• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Did Jesus Acknowledge "Legal" Marriage?

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
John 4:16-18 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here." The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

In a conversation I was told that Jesus acknowledged "legal" marriage in these verses and therefore since it was not legal to have more than one wife that we would be wrong to take more than one wife.

I replied that there was no such thing as "legal" (state sponsored) marriage at that time and that Jesus was acknowledging betrothal and marriage as practiced; that the woman had been married five times, but that she was now living with a man and was not in a covenant with him.

The reply was that Jesus was acknowledging marriage as it was practiced in society at the time and we should therefore respect and practice marriage the same way our society does.

I dropped it at that point because the individual didn't seem interested in my explanation...but my first thought was that just because society thinks something is right doesn't necessarily make it so...the world used to be flat and the Sun revolved around it...etc...

This was an interesting slant on the "it's illegal" argument that I hadn't heard before and thought I would share it with everybody.
 
Many times confusion comes from not defining terms, or having two different definitions when talking or debating.

"acknowledge" means approval
"acknowledge" means admits that it exists or happens, but does not necessarily mean approval.

Jesus "acknowledged" that legal marriage existed. He also "acknowledged" that legal divorced "existed" or was practiced by the pharisees....and condemned them for it.

Jesus "acknowledged" many things about that society that he condemned or had to rip from the "false glosses of the pharisees" in order place it back upon the firm foundation of God's Law, the spirit of the Law and the Law itself being perfect, converting the soul.

The Master said render unto Caesar, said a man that divorces in order to marry another is an adulterer, and also said "why do you make the commandments of God of no effect with your society and culture (traditions of men)?"

Did Jesus Christ acknowledge legal marriage? Yes. Did he approve of the cultural and societal practice of it. Not even in the slightest.
 
In my readings to prepare for the retreat messages it looks like to me that classical Rome had no such thing as a "legal" marriage if by that it means the government officiated it or oversaw it. It was actually a system in classical Rome like it was in Israel where the families contracted together or individuals contracted together privately among themselves. So far I have not found any evidence of the government at that time even handling any divorces either. Those too seemed to have been handled outside of any courts or government though there is a little bit of conflicting data on that.

If you're interested in the largest one volume study ever done on this subject then I suggest you read "Common Law Marriage: A Legal Institution for Cohabitation" by the Associate Professor in the University o Uppsala in Sweden. As a jurist professor he has written a 1200 page volume that covers this topic from Rome and the early church all the way to the modern day era in America and he covers the ideas, laws, court cases, philosophies of the government and people and churches up to this day.
 
Scarecrow,

"State-sponsored" marriage gets us nothing but one abomination after another. In the US, the only reason to get permission from Big Brother to "tie the knot" is for a few legal reasons, such as being able to check the "married, filing jointly" box on form 1040. (And the IRS apparently tolerates "common-law" marriage, even if the state in which a couple lives does not. Not sure about that, though.) Wonder what they would do if a man and his two women tried to file one "multi-joint" return? (Pencil in a box to check that says "married poly filing multi-joint," pencil in the necessary lines to add the third person's SS #, income, etc...) :lol: Other than a few dubious "benefits" like that, everything that having a marriage license does for a man and one woman can be done by contract between a man and each of his several women. (And each adult member of the family should have a good "Final Will and Testament," living will, set up a family trust, etc.)

Plus there are some obscure but very deadly things that getting a marriage license does. Because Big Brother gave you permission to "get married" and have kids, guess who now has the "right" to tell you how to raise those kids? And guess who will take possession of those kids if the parents do something the government does not like? (Such as teaching your children that homosexuality is an abomination to YHWH, or having more than one wife, or...) Guess who now has the "right" to meddle in what you can and can't do in the privacy of your bedroom? The marriage license mess is nothing but a power grab by the government, gaining more and more control over the formerly-private lives of "We, the People." And the Church goes along with it, saying (in most denominations) that you are not really married unless Big Brother gave you permission...

That is NOT what Yeshua was saying to the Samaritan woman at the well. As you said, Scarecrow, He was telling her that she was guilty of co-habitating with six different men (from the way He said it, it was most likely "serial adultery," not simultaneous), without having a lifetime commitment to any of them nor any of them having a lifetime commitment to her. He was not talking about following man-made customs, but that she was not living by the Word of YHWH.

I read somewhere that there are a few states (don't remember which ones specifically, but they are in the Northeast part of our once-great nation) that will not allow anyone other than a blood relative or a "legal" spouse (or Big Brother) to make medical decisions in case a person is incapacitated, regardless of what a living will (or the "next of kin"/"responsible party" part of the medical system's legal forms) might say. Fortunately for me, New Mexico is not one of those states. But what if YHWH leads me to move to one of those states (say, to be a pastor or teach at a Bible college or some other ministry function) at some time in the future? I will have to obey YHWH rather than man, if there is a conflict, and trust YHWH to make things right.

IMHO, the State has absolutely no business meddling in marriage. The debate over so-called "same-sex marriage" is an example of the tragic consequences that have resulted from allowing man to re-define what the Inspired Word of YHWH says. "No-fault divorce" is another example - that abomination effectively makes null-and-void the marriage contract that "legal marriage" supposedly provides! The only role that civil government should have in marriage is to enforce the provisions of any contract that a man and his woman enter into, if one or the other tries to "weasel out" of the agreement. Just like they court system does for a business contract between two business entities.

Maybe we need to find a good poly-friendly lawyer to teach a class at a conference or retreat...
 
Just had a thought about the Woman at the Well...

She had five men, then was living with #6. In Scripture, 6 is the number representing man, and 7 is the number representing perfection or completeness.

Yeshua was #7.

Think about it...
 
Okay, now it is MY turn to ask a question!

Jesus acknowledged that she had five previous husbands.
Jesus acknowledged that the man she was with was NOT her husband.

If we use argue the SEX=MARRIAGE principle, then we would have to conclude that she was living with a man, but they were not having sex.

However, if we argue that she was co-habitating with a man, meaning that she was both living with and having relations with, then that discounts the SEX=MARRIAGE principle.

Or am I missing something here?
 
Doc,

Could it be another view? It seems like there are three options:
1. Sex alone = a covenant union
2. Sex alone does NOT equal a covenant union and something else like a verbal or written covenant must be in place or
3. Sex with the right and permanent heart intent creates an implied covenant union.

If the third option exists could it be possible since Jesus being fully God in the flesh and thus omniscient knew they were "prostituting" themselves, i.e. they were have sexual relations with a non-permanent heart intent? Could it be they were merely having sex with no intent to staying together? I have seen many women and men in that position in counseling, especially after being burned by a previous spouse. They have been so deeply hurt they actually join another with no intent of it lasting and do so with all intent on ending it at some point when they get tired of it. Do you think that might be an option here? Or do you see a reason why that could not actually be an option at all or at least in this text?
 
The simplest reading of the text says nothing about what happened to her five previous husbands. Divorce? Widowhood? Polyandry? Are there any other options, or does that three-item list exhaust the possibilities?

It was probably a combination of widowhood and divorce, but that is just conjecture.

IMHO, marriage involves an intent to stay together " 'til death do us part," either implied or as a formal covenant. Sex just consummates the covenant.

Since Yeshua always-was/is/always-will-be God, He knew the heart of this woman. We don't other than by inference from what Yeshua said to her, in light of what Scripture also tells us. Remember, she said, "I have no husband." That means she admitted to having no "marriage-covenant intent."

Therefore, she was just "shacked up" with a man. Even if she was in a simultaneous polyandrous situation with two or more of the five men, all of her previous marriages ended with either death or divorce.

Expanding slightly on what I wrote about men #1 - 6: she sought fulfillment, peace, satisfaction, etc., with the wisdom of men, just as we all do before salvation. But when she met the Master, He provided all that and more for her. Just as He does for us.
 
"It was probably a combination of widowhood and divorce, but that is just conjecture."

For Jesus to recognize them as husbands she must have been free from each previous husband by death or divorce before becoming married to the next one. Because she was not in a covenant relationship with the man she was with at the time she was committing fornication.

Sex does not result in marriage. Marriage occurs when a man and woman willingly enter a covenant and consummate it. A written contract is not required at the time, but should be put in place as soon as possible for the sake of both parties.

She was apparently shacking up with the guy...I know of a sad situation like this where a woman with two children was (and probably still is) living with a man and allowing him to have sex with her so that she had food and shelter for herself and her kids (from another man). She didn't expose this to him but essentially he was using her for sex, and she was using him to meet her needs and those of her children. There is probably a lot more of that going on than we realize.

What I don't understand is how someone could come to the conclusion that this verse shows that Jesus acknowledged (and thereby in their minds stated that we had to obey) "legal" marriage. What I get out of it is that Jesus recognizes the fact that she had been in covenant with five men of which all five had either divorced her or died sequentially, and that cohabiting with or without sex with the current one did not result in marriage.
 
the argument is an interesting assumption that proves nothing.

as far as the sex=marriage, i agree. if the heart and mind do not follow up on the act the result is that the marriage is aborted and the act is converted to fornication.
 
PolyDoc said:
Wonder what they (IRS)would do if a man and his two women tried to file one "multi-joint" return?
Click to expand...

Knew a family some years ago. This is precisely what they routinely did. One 1040 for the household. Everybody listed, all incomes included. IRS never blinked. Why should they care? All taxes were paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top