What is Biblical marriage?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Adam and Eve had the most elaborate marriage ceremony in history. And it was completely conducted by God.
Did they sign documents? :)

God caused a deep sleep and took one of Adam's ribs and made his wife Eve. She was bone of his bone.
Not relevant to the discussion of marriage.

Neither of them left their father or mother because they had no father or mother. There were no other people on earth. God made Eve directly to be Adam's wife.
Are you saying that God was confused in Genesis 2? He was making the rules of marriage for all of humanity, which would issue forth from Adam and Eve.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Leaving Father and Mother and cleaving to the wife is a concise statement that suggest a public vow and probably included full participation of the family with contracts, witnesses (the parents) and celebration from the beginning. History suggests that it did.
No, I see nothing that suggests a public vow, etc. I do see clear words regarding the concept of marriage.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,323
16,307
113
69
Tennessee
No need in heading to the courthouse to make vows to one another when you are the only people on earth...I mean who could they cheat with a goat:sick: and especially no need to head to a courthouse since there were no courthouses around at that time...lol
Probably had courthouses during the book of Judges.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
No marriage means no divorce is needed. "putting her away" simply means to break up with her and cancel any possible marriage.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

espoused
G3423
μνηστεύω
mnēsteuō
mnace-tyoo'-o
From a derivative of G3415; to give a souvenir (engagement present), that is, betroth: - espouse.
Total KJV occurrences: 3



This would be what we call an engagement, ie: a fiance' not a wife.
That's Sola Scriptura.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
I suggest Matthew chapter 1 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 1&version=KJV the reason is that Joseph was going to put her away privately(verse 19) and then in verse 25(he had not yet known her)... So he(Joseph) considered himself married to Mary(he was going to put her away privly/letter of divorce) but had not yet known her(verse 25) and so the marriage was considered valid before he had known her. It was valid because Mary and Joseph agreed and because their fathers(or head of house) agreed on it(see other Scriptures,,,Abraham sending his servant to find Isaac an wife ect. and the agreements made by both fathers).
They weren't actually married according to that chapter. They were engaged, nor does it confirm they had any sexual relations.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
They weren't actually married according to that chapter. They were engaged, nor does it confirm they had any sexual relations.
Actually, the text confirms that they didn't have any sexual relations.

Matt 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The word "knew" means intimate knowledge, ie: sex.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
The vow, and contract, is right there before your eyes in the scriptures you are claiming and you are missing it. It is concise but nevertheless it is there.

When the man left the authority of the parents and became the authority of his own household everyone bore witness to the transition and transactional agreement.

There was no returning later to say it never happened. The very statement is an ancient VOW. He should leave his mother and Father and Cleave to the wife.

But your issue with vows and trying assign the marriage vow to the condemnation on swearing by temples or God is bad hermeneutics. So you say you are scripture only but you misinterpret and misunderstand what you read therefore you are "my own way of viewing the scripture even if NOT ONE SINGLE scholar of the bible agrees with me" Which is quite different than sola scriptura.

If you had scriptural grounds for your interpretation don't you think there would be scholarly presentations you could find to support it? The lack of any should make you realize you have dropped off the edge of sound hermeneutics.
Jesus didn't provide context or specific examples of when to not make a vow. He said don't make any vows, just say yes or no, and anything more than that comes from evil. That's pretty straightforward and doesn't require hermeneutics. After having come to knowledge of the truth, I don't know why you're insisting on that it's okay to make vows. That's a bit concerning.

I don't think a man leaving his father and mother to be with a woman is an "ancient vow." For example, in Matthew 1 Mary and Joseph were together while they were engaged but there's no mention of an ancient vow. In John 4, the woman at the well was living with a man who is not her husband, no discussion about an ancient vow.

Do you have scriptures for any of that because it sounds like you're just saying things you believe rather than things in the Bible.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
Actually, the text confirms that they didn't have any sexual relations.

Matt 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

The word "knew" means intimate knowledge, ie: sex.
Yes I agree. Maybe I was not clear, but that is what I was trying to say.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Jesus didn't provide context or specific examples of when to not make a vow. He said don't make any vows, just say yes or no, and anything more than that comes from evil. That's pretty straightforward and doesn't require hermeneutics. After having come to knowledge of the truth, I don't know why you're insisting on that it's okay to make vows. That's a bit concerning.

I don't think a man leaving his father and mother to be with a woman is an "ancient vow." For example, in Matthew 1 Mary and Joseph were together while they were engaged but there's no mention of an ancient vow. In John 4, the woman at the well was living with a man who is not her husband, no discussion about an ancient vow.

Do you have scriptures for any of that because it sounds like you're just saying things you believe rather than things in the Bible.
I already explained that many things were already understood by the first audience of these writers and they did not need to be explained. You can learn about them by reading other books that give you the background information. There are covenants and contracts between parties in the bible and one of them is in marriages. This is not a diputed fact. I suggest Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, and Culture at the Time of Chirst type books to add to your biblical library reference collection. You'll get there. Scripture cannot be understood correctly without understanding some of these cultural things. Yes you can understand scripture enough without them to be saved, but you won't understand the parable of the 10 virgins without some background knowledge of the wedding traditions. Many other examples I could give. A little more study on what Jesus was talking about from the swearing by the temple they were doing will help you understand that Jesus did not condemn all contracts and covenants. It is a lack of background information that is causing you to apply it to the wrong context.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
I already explained that many things were already understood by the first audience of these writers and they did not need to be explained. You can learn about them by reading other books that give you the background information. There are covenants and contracts between parties in the bible and one of them is in marriages. This is not a diputed fact. I suggest Old Testament Survey, New Testament Survey, and Culture at the Time of Chirst type books to add to your biblical library reference collection. You'll get there. Scripture cannot be understood correctly without understanding some of these cultural things. Yes you can understand scripture enough without them to be saved, but you won't understand the parable of the 10 virgins without some background knowledge of the wedding traditions. Many other examples I could give. A little more study on what Jesus was talking about from the swearing by the temple they were doing will help you understand that Jesus did not condemn all contracts and covenants. It is a lack of background information that is causing you to apply it to the wrong context.
Matthew 5:33-37 already provides the context. Jesus is comparing what was said in the past to what He is changing it to be.

In the past they said, "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Numbers 30:2

If Jesus is still allowing vows, as you seem to be saying, then Jesus didn't need to say anything at all. Your interpretation is highly unlikely because your interpretation says keep making vows. Jesus says not to keep making vows. I wonder who's right, you or Jesus? I'll just stick with what the Bible says.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Matthew 5:33-37 already provides the context. Jesus is comparing what was said in the past to what He is changing it to be.

In the past they said, "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." Numbers 30:2

If Jesus is still allowing vows, as you seem to be saying, then Jesus didn't need to say anything at all. Your interpretation is highly unlikely because your interpretation says keep making vows. Jesus says not to keep making vows. I wonder who's right, you or Jesus? I'll just stick with what the Bible says.
A covenant, and a contract in marriage, or in a rental agreement, or a car purchase, a mortgage all require a commitment on your part to repay. A contract between you and your painter require an agreement in writing on what will be done and what will be paid etc.

Thinking that Jesus ruled out all these things is simply a misunderstanding about what he was talking about. But you will figure it out as you keep reading and learning. I think you are getting hung up on the English word "Vow" and because that word is used in marriage.

When you try to contend for a particular word in English you must consider that word in Greek first. When someone says "I swear to God" or "I swear by the temple of God" Jesus said don't do this. And this has nothing to do with marriage contracts.

Swearing by God in court always seem strange to me. Seems like that is the kind of thing Jesus said not to do.

I am not going to argue with you about it. I am here to gently and patiently help out. In a format like this it is hard sometimes to know if people are open to learning or if they are suspect, and afraid to listen, or if they are just not understanding. So I will assume the best and leave you to figure it out. Stay humble and always learning. Good luck to you. :)
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Probably had courthouses during the book of Judges.
Like in the book of Ruth.. 4:1 1Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down. 2And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, ...

It shows up often in the OT. The civic leaders did all their contractual business in the Gates.
 
Dec 30, 2014
114
31
28
Today I had a thought about this verse:

Matthew 5:28
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

So if a man or woman looks at someone to lust after them then they have committed adultery with them in their heart.

By process of reverse engineering Matt. 5:28, the implication is that if adultery occurs in the heart then marriage occurs in the heart, too.

To keep Matthew 5:28 in context . . . Christ was teaching . . . "In magnifying the Law ( whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her ), Christ put righteousness beyond the reach of sinful humanity. Meaning, no one will ever be "good enough" or "righteousness enough" to gain Heaven. ( Romans 3: 20-26 ).

Romans 3:20-26, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." KJV
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
A covenant, and a contract in marriage, or in a rental agreement, or a car purchase, a mortgage all require a commitment on your part to repay. A contract between you and your painter require an agreement in writing on what will be done and what will be paid etc.

Thinking that Jesus ruled out all these things is simply a misunderstanding about what he was talking about. But you will figure it out as you keep reading and learning. I think you are getting hung up on the English word "Vow" and because that word is used in marriage.

When you try to contend for a particular word in English you must consider that word in Greek first. When someone says "I swear to God" or "I swear by the temple of God" Jesus said don't do this. And this has nothing to do with marriage contracts.

Swearing by God in court always seem strange to me. Seems like that is the kind of thing Jesus said not to do.

I am not going to argue with you about it. I am here to gently and patiently help out. In a format like this it is hard sometimes to know if people are open to learning or if they are suspect, and afraid to listen, or if they are just not understanding. So I will assume the best and leave you to figure it out. Stay humble and always learning. Good luck to you. :)
Matthew 5:36
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

So do you think if Jesus said to not swear by your head that people you shouldn't swear to their spouse's head? Example: swearing to your spouse's head in a wedding ceremony.
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
Matthew 5:36
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

So do you think if Jesus said to not swear by your head that people you shouldn't swear to their spouse's head? Example: swearing to your spouse's head in a wedding ceremony.
No, you should not say "I swear by my spouses head, or I swear by my head, or I swear on the life of my son, or the life of my parents. Etc. " Don't do that.

If you are a truthful person you don't have to resort to dramatic oaths such as "May I be struck dead if I am lying" to convince someone you are telling the truth.

It is not that hard to understand. No one has had a problem understanding it in the history of Christendom. I don't know what is making you take a completely different path that does not even match the normal English comprehension that even most non Christians grew up understanding. "I swear by whatever That I am telling you the truth"

Jesus is saying that if you are telling the truth just tell it. No swearing is necessary.

I am going to assume that you just did not understand rather than to think that you are deliberately trying to make it means something else other than what everyone has always understood it to mean.

And as a side note. I find it annoying when people say "To be honest..." or "To be completely honest.... " and then go on to explain themselves. It is like saying "Sometimes I lie.. but this time I am being honest." If one never lies there is never any reason to start a sentence with "To be honest...." I would tell Christians not to start sentences that way. We should have the reputation that what we say is the truth and does not require an emphatic announcement that we are not lying or that we need to swear by something that what we are saying is true.

So in a marriage covenant, telling your spouse that you will love her and protect her and never leave her etc. would not require that you say "I swear to God.. or I am being honest when I say this.... You just say it and they will expect you to do it. Let your yes be yes.

Amen?

But that does not mean that there is no contract or covenant or witnesses to this agreement. These things are not swearing by ones head, or by the temple, or by heaven or by earth or by God or by your life, etc etc. Totally different.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
1,842
828
113
Matthew 5:36
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

So do you think if Jesus said to not swear by your head that people you shouldn't swear to their spouse's head? Example: swearing to your spouse's head in a wedding ceremony.
I really suggest looking further into the teaching of Jesus regarding oaths- regardless of the current discussion about marriage. If all oaths are forbidden then we have a serious problem because Jesus made an oathbound statement to the High Priest; and Paul makes them in several epistles.

"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" (Galatians 1:20.) You don't have to say "i swear" for something to be an oath. Whenever you invoke God (or anything else) to boost the credit of what you are saying, that is swearing. Paul does this more than once.

If Jesus is still allowing vows, as you seem to be saying, then Jesus didn't need to say anything at all. Your interpretation is highly unlikely because your interpretation says keep making vows. Jesus says not to keep making vows. I wonder who's right, you or Jesus? I'll just stick with what the Bible says.
It just doesn't make sense to say that Jesus was forbidding every kind of oath/vow when he and Paul did it themselves. His teaching is a rebuke against the tendency of the Jews to make vows in their ordinary speech, (usually vows that they thought were not binding, but in fact were). They were not taking the Lords name in vain, but they were swearing by holy things in vain. That is what he was putting a stop to.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
I really suggest looking further into the teaching of Jesus regarding oaths- regardless of the current discussion about marriage. If all oaths are forbidden then we have a serious problem because Jesus made an oathbound statement to the High Priest; and Paul makes them in several epistles.

"Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not" (Galatians 1:20.) You don't have to say "i swear" for something to be an oath. Whenever you invoke God (or anything else) to boost the credit of what you are saying, that is swearing. Paul does this more than once.


It just doesn't make sense to say that Jesus was forbidding every kind of oath/vow when he and Paul did it themselves. His teaching is a rebuke against the tendency of the Jews to make vows in their ordinary speech, (usually vows that they thought were not binding, but in fact were). They were not taking the Lords name in vain, but they were swearing by holy things in vain. That is what he was putting a stop to.
I don't agree with that because saying "I assure you before God" doesn't make something an oath. We are always before God and He sees all things so by your definition everything that is said is an oath if the qualifying thing is being before God. That means every mundane topic, idle word, joke, etc is an oath. Doesn't make sense.

Paul didn't make any promises or pledges to do something. He was simply trying to persuade the people he was talking to about the truthfulness of his words.

I really suggest looking further into the definition of what an oath, vow, promise, edge, etc is.
 

SomeDisciple

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2021
1,842
828
113
I don't agree with that because saying "I assure you before God" doesn't make something an oath. We are always before God and He sees all things so by your definition everything that is said is an oath if the qualifying thing is invoking God as a witness.
I really suggest looking further into the definition of what an oath, vow, promise, edge, etc is.
Okay....

oath-a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

That's redundant because God witnesses all things.
It not redundant, because in order for it to be an oath, you have to actually say that God is your witness.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,679
113
Okay....

oath-a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
Definitions from Oxford Languages


It not redundant, because in order for it to be an oath, you have to actually say that God is your witness.
Exactly, "regarding one's future action or behavior." Paul didn't talk of his future actions.

Let me try this angle. In court, don't they say something like "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" before testifying? That's an oath about future actions. They swear to do something and the fulfillment of the oath is when they speak the truth. Lying breaks the oath.

Notice Paul never actually promised to do anything in the future. He basically just made a declaration of not lying on the present to persuade his intended recipients to believe him. I do believe Paul told the truth, but he did not make an oath.