What is the Biblical definition of marriage?

[Tom]

I've been reading "The Screwtape Letters" for the first time and I was dumbfounded to find that C. S. Lewis and I share a possibly controversial view about what constitutes a marriage in God's economy.

I'll quote from the book:

Letter 18
"...Now comes the joke. The Enemy (Who is God, from Screwtape's perspective. For those who have not read the book) described a married couple as 'one flesh." He did not say 'a happily married couple' or 'a couple who married because they were in love,' but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes 'one flesh." You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of 'being in love' what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."
taken from The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis

I tend very strongly to agree with this statement, and it appears to be something quite easy to defend with scriptures that we're all very familiar with.

So is there anyone here with another opinion on this subject? What do you think about the above quotation?

And another question...are we a world that is full of 'happily married' spiritual polygamists / adulterers?

Discuss...

[Brenden]

I've recently been thinking similar things. Does someone really need a ceremony to be married on God's eyes? Or is that just a legal formality?

That quote is interesting, food for thought.
 

[Tom]

Does someone really need a ceremony to be married on God's eyes? Or is that just a legal formality?

 

in a literal sense i'd say the process of getting a certificate that says, "by decree of the state of... these two people are married" is primarily one of legal implications.

the physical joining of a man and a woman in a very real sense marries them spritually and eternally. but i'm not saying we should avoid taking vows before God and witnesses etc. but the ceremony does not a marriage make.

that is why there is such a thing as annullments. no consumation = no marriage.

[bloop]

Well, this does make for an interesting debate concerning those couples who are engaged who have sex and get legally married after the fact as to whether it is or isn't premarital sex.

[Tom]

Well, this does make for an interesting debate concerning those couples who are engaged who have sex and get legally married after the fact as to whether it is or isn't premarital sex.

you know you're right. and it also brings to light another problem. is there really any such thing (spiritually) as pre-marital sex? if the act itself makes you 'one flesh' in the eyes of God, then it becomes impossible to have pre-marital sex, metaphorically speaking.

however, there are grave consequences if this view is accurate, as i believe it to be. it means that many, many, many people are spiritually married to multiple spouses. and it provides an even greater moral case against unchastity.

but even if a man and a woman who have remained chaste, get engaged, consumate their relationship...then go through with the ceremony are technically not sinning so long as they stay faithful to each other alone until death. it does set a bad precedent for those who "don't get" what we are discussing here. it may cause weaker brothers & sisters in Christ to stumble.

and just imagine how many silly teens would use this as an excuse. they may think that their raging hormones signify lifelong love, but they would be playing with fire.

this is probably why you don't hear this reasoned out much. the spiritually immature could be led astray through improper understanding of the facts.

[Brenden]

Does someone really need a ceremony to be married on God's eyes? Or is that just a legal formality?

 

in a literal sense i'd say the process of getting a certificate that says, "by decree of the state of... these two people are married" is primarily one of legal implications.

the physical joining of a man and a woman in a very real sense marries them spritually and eternally. but i'm not saying we should avoid taking vows before God and witnesses etc. but the ceremony does not a marriage make.

that is why there is such a thing as annullments. no consumation = no marriage.

Yeah, I'd say the ceremony means something, publicly vowing to be faithful to each other is a very good thing.

[bloop]

I agree completely that it's dangerous to present teenagers with that perspective, or most people in general.  Although I think it's the correct view on marriage, it's one that would cause many to have sex when they really don't have a lifelong committment.  People have a way of interpreting their actions in the best possible light.

I think there are some issues here to iron out.  Example:  If a person is raped, the act is certainly there, so the question would be, "is he/she spiritually married to his/her rapist, or would the case of rape be uniquely defined?".

Speaking about marriage, murlough's back!  What say you, newlywed?

[oneafroboy]

I agree with everything except for the eternal part. Marriage is not eternal, as Jesus makes quite clear when his disciples ask him about marriage in the afterlife when a man marries his dead brothers' wives. This is also why it's perfectly fine to remarry after your spouse dies.

Oh, I also disagree with the spiritual union part. Two married couples are joined in flesh, not spirit. Only one place can I think of two people being joined in spirit. And that was David and Jonathon! (Gasp! Two men!)

Thought: maybe since sex joins two people together, so that they are married in God's eyes, this is why the commandment is Do not commit adultery rather than do not commit fornication...?

[PaulDA]

I always wonder about how we define marriage.
To me, marriage could be betweena man and woman who dedicate themselves to God without the 'piece of paper' in a so called legal ceremony.
I mean, two athiests could legally be married, but are they really married in God's eyes unless they believe in God?
And two Christians could live together and bond before God without a legal paper.
I feel they would be the ones married and not the athiests.

[Tom]

"Marriage is not eternal"

Good point. Though, if I may speculate; it appears to me that Lewis is trying to impart that the institution of marriage is a permanent state. That is, in so much as this "vapor" we call life is permanent.

"I also disagree with the spiritual union part. Two married couples are joined in flesh, not spirit."

Not sure that I completely agree with you here. There is quite actually a spiritual union IMO. And if there should be found proof in the Bible that it isn't, then I'd say that God intends us to treat our spouses AS IF it were true. Because marriage in a mysterious way is symbolic of Christ & His church.


"Thought: maybe since sex joins two people together, so that they are married in God's eyes, this is why the commandment is Do not commit adultery rather than do not commit fornication...?"

That, my friend, is some very good insight! Bravo!

[oneafroboy]

Ah, yes, actually, I didn't think Lewis actually believed marriage was eternal. But the quote suggested that he did. I've read the book, but it's been awhile. Anyway, my comment is also just to clear anything up as well.

Let me clarify: Becoming one flesh is a very spiritual thing. But I do think there is a distinction between becoming one flesh and becoming one spirit. And I think that you kind of were going where I'm thinking... It's not spiritual because the true spiritual union won't happen 'til Christ comes back, and that union is eternal. Though it still leaves open the question about David and Jonathon. (1 Samuel 18 if you want to check it out.) So, I still say it's not union of spirit, but I don't necessarily know if this was Lewis' or your point, Tom.

But yeah.

Paul: I've often wondered about the marriage of non-Christians. I do wonder if the same "rules" apply. I lean towards I don't, not so much that it's not sinful to have extra-marital relations or after-first-sex relationships, or whatever you want to call it, but that it may not matter. Especially if marriage really is a convenant between two people and God. This is why, btw, I think civil unions--or state marriages/unions--are a good idea. Let people who don't hold to the biblical Law do whatever they want and let others decide to marry according to their religious institutions/beliefs.  

[leinad]

Then I guess the people we talked about here weren't really married for the first eight years.

[Vlad!]

I don't think a legal ceremony is necessary for marriage any more than an ordained minister or priest is necessary for conversion. However, I also don't think that Lewis is saying sex=marriage, or even sex implies marriage. What he is saying is that sex has consequences that go beyond what we think of as the usual consequences of sex (possibility of disease, pregnancy, social stigma, etc).  

[MJanke]

I don't think a legal ceremony is necessary for marriage any more than an ordained minister or priest is necessary for conversion. However, I also don't think that Lewis is saying sex=marriage, or even sex implies marriage. What he is saying is that sex has consequences that go beyond what we think of as the usual consequences of sex (possibility of disease, pregnancy, social stigma, etc).

I agree.

The best thing to do to find the answer here is go back to Scripture, and if we do that we see cases of sexual relations that take place outside of marriage, or pre-marriage, where the result is condemnation as a sinful act, but not the interpretation of the act as a binding marriage.

[bloop]

Well, I can narrow that down for you, as pre-marital sex is the only one of those two that would be relevant to the debate.  Extra-marital sex isn't even at issue here.

[MJanke]

Well, I can narrow that down for you, as pre-marital sex is the only one of those two that would be relevant to the debate.  Extra-marital sex isn't even at issue here.

Sure it is, if the sex act is what creates a marriage - logically extra-marital sex, then, would result in polygamy.

[bloop]

You make a good point here.  I doubt it's the perfect case against what most here have been saying, but extra-marital sex certainly does create a challenge as to how to think of it as implying lifelong committment or not.  Extra-marital sex, much more often than not, causes divorce and often remarriage, which would be condemned.  However, polygamy itself  isn't condemned outright in the Bible.  One can make some arguements that are somewhat less strong, but I haven't seen one airtight at this point, which somewhat lessens the challenge (but not as much as one would like given the most common context of extra-marital sex is dishonest infidelity and it's also, of course, illegal in the US which plays as well in the moral question).

The least you could say is that being forthcoming with your spouse is a good thing.

Tom?

[oneafroboy]

Whatever happened in the Old Testament, Jesus makes it clear that marriage is really just supposed to be one man and one woman.

So in the case of extra-marital sex, I would say that you are breaking with the commitment you made to whomever you had sex with first.

 

[danny316]

This might make people here want to throw things at me, but I don't think the bible actually defines marriage.

I mean, sure, there are instructions on how a proper marriage should work, but there are similar instructions on how a proper slave-master relationship would work. I think that if two people could perfectly follow every piece of biblical instruction on either topic, it would make that relationship go smoothly, but I don't see a good case for there being a distinct and sacred way of defining either one.