Is a legal ceremony required for a marriage in God's eyes?

[UnitedWithChrist]

While God did not call polygamy a sin in the OT, the original principle of one husband and one wife was established in Eden, confirmed by Christ, and also by the apostles. The spiritual leaders of the churches (the elders) were to show by example that they were husbands with only one wife.

So it was not really OK for David, but God allowed it and David paid a price for it. Solomon paid and even greater price.

Paul also said let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband ( 1 Cor 7:2).

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Not exactly what you’re talking about per se but why was it ok for David to have untold multiple wives and concubines? Was there a ceremony for each of them?

Scripture teaches that each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband (1 Cor 7:2). Additionally, Nehemiah6 mentioned the creation pattern.

The Mosaic Law did not perfectly reflect God's intentions. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that some things were given due to the hardness of their hearts, and used divorcement as an example (Matt 5-7). The original intention was marrriage of one man and one wife for life.

This is an issue that is difficult for some Hebrew Roots types. If they claim these marriage laws are in effect, then how do they reconcile Jesus and Paul's comments with them?

 

[Noose]

Interesting though, but I don't think Jesus had marriage ceremonies in mind. In fact, he attended weddings.

Not really, Jesus was talking about the idea of making promises about the future; we don't have control of the future and we don't have control over our lives too. Anyone making bold proclamation about the future lacks humility to depend on God and therefore gives the devil ammunition to work what was promised because breaking the promise is where the sin lies.

 

[Noose]

Scripture teaches that each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband (1 Cor 7:2). Additionally, Nehemiah6 mentioned the creation pattern.

The Mosaic Law did not perfectly reflect God's intentions. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that some things were given due to the hardness of their hearts, and used divorcement as an example (Matt 5-7). The original intention was marrriage of one man and one wife for life.

This is an issue that is difficult for some Hebrew Roots types. If they claim these marriage laws are in effect, then how do they reconcile Jesus and Paul's comments with them?

Paul's teaching on marriage was custom based to those in the 1st century who were also to teach others (teachers) IMO. It seems Paul's philosophy was ' the lesser the number, the better someone will be dedicated to learn and teach' because in some place, Paul says celibacy was better for them (those who had better control). We can not turn this and say that God wants us to be celibate, it only meant dedication and more time for God's work.

However, there's danger in having more than one wife IMO. All manner of sin comes from hate or causing someone to hate, including sexual sins. Homosexuality and the likes of it is straight up an abomination to God and 'hate' for God. Adultery and fornication are hate for ones own flesh (partner) because you are cheating and causing anger in them. In societies where it is allowed and everyone is cool with it (very rare), i don't see it as something wrong.

But God hates divorce. Divorce is against God's creation.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Not really, Jesus was talking about the idea of making promises about the future; we don't have control of the future and we don't have control over our lives too. Anyone making bold proclamation about the future lacks humility to depend on God and therefore gives the devil ammunition to work what was promised because breaking the promise is where the sin lies.

OK, then don't enter into any legal agreement whatsoever...because you're making a promise then.

Matthew 6:9 - Luke 2:41 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
(ESV Strong's)

The concern that Christ had, here, was that individuals were swearing by something less than God, in an attempt to deceive others. They didn't consider it to be as serious to break an oath if the object they were swearing against wasn't God.

I don't think this prohibits marriage vows.

But, if you think that, don't get married then..nor have sex with anyone you're not married to. Stay celibate. If you have sex with someone you're not married to, you're committing sexual immorality.

I imagine that some who are sexually immoral use this type of reasoning to live with someone who is not their wife.

 

[Noose]

OK, then don't enter into any legal agreement whatsoever...because you're making a promise then.

Matthew 6:9 - Luke 2:41 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.
(ESV Strong's)

The concern that Christ had, here, was that individuals were swearing by something less than God, in an attempt to deceive others. They didn't consider it to be as serious to break an oath if the object they were swearing against wasn't God.

I don't think this prohibits marriage vows.

But, if you think that, don't get married then..nor have sex with anyone you're not married to. Stay celibate. If you have sex with someone you're not married to, you're committing sexual immorality.

I imagine that some who are sexually immoral use this type of reasoning to live with someone who is not their wife.

37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

I don't know what it means. I'm not saying you shouldn't get married or go against the law of your country.

 

[garee]

The government as to the written certificate ( a law) is needed to protect the two even from each other . We give that which belongs to Cesar that God has appointed.(give them a bill that releases ). It is a cerinimoinal law like all written laws . No letter of the law no protection.

 

[posthuman]

What doe that verse have to do with marriage?

the Lord says 'let your yes be yes and your no be no'

i presume Noose thinks saying "yes" when the husband is asked 'do you take this woman to be your wife?' is to swear an oath, so Noose thinks that means it is evil?

but the marriage ceremony isn't 'do you swear?' it is a yes/no question. Jesus says, let your yes be yes and your no be no. that does not mean do not answer yes/no questions - He says, 'anything more is of the evil one' - why? because if you say yes to one thing, and then you say 'i swear' to another, by swearing you make your simple 'yes' mean less than yes; you become a liar.

to say 'yes i take this man to be my husband' is not to say 'more than yes' -- let your yes be yes, and your no be no. if you do not take the other as your wife or husband, do not act like you do, or you have made your 'no' not really mean no, and that is of the evil one.

 

[posthuman]

37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

I don't know what it means. I'm not saying you shouldn't get married or go against the law of your country.

i posted before i read this, sorry @Noose

 

[Noose]

the Lord says 'let your yes be yes and your no be no'

i presume Noose thinks saying "yes" when the husband is asked 'do you take this woman to be your wife?' is to swear an oath, so Noose thinks that means it is evil?

but the marriage ceremony isn't 'do you swear?' it is a yes/no question. Jesus says, let your yes be yes and your no be no. that does not mean do not answer yes/no questions - He says, 'anything more is of the evil one' - why? because if you say yes to one thing, and then you say 'i swear' to another, by swearing you make your simple 'yes' mean less than yes; you become a liar.

to say 'yes i take this man to be my husband' is not to say 'more than yes' -- let your yes be yes, and your no be no. if you do not take the other as your wife or husband, do not act like you do, or you have made your 'no' not really mean no, and that is of the evil one.

But rarely do weddings or Government jobs give a simple yes or no as options they rather require one to go beyond and make promises:

For better for worse
To wealth and poverty
Through sickness and health
Till death do us part

 

[posthuman]

But rarely do weddings or Government jobs give a simple yes or no as options they rather require one to go beyond and make promises:

For better for worse
To wealth and poverty
Through sickness and health
Till death do us part

isn't that just 'yes means yes' ?

 

[Noose]

isn't that just 'yes means yes' ?

It is.

 

[posthuman]

It is.

i see what you mean, all the other bits are unnecessary additions made under the presumption that 'yes' might not actually mean 'yes'

 

[Noose]

i see what you mean, all the other bits are unnecessary additions made under the presumption that 'yes' might not actually mean 'yes'

What i meant was, yes and no are not promises but truthful of how one feels at that moment. Breaking a promise is what violates God's requirement as per Matthew 5. Adding things on top of a simple yes or no becomes a promise IMO.

 

[posthuman]

i see what you mean, all the other bits are unnecessary additions made under the presumption that 'yes' might not actually mean 'yes'

my wife has been ill, and she has suggested i should leave her, because she doesn't want to subject me to what will probably be years of medical problems and laborious care i will have to provide. ((of course that's silly)) - i reminded her, i had said, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.
essentially my reply was, 'my yes means yes'

i do not mean this as tho to speak against her; these things entered her mind because of her selfless love for me.

 

[Noose]

my wife has been ill, and she has suggested i should leave her, because she doesn't want to subject me to what will probably be years of medical problems and laborious care i will have to provide. ((of course that's silly)) - i reminded her, i had said, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.
essentially my reply was, 'my yes means yes'

i do not mean this as tho to speak against her; these things entered her mind because of her selfless love for me.

Sorry for what happened to you. May the Lord strengthen you even more.

 

[SoulWeaver]

I don't know of a place in the bible where it calls for a man to only have one wife EXCEPT if is he's going to be a bishop.

I hope the OP will not be upset with me jumping in. I will reply to to OP but also want to reply to this. No. Agreed. It does not. While one man-one woman model is obviously promoted, polygamy is not overtly condemned. Piling up wives, for a king, is advised against and proclaimed as something that is wickedness promoting (Deuteronomy 17:17). That's all I could find, in addition to what you wrote above.

I watched a documentary last year, where they interviewed various polygamous situations, including polyandry. For some reason men who want several wives (usually it's men who want it) almost without exception look like someone biting more than they can chew... There was however one case of polygamy from that documentary, which left a different impression on me. It was a polyandry story from Tibet.

The woman had three husbands. They had a son, and each man loved the child equally as if it were their own son. They were of peaceful demeanor, and simple people, and it looked like they lived in harmony. When asked by the reporter how did it come to having three husbands, she explained. In villages like hers, people are animal herders, and while the woman stays at home year round, the husband goes with the animals and actually spends a large chunk of the year far away from home. Cruel climate and wild animals combined, it is a tough life, and some women also lose their husbands, leaving them relatively helpless. She explains, this way, one of them is always there with me and my son during the year, keeping us safe. Polyandry is not unusual in that area because the climate and living are harsh. I could not imagine myself in such a family, but I really couldn't find it in me to condemn them. They seemed humble, honest and simple people, and this did not look to me at all like it was about lust or pride or greed. What I learned from this is that we often view Biblical polygamy and draw opinions and conclusions about it based on polygamy we see in our age. Biblical polygamy probably looked something like this. It was another way of life, and the people were simpler, busy with surviving, different mentality. If it's a way to workaround a certain lifestyle (nomadic, animal husbandry etc), it might be adaptive and potentially not sin... Which is - I believe - the reason why it is not condemned in the Bible, but rather the optimal, perfect version of marriage - one man, one woman - is encouraged and reaffirmed. This was the answer I found and was finally satisfied with. Maybe it will be of use to somebody else because it's a difficult question that had me pondering about for years.

Now, is there a realistic NEED for polygamy for people living in the modern age? I really think not. And that's what changes how we look at it in modern age. If there is no need, as it is not adaptation in any way, then it's a WANT (cults and brainwashing are a separate category which I do not address here). If someone still insists on it, they are bound to have bad motives, wantonness, pride, name it. Again, this is my opinion, but I feel it pretty strongly. I am yet to see a couple (sorry: group) that lives a modern way of life in polygamy and not feel a "not good", if not outright sick vibe from it. (Sorry if someone is offended...)

As to the OP, so I am not just a derailer with this post yes
Yes, I believe that official marriage recognition is necessary - not a huge beach party, but it's about recognition, which is necessary. Biblically, I think we have the proof in:
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

We are in covenant with God. Marriage is also a covenant, which the Bible teaches is modeled exactly after Christ's covenant with humanity (church). This verse tells us that covenant must have full recognition of both sides to be valid. Witnesses are required. I'd argue based on this, that when people avoid to fully recognize their marriage before men, then this "marriage" is not valid at all by God's definition, and considered fornication.

 

[KJV1611]

I hope the OP will not be upset with me jumping in. I will reply to to OP but also want to reply to this. No. Agreed. It does not. While one man-one woman model is obviously promoted, polygamy is not overtly condemned. Piling up wives, for a king, is advised against and proclaimed as something that is wickedness promoting (Deuteronomy 17:17). That's all I could find, in addition to what you wrote above.

I watched a documentary last year, where they interviewed various polygamous situations, including polyandry. For some reason men who want several wives (usually it's men who want it) almost without exception look like someone biting more than they can chew... There was however one case of polygamy from that documentary, which left a different impression on me. It was a polyandry story from Tibet.

The woman had three husbands. They had a son, and each man loved the child equally as if it were their own son. They were of peaceful demeanor, and simple people, and it looked like they lived in harmony. When asked by the reporter how did it come to having three husbands, she explained. In villages like hers, people are animal herders, and while the woman stays at home year round, the husband goes with the animals and actually spends a large chunk of the year far away from home. Cruel climate and wild animals combined, it is a tough life, and some women also lose their husbands, leaving them relatively helpless. She explains, this way, one of them is always there with me and my son during the year, keeping us safe. Polyandry is not unusual in that area because the climate and living are harsh. I could not imagine myself in such a family, but I really couldn't find it in me to condemn them. They seemed humble, honest and simple people, and this did not look to me at all like it was about lust or pride or greed. What I learned from this is that we often view Biblical polygamy and draw opinions and conclusions about it based on polygamy we see in our age. Biblical polygamy probably looked something like this. It was another way of life, and the people were simpler, busy with surviving, different mentality. If it's a way to workaround a certain lifestyle (nomadic, animal husbandry etc), it might be adaptive and potentially not sin... Which is - I believe - the reason why it is not condemned in the Bible, but rather the optimal, perfect version of marriage - one man, one woman - is encouraged and reaffirmed. This was the answer I found and was finally satisfied with. Maybe it will be of use to somebody else because it's a difficult question that had me pondering about for years.

Now, is there a realistic NEED for polygamy for people living in the modern age? I really think not. And that's what changes how we look at it in modern age. If there is no need, as it is not adaptation in any way, then it's a WANT (cults and brainwashing are a separate category which I do not address here). If someone still insists on it, they are bound to have bad motives, wantonness, pride, name it. Again, this is my opinion, but I feel it pretty strongly. I am yet to see a couple (sorry: group) that lives a modern way of life in polygamy and not feel a "not good", if not outright sick vibe from it. (Sorry if someone is offended...)

As to the OP, so I am not just a derailer with this post yes
Yes, I believe that official marriage recognition is necessary - not a huge beach party, but it's about recognition, which is necessary. Biblically, I think we have the proof in:
Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

We are in covenant with God. Marriage is also a covenant, which the Bible teaches is modeled exactly after Christ's covenant with humanity (church). This verse tells us that covenant must have full recognition of both sides to be valid. Witnesses are required. I'd argue based on this, that when people avoid to fully recognize their marriage before men, then this "marriage" is not valid at all by God's definition, and considered fornication.

Well said SoulWeaver thanks.

 

[Gregoryp]

My conviction would be, yes, and those who aren't legally married are living in sin (with the exception of a young engaged couple who might be shipwrecked on a desert island or something weird like that).

Notice this verse:

Matt 5: 31“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus is quoting from the Law regarding this subject (Deut 24:1). So, in God's economy for ancient Israel, he established legal recognition for divorce. Do you really think there wasn't a process for legal recognition of marriage?

Additionally, would a Christian, who should be intent on presenting a good witness to the world, avoid marriage?

Societal expectations have been eroded, but I think there is still some stigma upon a child if his parents are not married.

I only bring up this topic because I've heard a few older professing Christians express this idea that marriage isn't required to cohabitate and enjoy the sexual benefits of marriage. Usually they are following theologies that are very independent and separated from the normal evangelical experience. In fact, some of them are legalistic and claim that the Mosaic Law is still in effect. This is really bizarre because for all their professed attentiveness to minor aspects of the Mosaic Covenant, they are disrespectful toward the institution of marriage.

No. Back in the good old days, it was a matter of telling family you intended to move in with the neighbours daughter, tada! You are now married . A great celebration would have ensued, and next minute, kids! The catholic church could see money and power in the marriage , so made up all the nonsense and charged accordingly.

 

[Gregoryp]

https://detoxedfromchurchanity4real.blogspot.com/2013/09/where-did-marriage-vows-come-from.html Your welcome