Half Agree

Nathaniel wrote:

I am only half convinced of this statement. Citing the Mary and Joseph example in Matt 1:18-25, he is called her husband, yet he is told to take her as his wife, implying that she is not yet his wife.

By 'this statement' I assume he is referring to the fact that the betrothed couple are called 'man and wife'. My guess is that he (like so many others) is still stuck in the rut of what our culture calls marriage. So let me explain:

1) Marriage (properly understood) consists of two parts:

a) The Marriage covenant: called betrothal. This is some action or vow which binds a man and woman inseparably together. From the point they are so bound they are called man and wife. Infidelity after this point is called adultery, and is punished by the death penalty. She is a virgin, betrothed, with a husband.

b) Taking a wife: coming together physically, usually accompanied in Scripture by a feast, a celebration, usually organized by the grooms father. When the groom and the bride 'come together' she 'becomes his wife'. She is no longer a virgin.

2) This language, and this logic, may seem odd to us, but its remnant still lingers. We say 'pronounce you man and wife' and we call her 'Mrs Smith'... but we still speak of 'consummating' the marriage.

So perhaps instead of being 'half convinced' Nathaniel (and others) could be completely convinced of the fact that betrothal is 'half' of marriage.

Some Scripture on the subject:

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused718 you to one husband,435 that I may present you as a chaste53 virgin3933 to Christ.

Deut 22: 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
Isa 54:7 For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.
Isa 54:8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

Matt 1:18Now 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. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

It may work but...

Nathaniel said:

To the extent that we were able to follow the scriptures in preserving purity until we were promised (betrothed) and then married, to that extent I would encourage your readers and others to rejoice with us, and be encouraged that there are very practical and doable biblical alternatives to the typical American romance and proposal.

The Bible isn't as impossible to follow as our culture would have us believe.

I don't know whether to say that I agree fantastically, or disagree incredibly with this... so I had better explain myself:

1)I agree completely that Scripture works. God promises us that 'all things work together for good. And this obviously includes his plan for marriage.

2) However some may read this as saying that we should only obey Scripture if 'it works'. I am sure this is not what is meant, but it could possibly be heard. We obey Scripture because it is Gods Word, not because it 'works for us'.

The same as marriage

Betrothal is not the same as marriage, but is one way to enter into marriage. I believe this fits your definition of betrothal, as referenced in your comments on Michael Pearl's writings.

Two things here:

1) Betrothal and marriage are not the same word, I grant. Their meanings differ, I also grant. But much the same way as the words 'eating' and 'swallowing'. Swallowing is 'a part of' eating, and betrothal is 'a part of marriage' (the first part).

2) One way? Or the only correct way?

Pattern and Precept: Commands and examples

Nathaniel again said:

Beyond the avoidance of defrauding and defiling of the marriage bed, there's not a lot more extensive commands in scripture on this subject for Christians.



I'm a little vague on what 'this subject' is... ie betrothal or defrauding. However I have seen (here and elsewhere) this emphasis on 'commands' coming up over and over. Again I would repeat that *all* Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction in righteousness... that the man of God may be complete. It is not merely the commands. The examples of Godly men are held up by the NT writers as if we should be following them.

This includes this area. We need to look at what Godly men did and see what principles we can glean from their examples.. .and sometimes their counter examples.


Some Scripture on the subject:

1Pe 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
1Pe 3:2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
1Pe 3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1Pe 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
1Pe 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1Pe 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Jas 5:10 Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
1Co 10:5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
1Co 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
1Co 10:8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
1Co 10:9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
1Co 10:10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
1Co 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Maintaining purity

Nathaniel said:

Betrothal was not the means to maintain purity, rather it was the covenantal one-way bridge between friendship and marital romance.

I realize that he had not yet read much of what we have written on the private site, but I felt this was worth responding to here:

1) There is no Scriptural example or justification for male/female friendships. Betrothal should properly be the bridge between being brothers and sisters in Christ and being covenentally bound as husband and wife.

2) I disagree that betrothal is not a means to maintain purity. Betrothal, properly understood, means that no young man should think of any young woman as wife, potential wife, "I wonder how she would be as wife'... until the day that she is presented to him *as his wife*. Thus it helps preserve purity *before* betrothal, and then after betrothal it helps preserve purity by the fact that she is now his wife, and he has a proper focus... as Nathaniel puts it 'marital romance'.

Betrothed and not engaged

Lauren said:

We continued to use the word "engagement", pretty much interchangeably with "betrothal", mostly because that is what people around us used. In conversation, we would usually say both words and clarify what we meant by them. Whether you call it an "engagement" or a "betrothal period", that time prior to our marriage was as good as being married in our eyes--only I still lived with my parents and he went to prepare a place for us--and we had no physical relationship until the day he "took" me in marriage. Our betrothal/engagement was an unbreakable vow to marry, as well as a time to fall in love and prepare for marriage. I guess I don't exactly see how the terminology makes much difference. If we use the word engagement as a reference point for people, and go on to explain that it was in fact a betrothal and "this is what that means...",

I believe that betrothed couples should use the word 'betrothed' and not 'engaged' consistently. Here are a few reasons why:

1) It reflects the truth. Lauren states 'because that is what people around us used' and she was perfectly correct, but she misses the point of her own statement. It is what people around them used, but they used it for something else. They used 'engaged' because the people they were refferring to were engaged. They were not betrothed. They had engaged in an act (where the boy asked the girl 'will you marry me') that had a certain set of consequences (they were *planning* on getting married). Lauren and Nathaniel, however, had engaged in an act (which I post here) that had another set of consequences: they were man and wife.

2) It speaks the truth. One consequence of our speech is that it gets passed on. A man who says to another man 'I am engaged' risks that man telling some other man 'Joe is engaged'. Hearsay may be off limits in a court of law, but it is everywhere accepted in the court of public opinion. Thus we should use accurate words, that they might be passed on accurately.

3) Shock value. It is precisley 'because' people use the word 'engaged' that the word 'betrothal' would be so useful. If everyone said they were 'betrothed' (and meant 'planning on getting married') then saying you were 'betrothed' would not mean much. But since people don't use the word, using it will clang on their ears, and call for an explanation.

I greatly admire Nathaniels leadership on the issue of betrothal. He did far, far better than I did 20 years ago. But I wish here and on the private site to continue to 'push the envelope' and move us toward a complete Biblical understanding and practice of marriage and all of its consituent parts.

A 'Concession' meaning 'for the hardness of your hearts'?

A 'Concession' meaning 'for the hardness of your hearts'?
Is I Cor 7:2 a ‘concession’ that Paul gave in the same sense that Moses ‘suffered’ divorce?

First the relevant verses:

1Co 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 1Co 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 1Co 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 1Co 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. Mat 19:11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

My answer is this: No, and indeed they are nearly as opposite as it is capable to be.

Starting with the groundwork first of all. It is written:


2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

This means that whatever the ‘concession’ of I Cor 7:6 means or doesn’t mean, it cannot mean that I Cor 7:2 is not profitable for doctrine. No interpretation can be acceptable which vitiates I Cor 7:2, or, worse, interprets it as meaning the opposite of what it says.

Secondly, lest us look at the passage it is being compared to.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

The first thing we need to notice about this verse is that it begins with two sins. First of all, the eyes of the man have ‘found no favor’ in his wife. This is a violation of an affirmative precept, multiple times repeated. As it is written:

Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

A man is commanded to love his wife, to rejoice in her, to be satisfied with her at all times. So the man mentioned in Deut 24 has already disobeyed.

Secondly, he has found ‘an uncleanness’ in his wife. One type of uncleanness (that Jesus himself brings up) is fornication/adultery. This kind of uncleanness leads to a legal and moral (if not commanded) divorce. Other types of uncleanness (perhaps consistent disobedience, etc.) could lead to a legal (according to levitical law) but not moral (condemned by Christ Himself, and in violation of the Act of Marriage written in Genesis) divorce.

Thus ‘due to the hardness of their hearts’ Moses allowed for a legal divorce. Where a man and his wife were both in active sin, they were not to be civily punished for ceasing to live together. And the man (who had the greater fault as the leader in his home, responsible for both his sin and hers) was required not to sell his wife, or leave her in legal limbo while not providing her rights (food, clothing, and conjugal rights), but to give her a document which freed her to marry again.

Contrast this with I Cor 7:2.
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Here we have someone who is tempted with sin, and an escape (or aid) is provided. We are specifically told that if he acts in obedience to this “he has not sinned”. (I Cor 7:7).

So the two passages are opposed in every way. In one case some who is actively sinning is married to someone else who is actively sinning, and instead of turning to obey the law and the gospel he instead violates Gods teachings and blasphemes against Christ… and is forced to make his disobedience public.

In the second case someone recognizes that they don’t have a rare gift from Christ and acts in direct obedience to Gods Word pattern and precept; following the example of practically all of the Godly men in Scripture.


My translation/paraphrase/interpretation summarizing these verses and other related verses:

You wrote me asking if it was good for a man not to touch a woman, ie not get married. Certainly that is good. But the problem of fornication means that, in general, all men should marry, and all women should marry. In marriage one needs to be constantly available for your spouse. In fact the body of the husband does not belong to him, but to his wife; and her body does not belong to her, but to him. You shouldn't be abstaining from the natural act of marriage. Occasionally, for short times, if you are both in true agreement, you might want to spend some time fasting and praying; and that could also involve abstaining from the kind of food that is represented in the marriage bond. But this particular kind of fasting must be short, or you will be tempted. You will end up with the same problem that you got married to help avoid!
Obviously I don't 'command' marriage. It would be wonderful if everyone was able, as I am, to live the celibate life and dedicate themselves completely to God, with the flexibility to travel, the singleness of focus, etc. But God has not given everyone the gift of being a eunuch for Christ. It is a rare gift. So those that don't have it should marry. Those that do, shouldn't.

Some Commentators on these verses:

John Gill

1Co 7:6 - But I speak this by permission,.... Referring either to what he had said before, though not to all; not to 1Co_7:2 that for the avoiding of fornication, every man should make use of his own wife, and every woman of her own husband; since this is not by permission, but by command, Gen_2:24 that carnal copulation should be between one man and one woman in a married state; nor to 1Co_7:3 for that married persons ought to render due benevolence to, and not defraud each other, having a power over each other's bodies, is a precept, and not a permission, Exo_21:10 but to 1Co_7:5 their parting for a time, and coming together again: it is not an absolute command of God that they should separate for a time, on account of fasting and prayer, but if they thought fit to do so by agreement, they might; nor was there any positive precept for their coming together again directly, after such service was over. The apostle said this,

not of commandment; but, consulting their good, gives this advice, lest Satan should be busy with them, and draw them into sin; but if they had the gift of continence, they might continue apart longer; there was no precise time fixed by God, nor did the apostle pretend to fix any: or it may refer to what follows after, that he would have all men be as he was; though he laid no injunction, but left them to their liberty; unless it can be thought to regard marriage in general, and to be said in opposition to a Jewish notion, which makes marriage מצוה, a "command";

"a man, they say (f), is bound to this command at seventeen years of age, and if he passes twenty and does not marry, he transgresses, and makes void an affirmative precept;''

but the apostle puts it as a matter of choice, and not of obligation.


Matthew Henry

III. The apostle limits what he had said about every man's having his own wife, &c. (v. 2): I speak this by permission, not of command. He did not lay it as an injunction upon every man to marry without exception. Any man might marry. No law of God prohibited the thing. But, on the other hand, not law bound a man to marry so that he sinned if he did not; I mean, unless his circumstances required it for preventing the lust of uncleanness.

Calvin

By permission That they might not, by taking their stand upon a precept of the kind that he had prescribed, loosen unduly the restraints of lust, 380380 “Leurs affections desordonnees;” — “Their inordinate affections.” he adds a limitation — that he had written these things on account of their infirmity — that they may bear in mind that marriage is a remedy for unchastity

A Young Man Walking in a Park

Suppose you were a young man walking through an orchard. In this orchard were many fruit trees. None of these trees belonged to you. You weren’t allowed to eat any of them. In fact you aren’t allowed to even think about eating from any of them. Many of the trees already have someone that owns them, and eats their fruit. Other trees, some not even budded, have as yet no owner.

As you walk along, getting hungrier and hungrier, someone comes toward you and reminds you that you aren’t supposed to eat, or even think about eating, from any of the trees. They encourage you to walk with your head down, to think about the beautiful animals, indeed anything except eating from one of the trees.

Meditating on his advice, and getting hungrier and more frustrated, another man comes up. He tells you that one of the trees is actually yours. It belongs to you. He takes you over to it. As he does you notice that the tree has only budded, it doesn’t have any fruit yet. You mention this to the man, and he tells you that that is true. You can’t eat from this tree just yet. But it is yours. You can think about eating from it. You can plan to eat from it. No one can take it away.

And you can begin to care for it. You can mulch it, and prune its leaves. You can learn exactly where it is in this orchard, and even make a path that goes directly toward it.


I believe that that second man represents God. He has planned for young men to get betrothed in their youth, when they are hungriest. He has prepared a tree for each of them, except for certain select youth that have no hunger via his direct gift. Each of the others has a tree prepared for him.

And that second man represents the boys father, who finds a tree for him. Picks out the best tree he can find in the entire orchard. Negotiates with the former owner of that tree (the girls father). And presents his son with a beautiful gift of a tree.

But the tree when first given is only budded, not full of fruit. In a period called *betrothal* the young man gets to know his wife, and she gets to know him. He begins to establish his authority over her, to wash her in the word. And then, when the time is right, she bears fruit for him… they are wed.

Oh... and the first man? He represents the modern church. Rejecting Gods gift of marriage, at least until the young man is 'ready' (by which they mean mature, having finished his education, gotten a job, and saved money for his down payment on a house) they insist that the young man needs to learn 'self control' and ignore all of those beautiful trees that God has created.

A Betrothal Ceremony

Haven't fully researched this link, but it looks interesting. Definitely a warning for prospective grooms... don't pour too much wine :) :





Later note: I was contacted by someone that knew this couple, and then the wife herself, and have found a link to 'their story'. I do not post it as an 'example', as I belive and teach differently than they worked out, as you will see if you read their story and compare it with what we have taught here.

One interesting thing is that this 'betrothal ceremony' followed a 'proposal', and that afterwards they called the period of time 'engagement' and then explained that they were 'betrothed'. (This post has been modified after a comment by the wife.)

Nathaniel and Laurens story

Seventh Commandment: Audio Sermon

I am listening to a sermon called 'The Seventh Commandment', and subtitled 'Betrothal and Dating' given by Kenny Anderson. Some good points:

1) He goes back to the transcendence of God to reject dating
2) He comments well on the covenantal nature of betrothal
3) He uses the words 'husband and wife' for the betrothed couple
4) He has a good grasp of the permanence of betrothal
5) He correctly points out that the marriage covenant begins at the betrothal.
6) Love the one you marry: Not marry the one you love: He points out that the heart is desperately wicked. He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:

(Really good, with a couple of problems:
1) He uses the word 'single'.
2) He assumes that Joseph could have had Mary stoned for adultery. Wrong. A stoning for adultery required (a) two witnesses and (b) that both the man and woman be stoned. Both a bit tricky.)

Purposes: Another view

Our church is still going through the question of the purposes of marriage. We made a list, and have been checking it twice (and three times, etc.). I took that list, and made some edits, and have another list. Much less verbose (to quote the elder when discussing my writing) that what I usually write:

1. General Purposes - not peculiar to marriage
...a. Glorify God - 1 Corinthians 10:31; 1 Peter 4:11; Colossians 3:17
...b. Bear fruit for the kingdom; fullfill the great commission - John 15; Mathew 28
...c. Portray God's image - Genesis 1:26-28; Isaiah 54:4-6
2. Overarching purpose
...a. Because one flesh -> Become one flesh: Not alone: Testify to Christ and His bride the Church/Reflection of God and Israel – Gen 2:20-25, Ephesians 5; Titus 2:4-5; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:6-9, Genesis 2:24-25. Eze 54:4, Eze 16, Titus 2: 4-5, I Tim 5:14,
3. Specific application
...a. Spiritual Edification/Sanctification - Eph 5, Prov 2:17, I Cor 7:14, I Pet 3:1-2, Job 1:5
...b. Enjoyment/Companionship/Trust - Deuteronomy 24:5; Proverbs 5:15-19; Ecclesiastes 9:9; Song of Solomon 4:9-10; Malachi 2:14 (companion), Prov 31:11, Prov 18:22
...c. Helpmeet for the husband/ fulfill dominion mandate –Genesis 1:28; 2:18-23, Prov 31:10-31
...d. Protection/Authority/Provision for the wife and children - Numbers 30; Ruth 1:8-9; 3:1; Eze 21:10, Jesus on the Cross John 19:26-27
...e. A training ground for elders and deacons/A test for elder/deacon candidates - 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1
...f. Godly heritage
......i. Be fruitfull and multiply, seed not fail - Genesis 1:28, Gen 9:1, Gen 9:7, Gen 17:6, Gen 17:20, Gen 26:22, Gen 35:11, Lev 26:9, Psalm 127, Psalm 128, Psalm 144:12, Eze 19:10, Deut 30:16, Deut 7:12, Deut 25:5-6
......ii. Produce godly offspring - Malachi 2:14-16
......iii. Multi-generational influence/covenant/image/name - Jeremiah 35, Gen 18:19, Jos 24:15, Prov 3:1-2
...g. Woman as the glory of Man I Cor 11:7
4. Decisive purpose(s)
...a. Avoid temptation/Immorality/wife of youth - 1 Corinthians 7:2-9, 36; Mathew 19:3-12, Prov 5:15-20, Malichi 2:14-15
...b. 1Co 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
5. Limitation
...a. Human/human marriage for this world only, reflection of eternal marriage of Christ/Church Luke 20:34-35, (vs Eph 5)

Who has the authority to 'marry'?

On the private site I was asked:

I'd appreciate seeing Biblical support for your ideas of marriage not being a sacrament and so forth.

I replied:

1. Whenever someone claims Biblical authority for an action it is incumbent on them and not their audience to provide specific Biblical justification for their claim; either through their church's statement of faith of specifically at the time.

2. However, if you wish me to explain why a rite which is listed nowhere in Scripture is not a sacrament, I will certainly do so.

3. Which brings me to the main point, it is listed nowhere in Scripture:

a) Nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of any ceremony associated with marriage. Certainly there is a celebration. Certainly there are participants, but nowhere do we see any ceremony. The closest we come, as far as I can see, is Adams statement 'this now is bone of my bone.... man."

b)Similarly, nowhere do we see an religious or governmental authority involved in a marriage.

c) Nowhere in any of Jesus’ 'this do instructions' to his apostles do we see any indication that they were to be involved in a marriage. Nor do we find any such instructions given to elders or pastors.

Conversely, what does Scriptural pattern and precept teach?

a) It indicates two distinct events, betrothal and 'taking in marriage'.

b) Concerning betrothal Scripture shows the Father of the Bride (or his representative) acting in response to the initiative of the Father of the Groom (or his representative).

c) Concerning 'taking in marriage' we see the actions of the father of the groom and the groom.

In conclusion, then, the authority illustrated in Scripture is this: that the father of the groom initiates a process which is concluded by the father of the bride, a process which is called 'betrothal'. A betrothed couple is legally husband and wife. Then we see a process called 'taking in marriage', a process involving a large celebration attended by many guests organized by the father of the groom and concluded with the actions of the groom in taking, physically, his bride.

A Traditional Wedding

Doug Wilson begins an excellent article on marriage with a quote from Chesterton:

Tradition is not a dry and dusty and antiquated affair. Tradition is as vital and dramatic as treason, which is the same word. The silent passing of a scrap of history from father to son is as personal and passionate as the silent passing of a scrap of paper from traitor to spy.
G.K. Chesterton

and ends it with

Only Christ is the Lord of weddings.

and along the way says:

A marriage covenant is a public covenant fence built around a private sexual relationship. In a biblical wedding, Christians should crowd into church to witness the vows which mark the beginning of a life of faithful lovemaking. Those who struggle with even saying this, would have had real trouble at covenant weddings in the Old Testament where the groom escorted his bride into his chamber at the wedding to general applause and cheering by the guests. We need to grow up a little.

I disagree with some of what he says, but it is a good read.

Michael Pearl on the Sovereignty of God

I am not labeling this post with a roman numeral because a) it out of order and b) it is a general issue and not a specific part of his betrothal discussion. He states:

It may trouble some of you that the Bible seems to sanction some very unchristian practices. Remember, the culture in which the patriarchs lived was not of God’s making. They lived in a society torn by violence, slavery, idolatry, polygamy, and even human sacrifices. It is there that God found them and began to try to call them out to something more holy. Nothing of their customs was God ordained. It took God 2,000 years to wean his people away from most of their ungodly culture and instill some of his own values. He did not place a heavier burden of revelation on any given generation than they were able to stand. Slavery and the selling and buying of girls for marriage was an ugly part of that godless world. In time, the light of God drove those practices into oblivion, where they belong. The practice of arranged marriages has always had in view economic and social elevation. It was never instituted as a way of producing a godly heritage.

This paragraph reflects much of what many people believe. It sounds good. But it reflects several completely false ideas.
First of all, one needs to notice that there is a false implication. It brings up things that they did ‘then’ and automatically lumps them into ‘an ugly part of that Godless world’. Is he saying that our word is less Godless? Indeed can one say that the world of Abraham, Job, and David was ‘Godless’? Who do we have now that compares to these heroes of the faith?

Secondly, he says ‘It took God 2,000 years to wean his people away from most of their ungodly culture and instill some of his own values.’ It seems to me that in many cases it took closer to ten minutes… as far as expressing His will was concerned. How long did it take Him to write the ten commandments expressing his unalterable opposition to idolatry, theft, and adultery? Were slavery and ‘buying and selling of girls for marriage’ more difficult to outlaw? Paul managed to comment on the proper headcoverings for men and women in worship, could he not have said something about slavery? Jesus told soldiers not to complain about their pay, could he not have said not to capture and marry women?

Thirdly, we need to take a look at what supposedly Godly institutions have replaced these supposed ungodly ones. Would anyone be willing to argue that our current system of fornication and adultery are better than what we see in the OT? That our current prison system is better than the slavery regulated by the OT law.

And as I will show later, his overall thesis is false, as even he has shown. Scripture has a lot to say about how a man gets a wife.