Biblically speaking, when are two people considered married?

[iambren]

OR that engagement period is VERY short. None of this "When I graduate from college next year".

 

[clspruiell]

haha what do you mean?

Im just saying, isn't the marriage covenant made when i say "will you marry me?" and she responds with a Yes?

That SHOULD be when the covenant is made. We will throw a celebration (wedding) later.

The bible says very little about this. It mentions extra marital sex and the principle of being with one person. But never really addresses the absolute appropriate time that it is ok to begin sexual relations.

We have created alot of what we believe (thanks to true love waits). TLW, good premise, but they put forth a wrong message about guilt and they never mention forgiveness.

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

Sorry you missed out on so much fun.

was that directed at me?

 

[iambren]

was that directed at me?

Yes, this was directed at you. If you loved each other, had witnesses of your vows/intentions with sister-in-laws WHY would you deprive each other fr those months before the ceremony. I mean, God saw you in the first ceremony, the other is just more pomp/circumstance. Seems you lost out.

we actually got legally married with our pastor and my in-laws as witnesses a couple months before this. It was so I could get on my husbands health insurance as I really needed help with health issues. However, I did not consider us married until our wedding day in a church in front of all our family and firends and we did not live like married people until then.

 

[Beauty4Ashes]

Yes, this was directed at you. If you loved each other, had witnesses of your vows/intentions with sister-in-laws WHY would you deprive each other fr those months before the ceremony. I mean, God saw you in the first ceremony, the other is just more pomp/circumstance. Seems you lost out.

we actually got legally married with our pastor and my in-laws as witnesses a couple months before this. It was so I could get on my husbands health insurance as I really needed help with health issues. However, I did not consider us married until our wedding day in a church in front of all our family and firends and we did not live like married people until then.

Nah, We don't feel we missed out at all. Our wedding night was special. The first was done only for legalitly health purposes. I do not consider that our wedding. I'm glad we started our life together after our actual wedding. Thanks for sharing your opinion but I think you miss the romance in the whole thing.

 

[daughter13]

I feel the exact same way. I think people like to make up excuses to have sex without being legally married. So if you live together and don't have a marriage license then all you are is common law, and that's WRONG.

This makes me curious, when and where do you think that the legalisation in the ceremony of marriage came from.

I am getting married soon and because of this spent some time researching marriage history as we wanted some beautiful traditions in our ceremony.
A marriage to be a marriage did not have to be legalised until the mid 1700's that's what 250 ish years ago, before that 'common place marriage' was the ceremony.

The official part took forms such as in old Roman times the brides father meeting the groom at a mid point between the two houses handing her over and the bride being taken to the grooms house for consummation and feasting. No paper work there.

Later in England it was a feast at the brides house then the grooms house the brides family would leave and the consummation would happen.

At the time that the legislation was happening for weddings having to involve a person from the church 250ish years ago the 'ceremonies' would be dinner at the brides house and statements of intent to be husband and wife or common law marriages where common where after a year of living with a man even if no statement was made then they were considered married.

These were the basic wedding ceremonies though out history, you did not need paper, nor even a church official to preside over it.

 

[dayhiker]

I too have read the history of marriage. Its changed so many times over the years, that I now see marriage as what any group of people want it to be. We all have nice philosophies to make it sound so right to do it this way or that way, but none of them have any absolute bases in the Bible. So I say what ever a couple has to do to show they love each other and that they love God .. ya, should also include some respect for their parents will be find with God.

 

[now faith]

I have a question, what if a spouse filed for divorce then out of cruelty would not sign final decree because their ex wanted to remarry. This leaves someone in a difficult place, are they to wait tell the spouse dies? In this case it is impossible due to business reasons in which spouse has brought to a standstill as well. I need to know what constitutes marriage and divorce in the bible. Without a huge thread on should we divorce. Myself I believe that when a man and woman vows to be married before god. Their lives shouldn't revolve around a piece of paper.

 

[dayhiker]

Each state is different. Seems to me once the court has declared one divorced its like 30 days and its enforce wither any signs or not.

Sounds like its signing the papers to start the divorce process more than end it tho.

There isn't anything in the Bible that definitively says do this and your married.

A bill of divorcement simply said "Your free to marry and other man." Some said a Jewish man. Marriage was a family thing back then not a state thing.

 

[eaglemustfly]

Hi all

In my opinion, sex should be done after you are legally married.
Marriage itself should be considered as an institution, to be respected.
It is the strongest foundation against unfaithfulness and affair.

Sex before marriage will give you "trust" problems after marriage.
If you can easily have sex outside a legal marriage, you will do it again even after marriage, with someone else.

Hope it helps.

God bless!

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Pretty much what one of the first posters said. If I remembmer correctly we are to respect mans laws as long as it doesn't interfer with Gods laws. So in that case, its mans law that you marry legally. This is what God would want you to do then, Therfor being engaged does not mean your married And this means no sex until your legally married.

It sucks, but it how things are.

 

[dayhiker]

My experience has been different than that. Sex before marriage has not given me any trust issues.

In my mind the things that leads to adultery are not being able to talk about the issues and temptations each spouse has in the marriage. When a way to deal with it has been reached so that each can love the other at least enough to at least take the power of the temptation is removed then trust is built even stronger.

Hi all

In my opinion, sex should be done after you are legally married.
Marriage itself should be considered as an institution, to be respected.
It is the strongest foundation against unfaithfulness and affair.

Sex before marriage will give you "trust" problems after marriage.
If you can easily have sex outside a legal marriage, you will do it again even after marriage, with someone else.

Hope it helps.

God bless!

 

[Tamara224]

One thing people who say "obey the laws of the land" seem to miss here.....

It's not against the law to have sex before marriage. So, it is not, in fact, disobeying the law of the land to have sex before marriage.

There's no law that says a couple must get married in order to live as husband and wife. In fact, many U.S. states still recognize common law marriage. Which is, essentially, two people saying "we're married" and living together as married. Whether they said vows or obtained a marriage license or signed a marriage certificate or not is immaterial.

In short, to answer the OP, people are married when they say they're married. It's really quite simple.

 

[Luther073082]

One thing people who say "obey the laws of the land" seem to miss here.....

It's not against the law to have sex before marriage. So, it is not, in fact, disobeying the law of the land to have sex before marriage.

What we are saying is that you are married when the law says you are married.

There's no law that says a couple must get married in order to live as husband and wife. In fact, many U.S. states still recognize common law marriage. Which is, essentially, two people saying "we're married" and living together as married. Whether they said vows or obtained a marriage license or signed a marriage certificate or not is immaterial.

In short, to answer the OP, people are married when they say they're married. It's really quite simple.

Only a few states states recognize that. . . the rest the license is required.

Here is the common law marriage laws for each state.

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*
Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.
Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.
Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.
Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.
Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.
Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage was established if, before 1/1/2005, a man and woman exchanged words that indicated that they intended to be married at the present time and they also held themselves out to the community as married (introducing eachother as husband and wife, filing joint taxes, etc.).
Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.
South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.
Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.
Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.
Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

The thing is that legally speaking though none of these are as easy to prove as "we're married" as a simple marriage license. Say your spouse goes into the hospital, now as the spouse you have the right to visit them and you may have the say in important medical decisions if they are not capable of giving consent themselves.

Now if you have a license, if the hospital won't belive you, you can grab the license and prove it. Plus she's changed her name, she has the same last name and address as me.

With a common law marriage, especially if you don't change the name your case to be believed is a lot harder. A lot of couples are shacking up these days.

Even if you can get a common law marriage I still think the license is the better way. It usually doesn't cost a lot of money just to get a license. But the license can't be denied.

 

[Tamara224]

What we are saying is that you are married when the law says you are married.

Oh, I get what you're saying. I still think the logic is flawed.

People are saying, essentially, that sex is or isn't a sin based on what the laws of the land say about it.

If the state recognizes the marriage, sex isn't a sin.

If the state doesn't recognize the marriage, sex is a sin.
​

So... people are basing their definition of sin on what the secular government has to say about it. (Rather than turning to God and Scripture to inform them).

Since the secular government does not outlaw premarital sex, appealing to the 'law of the land' to determine when or if a person is sinning before God is faulty. Sex isn't a 'sin' before marriage according to the law of the land. So a person can 'obey the law of the land' without getting married according to the laws of the land.

Furthermore, people can shack up and call themselves married if they want to even in states that don't recognize common law marriage. There is no law against that. They may miss out on some benefits or have to do extra paperwork to get the same benefits as marriage certificate holders.... but they are not breaking any laws to call themselves married and live together as married without getting a license or certificate.

The "law of the land" wasn't crafted with that purpose in mind. Marriage licenses were originally imposed in an effort to prevent interracial marriages in the United States. The government, the people, decided that they could stick their noses into people's lives and say who can or cannot marry whom.

The faulty part of appealing to the government to tell you when you're sinning or not is that very often the laws of the land are unjust. What if you were a black man in 1920 who wanted to marry a white woman? The law of the land was such that it would be illegal. So, if the couple said "we love each other, God blesses our union, we're married and we don't care what the busy-bodies at City Hall say about it" then, by your reasoning, that couple would be in sin for not obeying the law of the land.

The thing is that legally speaking though none of these are as easy to prove as "we're married" as a simple marriage license. Say your spouse goes into the hospital, now as the spouse you have the right to visit them and you may have the say in important medical decisions if they are not capable of giving consent themselves.

I never said it wasn't more practical to go ahead and get the license. I myself am going to get a license and have witnesses and record my marriage certificate and all that jazz. But something being practical or easier doesn't mean that it's the only legal method. Nor does it mean that we can rightfully judge anyone who takes a less practical route as living in sin.

There are simple ways around things like this, Kirk, if a couple doesn't want to have the government all up in their business. It's called a power of attorney. And it's an easier document to get than a marriage certificate. In many cases it's cheaper, too. And for the most part, even married couples would do well to make sure they have a power of attorney for their spouse. Even being married and having a marriage certificate doesn't guarantee that hospital staff and such will allow a spouse to make medical decisions. A power of attorney lets the person decide when his/her attorney in fact can act and when he/she cannot.

Now if you have a license, if the hospital won't belive you, you can grab the license and prove it. Plus she's changed her name, she has the same last name and address as me.

You mean the certificate, I presume.

And yet.... you've probably never been in such a situation before so let me clue you in..... if someone says "he's my husband" or "she's my wife" to hospital personnel, they don't generally ask for a marriage certificate. They have neither the time nor the inclination to do background checks on people. (What they check is whether a person has insurance or not). Usually, they take people's word for it unless they have reason to believe otherwise. For example, unless someone else is saying "that's my son and that's not his wife" or some such.

With a common law marriage, especially if you don't change the name your case to be believed is a lot harder. A lot of couples are shacking up these days.

And more and more women every year are not taking their husband's name when they marry, anyway.

And again, most people take people's word for it that they're married. It's not like you have to go around proving to everyone you meet that you're married. Most transactions that a husband and wife enter into together do not require proof of marriage.

Even if you can get a common law marriage I still think the license is the better way. It usually doesn't cost a lot of money just to get a license. But the license can't be denied.

Again, not arguing practicalities. The government has intentionally made it more beneficial to follow their bureaucracies.

But some people have moral objections to the government being the arbiter of who can or cannot marry. And those people can, IMO, justifiably say that they are married in God's eyes whether or not the government recognizes it as such.

God is the One who instituted marriage. The government only recently stuck their nose into it in a power grab to control people's daily lives. Appealing to the law of man to determine God's mind on a matter is always going to be a faulty proposition. Especially when the laws weren't crafted with God in mind.

 

[Luther073082]

The question is though biblically when are two people considered married. The bible doesn't give us a clear direct answer. However if you read into it you can find all marriages at the time had community recognition.

So then you ask yourself, how does this, our community uniformly recognize a couple as married. . . through a legal marriage license. (I got married in Florida, and we didn't get a certificate, we just got an approved copy of the license back from the Clerk. I think it depends on what state you are in as Marriage laws are mostly a state thing.)

As far as the government. . . they've actually been in it for a while. The protestant reformation gave a lot of it over to the government, my guess is the reason this was done is that the government had better ability to compel people to live up to their vows by making divorce a painful option.

Personally I think the marriage license thing with the government is a result of conservative fears of big government gone way too far. Realistically the marriage license I have only takes "rights" from me if one of us decides to divorce. And the state now has put on me the legal responsibility to care for and shelter my spouse (which should not cause anyone serious about marriage any great fear.) Otherwise, I've not paid more in taxes or lost rights or anything.

And besides a common law marrriage would have the same effect in most respects.

 

[eaglemustfly]

Consider marriage as a legal institute. It is after that marriage is legal, then you can have sex.
Engagement time is for preparing the practical stuff for life after marriage. Such as where to live, should both of you work or just one of you, etc. Not the best time to have sex. It will cause trust problems in the future.

 

[BFaithful922]

My husband to be and I are living together and have joint everything and we call each other husband & wife. We talked and made the commitment, to me our wedding will be legal but in my heart he is already my husband. We are struggling with the no sex thing but it hasnt been going well, we start pre marital counseling with our pastor soon and we have been reading and doing Christian marital books and devotions together for a while now.

 

[LinkH]

I am in search of is biblical answers. In the Bible, it is clearly stated that sex is meant for two people (of opposited genders) who are committed only to each other for the rest of their lives. Is pre-marrital sex a sin when two consenting adults are engaged to be married? What if they would already be married if it were not for the financial strain a wedding entails? We decided to wait to get married, after he gets his masters and is able to work full time as a phycist. Then we can finally move in together as man and wife. In my opinion, it is not a sin, because we have clearly made a commitment toward each other. When biblically, is it okay to have sex? Are two people considered married, after paying a hugh sum of money and physically walking down an aisle, or are two people considered married when they decide to make that one in a lifetime commitment?

The most detail we get is in the Old Testament. Fathers gave their virgin daughters away in marriage. After the groom gave the bride price, at some point, he would take her to be his wife. He could sleep with her and everything. The Old Testament does not say anything about marriages being made valid by the words of a priest or a religious ceremony. It doesn't say two people are married just because they make a commitment to each other either.

Certain daughters came to Moses about an inheritance issue. Their father had died, but since he had no sons, his inheritance would not continue down to his heirs. Moses received an answer about this. The daughters could inherit the land, but they could marry whoever they chose among their father's clan. So orphaned daughters could marry, too, and chose who to marry.

Paul wrote of giving a virgin in marriage. He said that widows could marry whoever they wanted, but only in the Lord.

Why don't you two just get your parents together and have a small ceremony if they consent to it, or invite relatives, friends, etc. for something small? You could have a big party later if you wanted to. Why try to be married if you aren't married in the eyes of other people and society at large? What kind of witness is that?

 

[Andz_Evz]

Thank you for bringing this up. There are places where it says "Isaac took Rebekah and she became his wife" and stuff like that. No mention of a ceremony or a piece of paper or anything like that.

God says to let our yes be yes and our no be no. When we intend to marry someone we make a commitment to them and if you break it that is a sin, I believe. Notice the guy asks "Will you marry me?" and the girl says yes. The girl has then entered that commitment just by her word. And the guy has entered it by asking the question and receiving her affirmative answer.

When do you say "I do"? It's kinda like Baptism. You are saved when you say I do to Christ, not when you announce it publicly at baptism. That's just a social confirmation and declaration of what has already occurred.

In light of these two quotes, how would these apply? In the case of two people only dating, no engagement rings (or any rings of any kind), no intercourse, did not cohab, and no one declared engaged:

On a date with the guy's family members and the girlfriend comments on them being "my future in-laws" and turns to the boyfriend asking "...... right?" If he says "Yeah" or "Right" in response, is that the same thing as proposal and covenant (as in, no breakups apart from divorce, biblical grounds for divorce, etc.)? Times before that, they have talked some of what they'd do in child-rearing, things thing "when we're married" and "when we have kids." The same girlfriend has asked him when he would propose to her, so it's a given that neither of them considered themselves engaged, let alone married yet. And neither would anyone else. But would y'all say the answers above or the word "when" is as good as saying "I do" on the wedding day? Is the "for better or worse" or the "'til death do us part" understood and not need to be said?

[I'll add, never supposing themselves married is why, in fact, the boyfriend didn't want to have sex at the time and grew tired of her pressuring (but didn't neglect to mention having sex shall be in the future, "when we get married" and she agreed they will have "yes... a lot"). It's why also, times that she was in the mood for frottage, he'd humor her at times (reluctantly) rather than start yet another fight. But he grew to trust her less and less, and he set out to break up with her before premarital sex had any chance of resulting from her "bad influence." But she'd end up saying things that manipulate him into taking her back each time. She said a couple times or more that he promised to never break up with her She'd always seem to act as though they were, in her mind, already engaged. He eventually broke that cycle. It came as no surprise to him a few years later to read that another guy impregnated her, given how she "just cared about one thing."] And after being left by the other guy, she was back to begging the earlier boyfriend to take her back.

Would anyone call either guy her husband? Does either guy's body belong rightfully to her (1 Cor 7:4) and must "come together again, lest Satan tempt" (7:5)? If so, which guy? The one that she dated first, or the one that impregnated her?