the opposite sex and that we should only date one person at a time. The next thing that seemed obvious is that these principles, that we feel belong to dating, have been taken from the principles of marriage: we only marry people of the opposite sex and we are only married to one person at a time. Furthermore we should only be married to or date one person at a time: that is, we should not go out with someone while we are married to someone else.
From this, it seemed obvious that dating is in some way like marriage. It is not like marriage because we apply some of the principles of marriage to it, but rather we apply some of the principles of marriage to it because we can see that it is in some way like marriage.
It may seem that I could never find any rules about dating in the bible, as people in the bible didn't date, and neither does the bible ever use the word "dating". But it is not so much a matter of whether the bible uses the same words as we use, or whether people of the bible behaved in exactly the same way as we do, as a matter of whether the bible gives principles that are in some way related to our behaviour today. To use any argument at all to prove, for example, that we shouldn't date people of the same sex, is to admit that there are principles that can be applied to dating.
It should also be pointed out that the original bible doesn't mention the word "marriage". The original bible doesn't use any English words. But when we use the word "marriage", we mean something by it, and the bible's Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words also have meanings. So when we see that the thing that we mean by the word "marriage" is the same thing that the bible means by some of its words, then we conclude that the bible does have something to teach about marriage. In the same way, when we use the word "dating", we mean something by it. So, if we find that whatever this thing is that we mean by the word "dating" is found in the bible, or if there are biblical principles that are related to whatever this thing is that we mean by the word "dating", then we must conclude that the bible does have something to teach about dating.
It became obvious that, before I could answer the question clearly, I needed to state the question clearly: I needed to know to what extent people who are dating are behaving as if they are married, and therefore to what extent the rules of marriage apply to dating. I needed to start from first principles: I needed to know what marriage and dating are.
This lead to two questions: "What is marriage in its essential nature?" and "What is dating in its essential nature?" If someone asked: "How should I treat the dating relationship?", then in order to understand his question, we should need to know what he meant by the dating relationship. If someone said "The marriage relationship should be treated like this.", then in order to understand his statement, we should need to know what he meant by the marriage relationship.
It is the bible that gives us our rules about how marriage should be treated: therefore, we must understand what the bible means by marriage. When the bible says that the marriage relationship ought to be a certain way, then the thing that ought to be this certain way, is the thing that the bible means by the marriage relationship. The definition of the marriage relationship is not to be determined arbitrarily or by laws or traditions, but by the scriptures alone.
When we know what marriage and dating are, we can see what they have in common. I started out with no clear idea of where I was headed. You may be surprised by the conclusion - I was.
The logical place to turn would seem to be to the account of the creation
of marriage. We shall have to turn elsewhere if we want to learn how we
should proceed towards becoming married, but this is the place to find
out what marriage is, and what it was made for
And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man."
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (NKJV)
We are faced here with the idea of a man and a woman becoming joined ("one flesh"). Woman was made from man's flesh: therefore men and women become one flesh. Men and women today become joined after the pattern that was established at their creation. It is only sensible to conclude then, that God (who could have made her in any way He wanted) chose to make the first woman in a way which illustrates the special relationship that was hereafter to exist between a man and a woman. The terms "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" and "one flesh" must therefore be expressing the same idea.
Whenever the bible teaches about the nature of marriage, it always makes reference to this
union. Jesus quotes this passage in order to teach about marriage
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (NKJV)
Now if the bible always refers to this union when teaching about the nature of marriage, then we must conclude that when the bible uses the word "marriage" it means this union.
But what kind of a union is it? On the surface these terms have obvious physical
meanings: "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"
refers to the fact that Eve was made from Adam's side, and "be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" refers to sexual intercourse,
for when people have sexual intercourse, their bodies do become joined in some way.
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." But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him. (NKJV)
There is an antithesis in this verse: "one spirit"
(with the Lord) and "one body" (with the
harlot). "Body" is therefore the antithesis
of "spirit" and the thing being referred
to is the bodily act of sexual intercourse. But when the term
"one flesh" is used is this sense, the apostle cannot be
teaching that they actually become married, because he calls it
"sexual immorality"
But it would seem that the obvious physical meaning
is not the only thing that is taught in
He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female", and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. (NKJV)
But if they are "one flesh" only while they are having sexual intercourse then they are not joined in a way that is permanent, and if as Jesus teaches, the way that they become "one flesh" should be permanent, then it cannot be referring essentially to the union of sexual intercourse.
Either "one flesh" refers solely to sexual intercourse (in which case it is not permanent), or it does not refer at all to sexual intercourse (If they are not physically joined in any way, and therefore "one flesh" does not describe sexual intercourse in any way, then what reason is there to believe that sexual intercourse has got anything at all to do with being "one flesh"?) or "one flesh" refers in some way both to sexual intercourse and to something of which sexual intercourse is a shadow.
Furthermore, these terms are used elsewhere to express nearness of kin
In what sense do I use the term "mysterious"? In sense that although the bible teaches that marriage is a real union between a man and woman, the exact way in which they are joined has not been revealed to us. And yet there must be a way for us to recognise the union, for we are given instructions about how we should treat that union. If we are to know when those instructions apply then we must have a way of recognising when the union exists, and it surely must be a simple way because marriage is for simple people as well as geniuses. Proof that the union were physical or spiritual in nature wouldn't help. If I knew that the union was spiritual in nature, how would would help me to recognise the union?
Saying that this union is made by God doesn't help in recognising it, for we can understand what it means to be joined by God, only inasmuch as we can understand what it means to be joined.
The relationship cannot be recognised by the rules of the relationship,
for to say that something ought to be a certain way, is to imply
that it can be another way. The bible teaches that we ought
to have sex, only if we are married
The bible teaches that marriage ought
to be permanent
We cannot
recognise marriage by the privileges or responsibilities that go with it.
The bible teaches that marriage gives us the privilege of making love
How do you know that you have this privilege? How do you know that you have the right to make love? Is it not true that you conclude that you have this privilege (whatever it is), because you already know that you are married, and it is not the other way round? You do not conclude that you are married because you know that you have this privilege. Therefore you conclude that you are married for a reason other than, that you have this privilege. It may turn out (if it can be shown that this is what the bible teaches) that you know that you are married because you know that you made a commitment to these privileges, but the present point is that you did not begin with the knowledge that you had these privileges.
The same argument applies to the responsibilities of marriage. The bible
teaches that marriage gives us the responsibilities to remain faithful
to each other
How do you know that you have this responsibility? Is it not true that you conclude that you have this responsibility, because you already know that you are married, and it is not the other way round? You do not conclude that you are married because you know that you have this responsibility. Therefore you conclude that you are married for a reason other than, that you have this responsibility.
Whether people have the privileges and responsibilities of marriage, is not apparent. We cannot know whether they have these privileges and responsibilities, unless we already know whether they are married. Therefore, the privileges and responsibilities of marriage cannot help us to recognise marriage.
So when the bible gives its statements about marriage, how do we know what relationship it is that these statements apply to? When it says that the relationship ought to be permanent, how do we know that it is not telling us that friendship ought to be permanent. When it says that we ought to have only one partner, how do we know that it is not saying that we ought to have only one friend? When it says that marriage is for people of the opposite sex, how do we know that it is not telling us that we should only be friends with people of the opposite sex? When it says that people leave their parents for it, how do we know that it is not telling us that they do this for friendship? When it says that we should make love only to such a partner, how do we know that it is not telling us that I should make love only to a friend? When it says that we enter into this relationship by covenant, how do we know that it is not telling us that we enter into friendship by covenant?
In order to recognise the union of marriage, we need to understand the purpose of the union.
God has made us to need certain things. Whenever we say that we need something, we mean that we need it for something. What else would we mean? We mean that possessing this thing will achieve something (though we may be mistaken).
When we say that we need the atoning blood of Christ, we mean that we need it in order to be at peace with God. We could also say that we need food, drink and air but we do not need these things for the same reason. We need food, drink and air in order to stay alive, but we do not need them in order to be at peace with God.
Whenever we claim that something is necessary, this raises the question: "Necessary for what?" Whenever we claim that something is not necessary, this raises the question "Not necessary for what?"
We could also, at this point talk about the final end of all our actions, or what we ultimately need everything for. Our ultimate end is to glorify God, so this is what we need marriage for. This is also what we need food for, and what we need buses for. But all these things also have more immediate benefits. Food sustains our bodies and it is because of this quality that it can also have a part in glorifying God. Buses take us from a to b, and it is because they offer this benefit that we can exploit them to fulfil God's purposes for the world. If something did not have a specific benefit then how could it be put to use towards our final goal? (Also, at this point, it needs to be said that just because something has a use towards another end, this does not mean that it cannot also be desirable in itself.)
Marriage gives us an illustration of God's relationship with his people, but what it is about marriage that makes it such a good illustration? There has to be something specific that is good about it in order for it to bear any resemblance.
We know that God's law is based upon showing love to each other, so the purpose of marriage must be to serve each other in love. But the will to do good to someone would not motivate us to do anything unless there was also the opportunity to do good to that person. If marriage did not offer something special that was good for that person, then love would give us no reason to marry.
So what in particular does marriage have to offer?
God has made us to need certain things in order to be satisfied. God has given us aspirations. There are many ways in which we can be fulfilled, and therefore many ways in which we can be unfulfilled. It would be wrong to treat someone pitifully because some part of his life was unfulfilled, but it would be incorrect to deny that he was unfulfilled.
We have different desires, which are satisfied by different things. Each desire could be satisfied by a range of things. For example, hunger could be satisfied by eating cheesecake or by eating a banana, but not by having a career. So we could be satisfied in some ways but not others.
Some scriptures may give some semblance of support
to the idea that God will give us everything we need in order to be happy
It is undeniable then, that God does not always give us what we need
in order to be happy in every way. Notwithstanding the fact that
biblical example does teach that all blessing comes from God and must be
received with thanksgiving, a Christian should not expect that his life
should be free of all unhappiness just because he is a Christian. There
may be some practical truth in the teaching that a wise person is more
likely to be materially well off. Notwithstanding this, the real significance
of the examples of material blessing, is that they are figuratively speaking
of the Spiritual blessing that God will give us
There is a way to be fulfilled in God, but to attempt to demonstrate that we are fulfilled in God by pretending that we could never be unfulfilled in
any other way, is to misunderstand what it means to be fulfilled in God. It is hypocrisy, and it amounts to pretending that we are Spiritual by denying
that we are human. St Paul's attitude in
Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content... Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. (NKJV)
He claimed to be fulfilled in Christ, but he did not deny that, in regard to more basic and human needs he was indeed unfulfilled. So there are things that we need for reasons other than to be at peace with God, or to be fulfilled in God or even to stay alive. When we say that we desire something, we mean that we need it or order to satisfy the desire.
And this sums up what things can be an end in themselves: anything that fulfils a desire can be pursued for its own sake. If marriage satisfies a desire (rather than merely being a useful tool towards satisfying another desire), then marriage can be an end in itself (which would still leave the question of whether it should be.) So do we have a desire for marriage in itself?
To claim that something (like a banana) makes you happy is to admit that you would not happy without it (or without something similar to it, like a cheesecake), for how can something make you what you would be anyway? The point cannot be evaded by claiming that it merely makes you more happy, for this is admitting that without it you would be less happy. It implies either that you have a desire that would be unfulfilled without it, or that it would not be fulfilled to the same degree. Therefore, nothing can ever give you any pleasure of any kind unless you have a need for it.
If someone chose to have friends, then this implies that friendship makes him happy. If friendship did not make him happy, then it follows that he would have been equally happy not having friends, in which case what reason does he have for choosing to have them? Unless he believed that having friends was in some way better than not having friends, he wouldn't bother with them. His behaviour shows that he believes that friendship makes him happy; that is, he believes that he needs friends in order to be fulfilled.
Most of all, God has made us to depend upon Himself for fulfilment. We long for communion with what is boundless and eternal. We need Someone on whom we can rely to give meaning to our existence, a Being whom we can worship. St Augustine put it like this: "There is a God-shaped space in everybody's heart, and only God can fill it." When we do not have this communion with God, then we feel restless and lonely.
God has also made us to depend upon certain other things. Food for the stomach and air for the lungs are things that we need to live, and when we are deprived of such things, we are made painfully aware of their absence. We feel the need for friendship; when we are deprived of that, we feel the pain of loneliness. We also feel the need for a special partner of the opposite sex; when we are deprived of that, we feel a different kind of loneliness. That is, people feel a need for a partner, and when they are deprived they call it "loneliness", but they mean something different to what they mean when they are deprived of friendship. To tell people that they are not "lonely" because they have friends often amounts to arguing about words. From childhood, we become aware that we desire a relationship that is more than friendship, and when we reach maturity, if such a relationship does not seem forthcoming, this can lead us to feel empty, unfulfilled or even desperate.
We should not suppose that God will always provide such a partner for
everyone who desires one, as if it were His purpose that we should never
feel lack of any kind; after all it is His purpose that some people should
go hungry. And we should not suppose that He will always meet our desires,
provided that we are living according to His will, as if all suffering
is a direct result of sin. Jesus, in
There may be exceptional people who have no need for such partners, just as there may be exceptional people who have no need for friends. I don't know whether there are such people, but it is my opinion that this desire is felt by at least the vast majority of men and women. But what about those who never get married? Apart from those who have singleness imposed on them, there are many people who apparently choose to be single.
This does not prove that they have no desire to get married: they may simply have conflicting desires; they realise that they can get married, only by sacrificing something else. They forsake marriage, not because they have no desire for it, but because (wisely or foolishly) they give priority to other things.
It may be remarked that there are those who claim to be perfectly satisfied without marriage, but there are also those who claim to be perfectly satisfied without eternity and without God. If people are capable of covering up their desire for the One without whom their lives have no meaning, then how much more easily could they cover up their desire for a partner of the opposite sex? It is pride that makes people claim that they have no need of God and Christians are not different to non-Christians inasmuch as they experience pride.
Even those who eventually choose singleness, usually experiment with boyfriends and girlfriends. It is evident that, in doing this, they are either in some way trying or fulfil the desire that they have for a partner of the opposite sex, or they are looking for someone to fulfil this desire. The fact that they are not content to be mere friends proves that they desire something beyond friendship. There could be other reasons, such as peer pressure, that cause people to have boyfriends and girlfriends, but it is my opinion that in the majority of cases, people have such relationships because they want them.
So, it is my opinion that this desire is felt by the vast majority of mankind, but even if I am mistaken, this does not affect the main point: that for those who do have this desire, it is God-given.
The fact that people are made happy by being married shows that it does fulfil a desire in itself, but it could also be a means to fulfil other ends.
The purpose of the union of marriage is found in Genesis 2:18. God was making for man a suitable helper. Suitable in what way? Suitable to be the one without whom he was alone. And what kind of helper was suitable to be the one without whom he was alone? The only one that was suitable in this way was the one of whom he could say: "This is now bone my bones and flesh of my flesh."
The Hebrew of
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper opposite to him." (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
This is the reason that she was suitable for him. This word would not have been used of another man. It would not have been used of a woman, if she were suitable by virtue of the fact that she was a fellow member of the human race. She was suitable because in some way she was opposite: she was the opposite sex. If she was suitable because she was the opposite sex, then this passage is telling us about the benefits of marriage not merely of having a human companion.
So what was not good about not being married? Something can be good either because it is desirable in itself or because it leads finally to something that is desirable in itself. Both could be said about marriage but which is?
Perhaps
Mankind's dominion over the earth comes within the context of their being created in God's image, but the marriage relationship is not designed to reflect this. When they are considered as individual human beings, both men and women are declared to be created in God's image
Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
But when we specifically consider the picture that comes from their being a married couple it is only the man who represents God
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
The marriage relationship is designed to reflect God's relationship with his people. More specifically, in the new testament it reflects Christ's union with the church. It does not show His equality with us in His humanity - it is the mother-son relationship that does that
Some have suggested that marriage could also represent the trinity. We could make an analogy here: there is love within marriage and there is love within the trinity so they do have something in common. But the Bible never makes such an analogy. The Son is described as being "begotten"
In Genesis chapter 1, mankind in general is spoken of as representing God, but marriage is never mentioned, and all that the apostle Paul says about man in particular representing God, and woman submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ, come out of chapter 2, which teaches specifically about the relationship of marriage.
Quite apart from all of this, there are other clear indications that between chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, the emphasis shifts from how God gives mankind dominion over the world to how God makes the world such a pleasant place for man to live in
The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. (NKJV)
So marriage comes within the context of God giving man things for his pleasure. If
If the only way that marriage resembles our relationship with God is that we show selfless love to each other, then friendship would make an equally good illustration and marriage would offer nothing extra. Indeed, Jesus did use friendship as an illustration of His love
So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. (NKJV)
The apostle does not say that marriage is like our union with Christ because we love each other. He says that because there is a similarity in the way we are united - we are "of His flesh and of His bones", there ought also to be a similarity in the way our love for each other is expressed.
Communion with Christ and therefore reconciliation with God, is the fulfilment of our greatest desire. In it's fullness, it is heaven. Surely then, the fulfilment that we are supposed to get from marriage is the way that it resembles our union with Christ.
The Song of Songs is preoccupied with the lover and his beloved telling each other how much they are in love with and how happy they make each other:
Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods,
So is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down in his shade with great delight,
And his fruit was sweet to my taste.
(Chapter 2, verse 3 NKJV)I am my beloved's,
And his desire is toward me.
(Chapter 7, verse 10 NKJV)
The fact that man was alone before he had seen woman does not mean that he could not have felt any need for her. Although he may not yet have been able to identify the object of his need, he was still perfectly capable of feeling the desire, just as a newly born baby is perfectly capable of having its first experience of hunger.
Our need of each other is not a result of the fall of mankind, any more than our need of food is a result of the fall of mankind. It was in paradise, that God said, "It is not good that man should be alone."
Generally, God has made us all to depend on each other, just as all
the parts of the human body depend on each other.
The account of the creation of the first man and woman is designed to teach about the nature of mankind in general, not only about the nature of Adam and Eve. They were our first parents and we take after them, and there are some factors of human nature which have not changed. What has changed since then, is that we have become sinners so that we are now prepared to hurt people in our efforts to get what we desire. But the desire itself is the same as the one that they felt, and is in itself pure.
God made us this way from the beginning. Just as He has given us stomachs with a space to be filled with food, so we are conscious that He has made us so that, in a man's heart there is a woman-shaped space and in a woman's heart there is a man-shaped space, and just as our desire for food can only be satisfied by food, so our desire for a partner can only be satisfied by a partner. We need only consider popular music and ask what is the most common theme for songs, to realise that this idea is on the common consciousness of mankind. The fact that this was true of the first man and woman indicates that this is the rule. If there are people who have no such desire, then they are the exception.
This is not in any way to degrade celibacy. There are indeed those who find that they can best serve God in singleness, who are described by Jesus as "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."
When we set our heart on someone to be the one who fulfils our desire for a partner, then we say that we are "in love" with that person. What else would we mean when we say that we are "in love", unless we are speaking metaphorically? We certainly mean that the way we feel about people with whom we are in love, is different to the way that we feel about people that we see as mere friends. People would not have a desire to marry a particular person, unless they had a desire to get married at all.
The Greek word for this type of love is "eros". So how do we understand love of this kind, or how do we understand what it is that we want from the person with whom we are in love? Well, we know all our desires by their satisfaction: that is, when we say that we desire something or want something or have an urge to have something, we mean that we would be content if we had the thing that we want, and without it we would not be content. What else would we mean? If we are still not content when we have something, then this implies either that this is not what we want, or that we don't have as much as we want, or that we want something else as well. Therefore, if we can perceive that something will not satisfy our desire, then that thing is not everything that we desire. So then, I must examine my own desires and hope that if you have the same desires (I assume you do, if you are human.) you will understand what I am talking about:
First of all, I will tell you what I mean by "sexual desire": Part of my sexual desire is for stimulation of my body. If I imagine something that provides exactly the same physical stimulation for my body as a woman would, but doesn't do anything else, then would this thing satisfy me? It is obvious to me that some of my desires would be satisfied (That is the desire for stimulation of my body), but it is equally obvious that this would not satisfy all of my desires that would be satisfied by a woman. I can be certain that this is not what being in love is, for the object of my desire is my own body and does not go beyond it, whereas being in love is the desire for a woman. If this were all I desired then I wouldn't want a woman at all.
I also perceive in myself, a desire for a woman's body. There is something pleasant about the sight of a woman's form. The mere sight of Pictures, paintings and even images of women that originated in the minds of artists are pleasant in themselves. It is not merely beauty that I see in a woman's body. If that were the case, then everything else that I saw beauty in would have the same effect on me. There are many other things in which I can appreciate beauty, e.g. a man's body, a tree or a sunset, but I know that they do not hold the same attraction for me as a woman's body does. I perceive that the sight of a woman's body, on its own, does satisfy some of my desires. Perhaps this is what being in love is, for this is the desire for a woman - isn't it? But it is clear to me that possessing a woman's body does not fill the space that I have for a woman.
Apart from the two mentioned above, I am not aware of any other desire that is involved in sex which is obviously physical. What if I put them together? Then would I have something that I could be in love with? If I imagine a robot that possesses all the physical things that I desire from sex: that is with the ability to stimulate my body in exactly the same physical way that a woman could, and with exactly the same form as a woman, then could I fall in love with such a "woman"? If the attraction is merely skin deep, then what does it matter, whether she has a soul? It is clear to me that such a thing still could not fill the space that I have for a woman. There is a difference between a woman and a woman's body. Therefore there is a difference between desiring a woman and desiring a woman's body.
Perhaps the feeling that I associate with being in love is really a mixture of desires. I desire her as a friend, and I desire her body. The fact that I want her body is therefore the only thing that distinguishes what I want from her, from what I want from my other friends: the only reason I want to marry her, rather than merely to be her friend is that I want her body. In that case, all I need is to have a sexual relationship with a friend and then there would be no part of my love life left unsatisfied.
It is obvious to me that my friends leave a space in my life that could not be filled merely by a physical relationship, and the reason is that the things that distinguish women from men are more than skin deep. A woman has not only a woman-shaped body, but also a woman-shaped personality. It is quite clear to me that there is something about her inner being, and not merely about her body that makes her suitable (opposite) to me, and therefore able to fill this space that God has put into my heart. I do not desire this from all women; from most women I desire merely friendship, but I do desire it from someone.
If we do set our hearts on a particular person to be the one who fulfils our need of a partner of the opposite sex, then it is only natural that we should want to make love with that person. It is possible to desire to make love to someone without particularly wanting him or her to fulfil that place in our lives, but people do not generally call such a desire "love".
But if the essential reason for getting married is to fill the woman-shaped space in me, then wouldn't any woman do? Why is it that I view some women as suitable and others as unsuitable? Doesn't this prove that I choose whom I marry for reasons other than to fill the space that I have for a woman?
Yes, but there is a difference between reasons to marry her, and reasons to marry her. Reasons to marry her would be reasons that distinguish her from other women. Reasons to marry her would be reasons that distinguish marriage from other types of relationship. I should marry her because I saw things in her that I did not see in other women. I should marry her because I saw things in marriage that I did not see in other types of relationship.
If I saw that a woman was beautiful, charming and a Christian then these would be reasons to marry her. They would not be reasons to marry her. They tell me something of the advantages of choosing her rather than other women. They tell me nothing of the advantages of choosing a marriage relationship rather than other types of relationship. Some of the reasons for which I would choose a wife would also be applicable to friendship. If I met a charming woman then I might want to be her friend in order to experience her charm, but if I wanted her to fill the woman-shaped space in my heart then friendship would not do. The companionship that I desire from her is a different type of companionship to that which I desire from a friend. There would be no reason to choose marriage rather than friendship unless marriage had something to offer that friendship could not offer.
So what does marriage offer that friendship does not? Is it sex and children? No indeed! We know our desires by their satisfaction. The desire to have sex is satisfied, not by getting married but by having sex, and the desire to have children is satisfied, not by getting married but by having children. Getting married satisfies another desire: that is the desire to get married, the desire for a partner of the opposite sex, without whom I feel alone. It is clear to me that if I had friends, children and a sexual relationship, then there would still be an empty woman-shaped space in my heart. It is equally clear to me that, even if I was denied a physical relationship and children, then a woman could still occupy this woman-shaped space in my heart.
People would not get married unless they believed that being married was in some way better than merely being friends. People have got married even when they know that they cannot have a sexual relationship - even when they know that they cannot have any kind of sexual relationship. Therefore they see that marriage is more satisfying than mere friendship for reasons other than that it offers a sexual relationship. Although marriage may sometimes have social, economic and material advantages over friendship, if they search their hearts, they will see that there is satisfaction merely in the knowledge that they belong to each other.
The purpose of the union of marriage is found in
We have a desire for a partner of the opposite sex, which is itself distinct from sexual desire.
So now we know what relationship the bible is giving its statements about. We can now know what relationship ought to be permanent, what kind of partner we ought to have only one of, what relationship people leave there parents for, what kind of partner we should make love to and what relationship we enter into by covenant. In fact, these statements give us further reason to believe that we have correctly understood what the relationship is, for this seems the perfectly natural way to behave towards such a partner.
How could you describe marriage to someone who did not feel the need for it? You could describe a sexual relationship or something else that is related to marriage, and he may make the connection between what you are describing and marriage, but only if he already understands what relationship is related these things
It is true that something happens to a couple when they get married. They are joined together
This of course is not a foolproof way of knowing which couples are married. We can only rely on what people tell us, they may be lying and they may have misunderstood. But assuming that people are honest and speaking the same language, this is how we recognise marriage relationships.
There are many things that married couples say to express the way they feel about each other. They say that they belong to each other, or that they are part of each other, or that they fulfil each other, or that their lives are complete with each other, or that they are no longer alone now that they have each other. All the things that they say mean the same thing. They are expressing the kind of fulfilment that the relationship brings to them. The reason that they feel this way is that they are now joined.
The satisfaction does not come from what they do together or from making love (though this certainly brings some kind of satisfaction). The essential satisfaction that the relationship brings comes from the fact that they are now, not figuratively but really, though mysteriously "one flesh".
It is not by being in love, that we satisfy each other's desire for a partner. Love (of this kind) is desiring a particular person as a partner. We are well aware that we do not get satisfaction from desiring someone as a partner; we only get satisfaction from having a partner. In the same way, hunger is not satisfied by desiring a particular piece of food; it is only satisfied by eating something. If we desire someone as a partner, then that person may or may not actually be our partner. If we have someone as a partner, then we may or may not desire that particular person as a partner.
The primary reason for marriage is therefore laid down in
So how do we enter into this union?
The term "one flesh" has two meanings: one refers to the act of sexual intercourse, and the other refers to the union of marriage itself. Although they are different, it is obvious that they are related.
The bible teaches that sex is morally good within marriage and morally
bad outside marriage
Sexual desire is a perfectly natural desire that normal healthy people feel strongly by the time they reach physical maturity. And inasmuch as it is such a great pleasure, it is good to satisfy it, and bad to frustrate it. For those who believe in the sanctity of sex within marriage this may be a grounds for marrying young, but this is not always possible or convenient. What if you don't meet a suitable partner until you're thirty? Following the biblical principle would mean missing out on the opportunity to make love while you are in the prime of your physical life. Many people feel that, while such an act of self-restraint may be impressive, it is not the way they would care to spend their youth. And what if you never meet someone? This would mean having to spend your whole life in celibacy.
In such situations we simply have to admit that following biblical teaching may mean making a sacrifice. But there are other situations in which we know that doing what is right may mean making a sacrifice. A man may go hungry when, if he had been prepared to steal, his hunger could have been satisfied, and yet we believe that he is happier for choosing to do what is right.
It may be that some people can become bitter about being denied fulfilment
of this kind. Indeed, just as other people can become bitter about not
getting married, or not having the education they think they deserve, or
not being beautiful. There are many situations in which we cannot have
what we want. In such situations, we must learn that God's grace is sufficient
Some people will say that you cannot know whether you are suitable for each other until you have made love. But as long as you have the right feelings for each other and there is no serious physical abnormality, it is difficult to understand how you could fail to enjoy making love. The greatest joy of sex is to be found not in expertise but in the fact that you love each other. If you don't have the right feelings then you will not find the thought of making love very pleasant but there is no reason why you should have to try it.
Some people may say that there are times when it feels right to make love to someone that they have strong feelings for. Well, an action can be right in one way and wrong in another way. Inasmuch as making love is a big sensual pleasure, it is a good thing. When you use it to have communion with someone that you are in love with, this makes it better - much better, but even this experience is tainted by the realisation that you do not truly belong to each other. It is no excuse to claim that you are in love. Love of this kind is a wonderful thing, and it makes sex and marriage so much better, but according to the bible, it is marriage and not love that sanctifies sex.
So, why would the bible make such a rule?
Perhaps it is because of the consequences of having sex outside marriage. There is a difference between the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sex, and the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sin.
First then, what are the consequences that come from the fact that it
is sin? Much the same as those that come from any other sin. You feel guilty,
defiled and estranged from God. If you do not repent of it, then you will
not be able commune with God properly, and it may put a strain on relationships
with other people. There may also be special consequences that come from
a sin that is committed against your own body
Now if sex outside marriage has such consequences because it is a sin, then it cannot be a sin because it has such consequences. They may be an indication that it is wrong but they are not the reason that it is wrong.
Then there are the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sex. These consequences happen regardless of whether the people concerned have sex in sinful situations, and they may sometimes be irrevocable.
Firstly there could be physical consequences. You may risk catching a sexually transmitted disease or there may be an unwanted pregnancy. But there are situations in which you can be certain that there will be no pregnancy. And provided that you are selective about your partners, you can have sexual relationships outside marriage and still be as sure that you will not catch a sexually transmitted disease, as you would be if you had sex only with your marriage partner. If we maintain that even in those situations, sex outside marriage is still wrong, then the physical consequences cannot be the reason that it is wrong.
Some may say that sex before marriage may spoil a marriage. This does
not explain why it should be wrong if the people concerned are intending
never to marry anyone. But let us consider a situation in which a man wishes
to marry a woman, but has reservations because he knows that she has already
had sex while she was single and he fears that this may have a harmful
effect on the marriage. What is it that is really bothering him? Is it
simply that she is not a virgin? I don't think that he would have the same
concerns if he were thinking of marrying a widow. According to the bible,
there is nothing at all wrong with marrying a widow
Some may say that sex outside marriage may have harmful psychological effects on people. There are several kinds of emotional suffering that they could be talking about. There is a kind that comes from a person becoming romantically attached to another and then being torn apart from him or her. This is what we call a "broken heart". But is it sex that causes people to get attached in this way? In my experience, when people had steady sexual relationships they did indeed get hurt in this way by splitting up, but when people had one night stands they did not. On the other hand, when people had steady relationships without sex, then they still got hurt in this way by splitting up. If we are going to use the argument of broken hearts then it makes far more sense to conclude that we shouldn't date than to conclude that we shouldn't have sex before marriage.
There are other ways in which this can cause people to suffer emotionally. People who have been involved in casual sex may feel cheep because they have not been treated with the proper respect, but this does not explain why we should feel that being treated like this is not a proper way to be treated.
Some may find that their consciences start to harden, so that they become involved in other sinful practices, and their attitude towards other people becomes more uncaring. But again, we can only believe that their sexual habits had anything to do with this if we begin by assuming that sex outside marriage is a sin and an uncaring way to treat someone.
Some may feel guilt and regret over what they did, but only if they begin by assuming that what they did was wrong. So we find that the emotional suffering that comes from sex outside marriage, comes as a result of the fact that it is a sin. It therefore cannot be the reason that it is a sin.
The relationship between sex and marriage can be seen not only in the
fact that the bible teaches that people ought not to have sex unless they
are married, but also in the fact that it teaches that if an unmarried
couple do have sex then they ought to get married
The reason that sex outside marriage is wrong is entirely to do with
the way that sex and marriage are related. Our physiological nature is
in many ways bound up with our psychological nature. This is why we smile
when we are happy, or why we feel pain when our bodies are damaged, or
why we are compelled to fall down before God. It is also why sex outside
of marriage cannot be considered a harmless sensual pleasure
The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (NKJV)
As will be discussed later, the physical relationship that is appropriate to marriage is not confined solely to the act of sexual intercourse.
But in what way is sex related to marriage? What do we mean when we say that sex is part of marriage? There are only two ways in which it can be related: as the cause (or as part of the cause) or as an effect.
By saying that sex is the cause (or part of the cause) of marriage we mean that we are married because we have sex (or partly because we sex). By saying that it is an effect, we mean that we have sex because we are married; the sexual relationship is a natural consequence, which flows from the marriage relationship, although there could be circumstances that prevent this natural consequence from happening.
If the same question were asked about children, then it should be obvious that children are an effect of marriage and not part of the cause. Having children is definitely related to marriage, but in what way? When we say that children are part of marriage, we mean that they are a natural consequence of it, and we do not mean that they are part of what constitutes it, and although they are a great joy (and a great loss to those who cannot have them) they are not essentially what we get married for.
Now, does the bible really teach that we become "one
flesh" in the way described by Jesus in
Firstly, is sex the sole cause
of marriage? If this were true then there would be no such thing as sex
before marriage. Where then would be the sense in verses like
If it is possible to have sex without being married (in God's eyes), then we cannot say that people are married merely because they have sex. Therefore sex cannot be the sole cause of marriage.
Now, is sex part of the cause of marriage? If this were true then how could Joseph
possibly take Mary as his wife without having sexual relations with her
If it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without having sex, then we cannot say that people are not married merely because they do not have sex. Therefore sex is not part of the cause of marriage. It must follow from this that the sexual relationship is an effect of the marriage relationship, and not part of its cause.
The relationship between sex and marriage
can be seen in
Marriage is honourable among all and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (NKJV)
The first part of the verse teaches that the marriage relationship makes the sexual relationship wholly natural. What is implied by this, and also explicitly taught in the second part of the verse, is that without the marriage relationship, the sexual relationship is wholly unnatural. It is clear from the bible that marriage is the only thing that gives people the right to have sex.
Although it is very clear that becoming "one flesh"
as in married, is closely related to becoming "one
flesh" as in sexual intercourse,
On the other hand, there are verses that clearly teach that we become "one flesh" as in married, as a result of a covenant.
Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
(Mal. 2:14 NKJV)... so I spread my wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine.
(Ezek. 16:8 NKJV)
"Spread my wing over you" is a metaphorical way of speaking of marriage. Although the whole passage is figuratively describing God's relationship with His people, this proves that one of the things that this relationship has in common with marriage is that it is entered into by covenant.
Saying that sexual intercourse is necessary in order to consummate the marriage is misleading. "To consummate" in this sense means "to enter into the full privileges of", so it isn't even accurate because having children is also one of the privileges of marriage. As the question is about what we have to do in order to enter into the mysterious union of marriage, then it is not at all to the point to ask what we have to do in order to enter into the full privileges of marriage. The bible does not teach that we have to enter into the full privileges of marriage, in order to be married: therefore, it is not necessary to have had sexual intercourse, in order to be bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage.
What would it imply about our assurance of salvation, if God's covenant
with us were not to come into effect until we were to enter into the full
privileges of the covenant? It would mean that we could never be sure of
getting to heaven until we had got there. We have not yet experienced the
full privileges of being children of God, but we are children of
God, none the less
Whatever the law may say about the need to consummate a marriage in order for it to be a legal marriage, is irrelevant: the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to the law's definition of marriage.
Some may say that you become married when you have a wedding. What is it about it that makes it a wedding? What does a wedding have to contain, in order to be capable of marrying people? For instance, is it essential to have photographs taken? Most people would say that the essential thing is the marriage ceremony. That is, the thing that a wedding contains that makes it capable of marrying people, is the marriage ceremony. We must remember that, if the essential part of a wedding is the marriage ceremony, then this implies that anything that contains the marriage ceremony is a wedding.
So, in order to become married, it is necessary to have a marriage ceremony. What is it about it that makes it a marriage ceremony? That is, what does it have to contain, in order for it to be capable of marrying people? For instance, is it essential that they exchange rings? If they don't have rings, does this mean that it is not a marriage ceremony? Is it essential for someone to pronounce them "man and wife"? Most people would say that the essential thing is the marriage covenant. That is, the thing that a marriage ceremony has to contain in order to be capable of marrying people is the marriage covenant. We must remember that, if the essential part of a marriage ceremony is the marriage covenant, then this implies that anything that contains the marriage covenant is a marriage ceremony and, as anything that contains the marriage ceremony is a wedding, then anything that contains the marriage covenant is a wedding.
In the bible, there simply are no examples of how the marriage covenant
was conducted, and even if there were, this would not mean that we would
be bound to do it in the same way, for the bible does not bind our conscience
merely by examples. The bible simply
teaches that we have to make a covenant
If God has created men and women with a desire to marry and an instinctive knowledge of what we require from each other, then we would expect society to create laws and customs that reflect that part of our nature. And this is in fact what we see. All cultures have customs relating to marriage, even in those lands where the bible has had no influence. This does not mean that all laws and customs must reflect the way God intended things to be; we must take into account the fact that people are sinners and may make errors in their conduct. There are some societies in which sex before marriage is considered a perfectly acceptable thing and others in which it is frowned upon.
Such cultural differences can be explained by sin, but how can we explain the similarities except by admitting that there is something in human nature that compels us to behave in a certain way towards marriage? How can we explain the fact that even people who reject the civil institution of marriage still follow the same rules? They still pair off; they still get hurt when the relationship comes to an end; they still feel that they would not want their partner to make love to other people; there are still those who seem to believe that there is something good about not making love to just anyone they fancy, but only to people with whom they have a special relationship.
In all of this, we have to remember that there are basically two opposing forces driving human behaviour. On the one hand, we were created in the image of God, we understand what is good and we want to do it. On the other hand, sinful desires drive us away from good behaviour and cloud our judgement about what is the right thing to do. It is not at all impossible that a society as a whole may fall into a sinful practice. Even a supposedly bible believing nation is not barred from such an error. So the fact that something is a well accepted custom of the day or even that it has been for hundreds of years cannot be a grounds for concluding that it must be all right, if it proves to be at odds with the bible.
So then, the essential reason that people marry is not because of civil institutions; rather civil institutions were based upon something that already existed. Adam and Eve were married before the existence of civil society, so marriage cannot be a civil institution in its essential nature. As Adam and Eve were married, not by virtue of any civil law, so any man and woman could take each other as husband and wife. Adam and Eve were not legally recognised as being married: therefore we cannot say that people are not married, merely because they are not legally recognised as being married.
Now this does not mean that I have a low opinion of legal marriage.
Our laws concerning marriage were originally based on the scriptures. Even
in those lands where the bible has had no influence, their laws and customs
were based on human nature, and human nature was designed by God as it
is recorded in
I say "usually" because there are exceptions. A legal marriage is usually a true marriage, but it is not a true marriage by virtue of the fact that it is a legal marriage. The laws and customs of society were based upon another law, which is itself prior to and higher than the laws and customs that were based upon it. A legal marriage is only a true marriage by virtue of the fact that it conforms to the higher law. On the other hand anything that conforms to the higher law is a true marriage even if it does not conform to the laws or customs of society, and this is where we get the term "common-law marriage".
If we say that it is necessary to get legally married to be married, and then define marriage as being legally married, then all we are saying is that it is necessary to get legally married in order to be legally married. The bible says that marriage is a mysterious union. What reason is there to believe that it is necessary to get legally marriage, in order to enter into this mysterious union?
The possession of a marriage licence is not what marriage is. In the same way, the possession of a driving licence, road tax, insurance and an MOT certificate is the normal requirement (in this country) for driving a car; but that is not what car driving is: someone who drives a car without them is still driving a car.
It may be objected that if the bible commands us to obey the civil law, then doesn't this mean that the bible makes it necessary for us to get legally married.
If it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married
in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying the civil law,
then the answer may be "yes". God does command us to obey the civil law
Is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying the civil law, in cases where the civil law does not contradict the bible? If we have a strict definition of the civil law, which is concerned solely about what is legal, then the answer is "no", for it is not illegal to have a common-law marriage. The law does not say that it is necessary to go through the civil contract in order to be married; it merely says that it is necessary to go through the civil contract in order to be legally married.
But we should not merely consider whether something is legal or illegal,
but also whether it is culturally acceptable. The fact that Jesus attended
a wedding
So then, is it necessary to get legally married? Necessary for what? Necessary in order to fulfil the bible's requirements. The bible's requirements about what? If it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying society's rules, and therefore living at peace with all men, then the answer is "yes" - except where society's rules contradict the bible. However if it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about being married, then the answer is "no", the bible does not teach that it is necessary for us to fulfil the bibles requirements about obeying society's rules concerning marriage, in order for us to be married in God's eyes. To say that people are in the wrong is one thing; to say that they are not married is another thing entirely.
If we say that people are not married in God's eyes on the grounds that they are not obeying society's requirements concerning marriage (as God told them to), then we may as well say that people are not driving a car in God's eyes on the grounds that they are not obeying society's requirements concerning car driving (as God told them to). The bible defines marriage as a relationship, not a state of moral correctness, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Therefore, it is not necessary to be legally married, in order to be
bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage, and this is the point of
practical importance. This is not in any way to approve of people who choose
to forsake the legal requirements of marriage; it is merely to say that
they have an obligation to keep God's requirements concerning marriage,
regardless of whether they have kept society's requirements concerning
marriage
It may be suggested that a covenant can be considered
a true covenant only if someone other than God and the parties concerned
witnesses it. This may be true if we are talking about a legal covenant,
but we are in fact talking about what the bible means by "covenant". When
people made covenants in the bible, they sometimes called upon witnesses,
but in every case they were referring either to God or to the parties.
Never is there an indication that anyone else played a part in the making
of the covenant, and in the case of the covenant that David and Jonathan
made
The reason that we make vows in front of witnesses is as a safeguard, so that one party has got proof that these vows were made in case the other party should try to break them. There may be all sorts of reasons for saying that it is a good idea to make a legal covenant. It may make the rules of marriage, to some extent legally enforceable, although in our society this argument has little force. Making the marriage into a public thing does to some extent put pressure on the parties to keep their covenant.
But no matter how many good reasons you could come up with, for saying
that legal, public and enforceable marriages are good ideas, this would
not change the fact that the bible
says we become married by a covenant
If a Christian couple have committed their marriage to God, and are intent on living their married life in a way that is honouring to Him and consistent with what He has commanded, then they could be said to be experiencing "Christian" marriage. In the same way, a group of Christians who have committed a game of cricket to God, and are intent on playing in a way that is honouring to Him could be said to be experiencing "Christian" cricket.
The sort of things that make a marriage more fulfilling, happy and honouring
to God such as love and respect can be found in places such as
It is not for us to decide for ourselves what kind of relationship we are going to apply the rules of marriage to. When the bible says that marriage ought to be a certain way, we infer that this rule applies to all marriages, not merely to good, "Christian", or normal marriages. If the bible gives us rules about how all marriages should be treated (regardless of whether they are "Christian" marriages), then to say that we are not interested unless they are "Christian" marriages is ignoring the Word of God. Marriage will become good, if we obey the rules that God has given us. If we decide that we are only going to apply the rules to a good relationship, then that is the same as saying that we are only going to obey the rules in a relationship in which we are already obeying the rules.
There are those who conclude that, as a marriage ought to be
submitted to Christ, only Christians are capable of being truly married.
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church. (NKJV)
This presents a relationship in which the woman is subject to the man and they are both subject to Christ. Obviously, only Christians can be subject to Christ, but there is no implication that one relationship cannot exist without the other.
This arrangement that is applied to the woman, the man and Christ is
also applied, in
A marriage between non-christians (or between a non-christian and a
Christian) is just as binding as a marriage between Christians.
Someone may say that it is necessary to be joined by God in order to be married. But then the question must be asked: "How do we know whether we have been joined by God?" If we claim to know that one group of people are joined by God, and another group are not, then we must back up our claim by stating how we know whether people are joined by God.
God acts sometimes according to His ordained power and sometimes according to His absolute power. His ordained power is simply referring to the fact that He is everywhere, controlling all events, great and small, according to the laws that He has ordained to govern the universe. His absolute power refers to the fact that He sometimes intervenes in His ordained laws, and does things that these laws are quite inadequate to explain. This is no more difficult for Him; it is simply different. Into this category fall prophecy, inspiration, miracles and the regeneration of a soul who becomes a Christian.
God's joining people together in matrimony falls into the category of
His ordained power. In
The point is that we do something that results in our being joined by God. For convenience I shall put it like this: We do something to persuade God to join us. So then, what does God require us to do?
It may be objected that if marriage is a sacred institution, then doesn't this mean that it is necessary for Christians to enter into it in fear of God? Isn't it therefore necessary for them to celebrate it, not only as something between themselves, or even as something between themselves and society, but also something between themselves and God?
This would seem reasonable, and in most cases this will lead people to celebrate their marriage with a religious service. There may sometimes be exceptional circumstances. The classic example is of two people cast together on a desert island. But even in exceptional cases, Christians ought at least to commit their marriage to God in prayer.
So then, is it necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way? Necessary for what? If it is a question of whether is it necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to be treating marriage in a proper way - as a sacred institution, then the answer is "yes". However if it is a question of whether it is necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about being married, then the answer is "no", the bible does not teach that it is necessary for us to treat marriage in a proper way - as a sacred institution, in order for us to be married in God's eyes. To say that they are in the wrong is one thing; to say that they are not married is another thing entirely.
Therefore, it is not necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to be bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage, and this is the point of practical importance. The bible's rules concerning marriage, apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Someone may say that it is necessary to be in the presence of God in order to get married. What do you mean by "the presence of God"? If you mean, that God must see what we are doing, then we are always in the presence of God.
If by "the presence of God" you mean "in a church", then saying that it is necessary to get married in a church because it is necessary for people to get married in the presence of God, is exactly the same as saying that it is necessary to get married in a church, because it is necessary for people to get married in a church. So whatever you mean by "the presence of God", what scriptures can you come up with to prove that it is necessary to get married "in the presence of God"?
There is no reason to believe that invoking God's blessing is an essential part of marriage. If it were necessary to ask God to join us in order to be married, then don't you think the bible would have said so?
What does God require us to do in order to persuade Him to join us?
This question must be answered scripturally. The
bible says that we become married by covenant
A covenant simply means a two-way promise. Both sides of the agreement make promises to each other. There are no biblical examples of how the marriage covenant was conducted. There are examples of how people conducted other covenants but they vary from one to another. Sometimes they were witnessed; sometimes they backed up their promises with oaths and curses; sometimes they erected stones as a symbol and reminder of the promises that they made. Although, all these things could be considered to ratify the covenant (which means to give formal consent to) and may make the covenant more enforceable (and this may be desirable) none of this ever made it any more effective than it would have been if they had not done these things. A covenant is a covenant simply because they make promises. To say that they are not bound to keep it simply because they didn't make it in particular way would be completely arbitrary. Why should we ask what we have to do in order for our promises to be binding? The bible does not teach that we have to do anything other than make promises, in order for them to be binding, so this should be the end of the matter.
The way we give formal consent to the covenant with God, is to be baptised, but if we said that this covenant does not come into effect until we ratify it, then this would mean that we could have no assurance of salvation unless we have been baptised.
The question of whether a marriage covenant needs to be conducted in any particular way in order to qualify as a marriage covenant, should be settled by whether the bible ever says so. If the bible has said that it must be a covenant, without any further qualification, in order for it to be capable of marrying people, then the matter is closed. The bible says that we become married by covenant - not by declaring what we are doing to anyone, not by being witnessed, not by being recognised by any man or any society, not by celebrating what we are doing, not by performing some rite to symbolise what we are doing, not by asking God to marry us, not by asking God to bless what we are doing, not by asking God to recognise what we are doing, not by going to a place of worship or anywhere else, not by giving formal consent to what we are doing, not by entering into the full privileges of what we are doing - simply by covenant, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage.
So, we become married by a covenant - a covenant
to what? To marriage - what is
marriage? Some may say that we become married to someone when we make
a lifelong commitment to that person. David and Jonathan made a lifelong
commitment to each other
A lot of confusion comes from the fact that we often think of the marriage covenant as being constituted by all of the vows that we make. The exact vows that people make vary from one wedding to another. Some women promise to obey their husbands and some do not. Even those who believe that it is right for them to make this promise would not think that this promise is part of what constitutes the covenant: that is, they would not say that it would not be a marriage covenant if they did not make this promise. They do not believe that it is right to obey their husbands merely because they promise to, but rather they promise to because they believe that it is right to obey their husbands.
The same applies to some of the other marriage vows. It is not right for them to love each other merely because they promise to, but rather they promise to because it is right for them to love each other. It is not wrong for them to be unfaithful merely because they promise not to, but rather they promise not to because it is wrong for them to be unfaithful. It is not wrong to break off a relationship of this type merely because they promise not to, but rather they promise not to because it is wrong to break off a relationship of this type. If the only reason for saying that they ought to behave in this way, is that this is what they promised to do, then why should we say that these ought to be the terms of the marriage? Why not say that they are free to make up their own terms? Why shouldn't they promise to take each other for the time being, with the understanding that they can have a bit on the side? If we say that the marriage ought to have particular terms, then we are admitting that there is a reason that they should behave in this way, other than that they promised to do so.
The fact that we promise to love each other, to forsake all others and to stay together until death, may lead people to believe that the marriage covenant is a commitment to a loving, exclusive, lifelong relationship. Not so: it is a commitment to a relationship, which ought to be loving, exclusive and lifelong.
The bible does not teach that we have to make these vows in order to be married; it merely teaches that when we have committed ourselves to marriage, we ought to follow these rules, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage. We make the vows because we perceive that the things that we promise to do are the right things to do. They have become necessary as a safeguard, because of our sinful, fickle nature, but if we still lived in a perfect world, in an unfallen state then these vows would be unnecessary because we would do what was right by nature: once we had agreed to make someone our marriage partner, it would simply never occur to us to separate what God has joined together.
What is this thing that they commit themselves to? It is not possible to make a commitment unless we understand what it is that we are committing ourselves to. Therefore, even though we may find it difficult (or impossible) to describe, we understand what marriage is.
It is not necessary to be aware of what all the intrinsic qualities of marriage are, in order to understand what marriage is, any more than it is necessary to be aware of what all the intrinsic qualities of a triangle are, in order to understand what a triangle is. Just as it is possibly to understand what marriage is without understanding all of its qualities, so it is possible to commit ourselves to marriage without understanding all of its qualities.
Committing ourselves to a relationship without understanding one of its qualities does not imply that the relationship does not still posses the quality that we have failed to recognise. If a couple have committed themselves to marriage without understanding that it should not be broken off arbitrarily, then this does not mean that their relationship can be broken off arbitrarily. It is still a relationship of a type that should not be broken off arbitrarily, even if they did not agree to this.
One of the essential qualities of marriage is that it ought to be a
lifelong relationship. There may be exceptional circumstances that justify
divorce. What exactly these circumstances are will
be discussed in due course, but at this point it is sufficient to say
that a marriage should not be broken off arbitrarily. That is, it should
not be broken off just because one or both of the parties want to
Saying that marriage ought to be lifelong is, of course, the same as saying that it ought not to be broken off: saying that the relationship ought to continue until death, is exactly the same as saying that it ought not to end until death. It is not good enough to say that it will be lifelong unless it is ended, for this qualification nullifies the statement that it will be lifelong. It is the same as saying that it will be lifelong unless it is not. Therefore, anyone who enters into marriage with the idea that he or she can get a divorce arbitrarily has not made a lifelong commitment.
Some say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that the relationship ought to be permanent; others say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that the relationship ought to be sexual; others say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that they have an obligation to love each other; and others would say other things or combinations of them. But why?
It is true that it is intrinsic to the marriage relationship that it ought to be permanent, and that a sexual relationship will naturally flow from it. But, we can conclude from this, that we have to commit ourselves to marriage on the understanding that it ought to be permanent, or that a sexual relationship will naturally flow from it, in order to be married, only if we assume that it is necessary to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding all that is intrinsic to it, in order to be married.
It is also true that it is intrinsic to the marriage relationship that
wives should obey their husbands
So, the only way to prove that we have to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding a specific thing about it, in order to be married, is either to prove that this is what marriage is or to come up with a scripture which specifically teaches that we have to commit ourselves to this thing, in order to be married.
Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a permanent relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be permanent, in order to be married? Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a sexual relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be sexual, in order to be married? Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a loving relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be loving, in order to be married? The case must stand or fall by whether either position can be justified from the scriptures. If neither position can be justified from the scriptures then insisting that it is necessary to commit ourselves to this thing (whatever it is) is adding to the scriptures.
Does the bible teach that marriage is a permanent relationship?
It teaches that marriage ought to be a permanent relationship
We do not become married by a commitment to being in love. Being in love is a desire, which supposes that there is something that is desired. The commitment is to the thing that we desire, not to the desire itself. What do we desire?
It is inadequate to say that it is a desire for a person, unless we state what it is that we want from the person. It is inadequate to say that it is companionship that we want from the person, unless we state what kind of companionship we want. Friendship love is a desire for some kind of companionship from a person. We want the person to be more than a friend, otherwise we would have no grounds for choosing marriage rather than friendship.
Some may say that we become married when we make a commitment to a sexual relationship. They must state what they mean by a sexual relationship. A physical relationship? A covenant to a physical relationship means exactly the same thing as the mutual offer of a physical relationship, or mutual physical consent. Are we to believe that that is what a marriage covenant is?
If a sexual relationship is what we commit ourselves to, then a sexual relationship is
what marriage is. As the reason for marriage is the need that we have for a partner, marriage must be the fulfilment of this need. Therefore we commit ourselves to be the one that our partner needs. If a sexual relationship is what we commit ourselves to, then a sexual relationship is what we get married for. Man's need is described in
If we say that we become married by making a commitment to a sexual relationship then, as we commit ourselves to be each other's husband or wife, a husband or wife is essentially a sexual partner. And if a husband or wife is a sexual partner then when we desire a partner, what we really desire is a sexual partner. Therefore being in love with someone (that is desiring him or her as a partner) is wanting to have a sexual relationship with him or her. We are aware that being in love with someone is different to wanting to have a sexual relationship with him or her: it is a different kind of desire.
It is not a desire for a combination of friendship, sex and children, for if this were the case then the desire would be satisfied by a sexual relationship with, and children by a friend. We desire a special type of companionship, one that fills the space that we have for a partner of the opposite sex. The kind of relationship that fulfils this role is one in which they belong to each other and are part of each other, in a mysterious way. This is what we desire: therefore, this is what we commit ourselves to.
If, by a sexual relationship, you mean nothing more than the most obvious and basic meaning of the word "sexual", then a covenant to a sexual relationship is nothing more than consent to a physical relationship, and if we become married by a covenant to a sexual relationship, then we must conclude that any couple who consent to a physical relationship are married. What exactly the physical things are, is not the point: the point is that if a sexual relationship is to be defined solely in physical terms then, whatever these physical things are, consent to these physical things is what a marriage covenant is. The only way around this conclusion is to say that, by the word "sexual", you mean something other than the obvious, or at least you mean something more than the obvious, in which case what exactly do you mean by the word "sexual"?
If, by the word "sexual", you do mean something other than the obvious, then I can imagine only one other thing that you can mean. If I am mistaken, then no doubt, you will enlighten me, but the only thing that I can imagine is the fulfilling of each other's desire for a partner of the opposite sex. It is useless to ask me to explain more clearly what I mean, for if we agree that the bible has not told us in exactly what way we are joined, then it should be obvious that there is no clearer way to describe it, and no way at all to describe it to someone who does not feel the need for such a companion.
The only way we can recognise this union is by the satisfaction that it brings. So, the only way we can understand that we are committing ourselves to this union is by committing ourselves to fulfil each other's need for a partner of the opposite sex.
Someone may say that the covenant is more than sexual consent, but must include it. A marriage covenant is a covenant to marriage. If sexual consent partly constitutes the marriage covenant, then the sexual relationship partly constitutes marriage. We have already concluded, from the fact that it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without a sexual relationship, that the sexual relationship cannot be part of what constitutes marriage, but rather must be a natural consequence of it. We become married by committing ourselves to what marriage is, and not by committing ourselves to its consequences.
Whatever arguments may be applied to the relationship between sex and marriage, may also be applied to the relationship between conception and marriage. People may find themselves in circumstances that prevent them from having a sexual relationship, but they may also find themselves in circumstances that prevent them from conceiving. On the other hand they may never have had any intention of having a sexual relationship, but they may also never have had any intention of conceiving. So where's the difference? Why should one be treated differently to the other?
It is true that sex was intended to flow from marriage, but this is also true of conception. It is true that sex is sanctified by marriage, but this is also true of conception. Does this prove that conception is an essential part of marriage? If not, then neither does it prove that sex is an essential part of marriage. Does it prove that people have to enter into marriage, with the intention of it leading to conception, in order to be married? If not, then neither does it prove that they have to enter into marriage, with the intention of it leading to sex, in order to be married.
Just as the thing we need in a partner is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in us (from which the sexual relationship flows), so the thing that we commit ourselves to is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in our partner (from which the sexual relationship flows).
It must be pointed out that the method of becoming married (by covenant) is defined by what we commit ourselves to, and not by what the primary motive is for making the commitment. There could be all sorts of good and bad reasons for motivating us to make the commitment, other than that we want a marriage partner: people have married, for love, for sex, for children, for money, for fame, for convenience, in obedience to their parents, at gun point and to save life, but the fact remains that they made the commitment, and the bible teaches that that is the way to become married.
One final point: we know that there is a point in every Christian's life when he puts his faith in Christ, but not everyone can point to a specific day and not everyone expressed their faith with a specific prayer. It is theoretically possible that two people may commit themselves to each other without being able to remember a the day when it happened, and without expressing their commitment in words (I am pointing out that they could do this; I am certainly not saying that they should.), but they always in some way communicate that they have accepted each other to fill this place in their lives.
In summary, we must remember firstly, that marriage is not a wedding. At
a wedding we make a commitment (at least formally) to each other, we make
a declaration (at least formally) to others, we obtain the law's (and the
public's) recognition and (at a Christian wedding) we ask for God's blessing.
Marriage is the thing that we commit ourselves to, the thing
that we declare that we are doing, the thing that is legally recognised
and the thing that we ask God to bless. This thing is a relationship.
In the scriptures, our relationship with God is constantly compared to the relationship between a man and woman.
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (NKJV)
Secondly, we must remember that
this relationship is not essentially a sexual relationship. Although
a normal healthy couple would want to have a sexual relationship,
marriage cannot be defined in these terms. Men and women become
"one flesh" in a way that
the bible has not technically described, and in which they should never be separated. The only way that we can recognise it, is by the fact that it fulfils our need of a partner of the opposite sex,
as it is described in
Thirdly, we must remember that we do not fulfil each other's need of a partner by being in love with each other (although we are supposed to be in love with our partners).
When we set our desire on someone as the one to fill the man or woman-shaped space in our hearts, then we say that we are "in love" with that person. This is what love (of this type - eros) is. When we set our desire on God as the one to fill up the God-shaped space in our hearts (as only God can: nothing else works.), then we could (metaphorically) be said to be "in love" with God; that is we have a love for God, called "worship", which is like eros. People have also metaphorically described the way they feel about people with whom they are in love by saying that they "worship" them.
We describe our partner as our Husband
or wife. In most languages (Hebrew and Greek included) the word for "wife"
is the same as the word for "woman", and the word for "husband" is the
same as the word for "man". (In English, the word "wife" is archaic for
"woman".) It simply means that she is his woman and he is her man: she
is the woman who fills the woman-shaped space in his heart, and he is the
man who fills the man-shaped space in her heart (Song
of
My beloved is mine, and I am his.
Now that she is his woman, she is joined
