Just to follow up on this- I said before that I would follow up here if I had anything new on the question of whether there is a need for a public ceremony before a couple can be regarded as “married”. I have now had a chance to look back at an excellent book on this area by Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God (IVP, 2003). He carries out a very careful review of the Biblical evidence and comes to the conclusion that marriage according to the Bible is “the voluntary sexual and public social union of one man and one woman from different families”. Chapter 11 of the book is where he reviews the evidence which supports the “public” aspect of the definition. I can’t do justice to his careful analysis here, but he notes for example that “consent” is a key aspect of marriage, and that
in the matter of consent… the nature of marriage as a public commitment (a “sexual and public social union") comes to the fore… Consent is not a private matter of the thought-life but a public affair of the spoken word and deed. (p 220)
He points out that the Hebrew and Greek words which are used for “marriage” only rarely refer to the “status”, and most often refer to the “wedding feast”, which of course is a public community affair (p 234). He notes that a requirement that there be public recognition of marriage benefits (i) outsiders who need to know who is married to whom; (ii) the weaker party who may be pressured into giving a consent they do not mean; (iii) the parties, because “public commitment buttresses a private pledge” (p 238) and hence it is harder to back out of.
He concludes the chapter by stating:
The public dimension of marriage is not an ethical extra to make marriage better, but is of the essence of marriage as instituted by God. (p 245)
I recommend his book highly, not just on this point but on all issues to do with the nature and purposes of marriage in the Bible.
This last post of yours is very helpful, because it deals with what I think is the greatest area of ambiguity with regard to marriage. It is not clear in every cultural context what constitutes this public aspect of marriage. The story of Isaac and Rebekah in Genesis 24 is an interesting case study in this regard. There it seems that the only public dimension of their marriage was the recognition of it by both families. That recognition certainly had certain formal features attached to it as well.
How this works out in our society must of course be very different. But whether that difference must of necessity include State recognition of the marriage is open to question. Our society in many ways recognises at least some de facto marriages as just that, marriages in fact, even if they don’t meet the formal legal criteria for such.
It seems to me at least possible that in some circumstances such a marriage could be recognised by the Christian community as a marriage before God. They would still need to meet all the Biblical criteria of marriage: a monogamous, public, life-long commitment to one another. And wherever possible, for reasons of good repute, they should seek the formal recognition of State-sanctioned marriage. But if this last is not possible, it still may be the case that such a relationship is indeed a marriage before God.
Dear Bob;
I can see that there are possible circumstances where a couple could be regarded as married who have not gone through a legal marriage ceremony- eg on a desert island after a plane crash! But to be honest I really can’t see any good reason why a man and woman living in Australia today wouldn’t enter marriage in the way our society has chosen to recognise marriage- ie by going through a legal marriage ceremony.
You don’t make this mistake but others sometimes say- “legally there’s no difference between de facto marriages and legal marriages”. But speaking as a lawyer for the moment, this is quite wrong. The Marriage Act 1961, a piece of Commonwealth legislation covering the whole country, provides the legal framework for entry into marriage. It operates on the perfectly Biblical definition contained in section 5 that
“marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
. That same definition of marriage is contained in s 43 of the Family Law Act 1975, which regulates divorce and its consequences.
So I don’t see any reason why a couple who want to consent to a lifelong exclusive sexual commitment to each other in the service of God together would not want to use the mechanism our society provides for formalisiing this. Indeed, it seems to me that in Australia today if they choose not to do so, then they are saying by their actions that they are not willing to take on the relationship of marriage.
To me I can see no reason why a person should be regarded as married in Australia today unless they have gone through the ceremony our society sets up for public recognition of the relationship. This view seems to be the view assumed everywhere in the Bible. Of course the social situation and circumstances we see in the Bible were different, so the relevant social rules were different. But the Bible does not seem to me to contemplate a “marriage” that is not entered into in accordance with the rules set up by the relevant society.
For the church to decide that it will set up its own rules as to when a couple can be regarded as “married in God’s eyes” seems to me to be unhelpful and unnecessary. Actually I am coming around to the view that the idea of “married in God’s sight” as distinct from married according to the prevailing social rules is probably not there in the Bible. People are either married or they are not; the way you determine this is to see if they have complied with the relevant social rules, which will include some public commitment formally expressed in some way.
The other view, as I have said previously, leaves a great deal of room for ambiguity and hence harm to people as they are uncertain who is married to whom, who is related to whom, etc. I think the Bible is pragmatic on this point- you are married if you have complied with the rules for marriage in your society.
Regards
Neil F
Neil, thanks for recommending Ash’s book, I plan to try and check it out. I find the “public” aspect interesting and tend to agree with Bob about this. It is pretty clear that the Bible doesn’t mandate any particular form of marriage ceremony, but I would read Gen 2:18-25 and the leaving/cleaving to imply that, at the least, the parents of the marrying couple ought to be involved.
This, however, raises the following issue: is it thus possible to enter into a perfectly legal marriage (under Australian law) that is not biblical? I would think it is: a couple can go to the registry office and, AFAIK, can do so without the knowledge of their parents. What do you think?
I’ll come back to this, but two quick comments:
1) The believer/unbeliever scenario is one where the resistance of one party to ‘legal’ marriage may make it impossible for it to proceed even where there is a desire for a life-long, exclusive union.
2) Adding to Martin’s point, the State recognises marriages of divorced persons in circumstances which the Bible prohibits, so yes, indeed, one can enter into a “perfectly legal marriage” that is not Biblical.
Bob
Dear Martin;
Hmmm. Interesting question. On the legal point, if a couple are both over the age of 18 then the Marriage Act allows them to get married without any requirement for parental consent. If the Bible’s view is that parental consent (or at least notification) is necessary for people to be married, that would be an example where someone could be married for legal purposes but not in Biblical terms. However, I am not currently persuaded that this is essential, and would be reluctant to add extra requirements above the basics of man, woman, public commitment to sexual and social union for life. Even if the Bible had a requirement for parental consent, presumably this would cease at some stage, and I would be tempted to say it ceased when the people concerned were “adults” in the eyes of the community.
I don’t know if I can think of other examples where someone could go through a legal ceremony and be validly married under Australian law but not married in the Bible’s sense of the word. Even if there was some prior secret agreement between the couple to separate after 5 years (say), once they go through the public ceremony and make the promises required by law I would say they are married in terms of the Biblical meaning of the term.
The fact that this is so in current Australian law does not, in theory, mean it might not be different in another country where the law has not been so influenced by Christian history. But I’m not aware of any at the moment.
I now see Bob’s question about whether a divorced couple can re-marry. This is a can of worms I want to stay away from until I’ve thought about it a lot more! Sadly the excellent book by Mr Ash does not deal with divorce, though he has indicated he is writing one to be published in the future.
Neil F
I don’t agree with your blanket statement that the Bible prohibits divorced people from remarriage.
I have been enjoying this thread very much and agree with most of the points raised.
Craig
I didn’t say that. I said that
the State recognises marriages of divorced persons in circumstances which the Bible prohibits
Of course there are some circumstances where divorce is permitted by Scripture—but there are others where it is NOT permitted. The State does not recognise this distinction.
Bob
Bob, the question is not so much whether divorce is permitted (which it is) but whether remarriage for divorced people ever is. Now there’s a big debate. I don’t want to get into that debate now, but just wanted to point out that your post did leave that open… and so does your clarification ;)
I now see Bob’s question about whether a divorced couple can re-marry. This is a can of worms I want to stay away from until I’ve thought about it a lot more! Sadly the excellent book by Mr Ash does not deal with divorce, though he has indicated he is writing one to be published in the future.
Neil F
Neil
I agree that we don’t want to turn this into a discussion about divorce and remarriage. I raised it simply to illustrate Martin’s point that there are circumstances where the State sanctions marriages that the Bible does not. We don’t want the illustration to become the substance of the discussion (as sometimes happens on these threads!).
Regards,
Bob
Bob, the question is not so much whether divorce is permitted (which it is) but whether remarriage for divorced people ever is. Now there’s a big debate. I don’t want to get into that debate now, but just wanted to point out that your post did leave that open… and so does your clarification ;)
Dannii
I understand ‘divorce’ to include by its very nature the right of remarriage. The alternative is permanent (or open-ended) separation—an option which is almost completely ignored in contemporary Christian discussion about divorce and remarriage. But, as we have all agreed, let’s not divert this thread with that issue.
Regards,
Bob
I like your dedication! Sticking manfully to the legal marriage as being de jure and not de facto. But it looks a losing battle. You refer to acts of 1961 & 1975 - conveniently before any of the state legislation that recognises/defines de facto rels.
So there’s this definition from South Australia:
the relationship between a man and a woman, who although not legally married to each other, live together on a genuine domestic basis as husband and wife
This ‘law’ says it’s not legal, but genuine. They are ‘husband and wife.’
It seems to me that Australian society now recognises marriage in more than one manner. (Does anyone else remember the govt ads insisting people need inform the authorities about changes in circumstances so no one receives the wrong social security entitlements? That seems another accepted social way to signal the relationship.)
Yet in terms of Christian care, I agree that the de facto pathway holds greater ambiguity. This is why I’d encourage couples to go for social notification by ceremony, to be as clear as humanly possible.
Perhaps just a few clarifying comments. The legislation I referred to is Commonwealth legislation. Under the Constitution the Commonwealth Parliament is given the power to make laws in respect of “marriage”, and those laws cannot be overturned by the States, no matter how many years go by. Section 109 of the Constitution says that Commonwealth valid laws will always trump State law.
In fact the legislation you quoted makes this clear. The SA Act defines whatever it is defining- “de facto partner”, for example- as something which is not legal marriage, but will be treated for some purposes “as” marriage. There is still a difference between marriage and other relationships that are not marriage, and this is so even though more and more laws are equating the “incidents” of other relationships with the incidents of marriage.
Of course one could have a robust policy debate about whether our society is unwise to remove the practical consequences of marriage by making the consequences of de facto relationships the same as the consequences of marriage. But there is still a difference between the two legally, and I would say the Bible is clear on the difference as well.
I repeat (though I have said this before), a failure to go through a legal marriage ceremony is not just a matter of “practical wisdom”; it makes the relationship not a marriage as the Bible understands the term.
Neil F
One of the issues we face here is of Grace. It would be easy to turn from it to a position of legalism, by saying you must be married b4 you can be right with God. While we may not say this in actual words, it could be clearly stated in our actions and how we respond / minister to said couple....and which could actually be detrimental to the growth of them.
Perhaps a more effective approach is to continue to have them rub shoulders with mature Christians allowing the fruit of their lives bringing about conviction, hope and change.
