Is there really such thing as biblical marriage?

[Joleneakamama]

Including mine of 20+ years with a barren woman? We meant to have children, and tried to, but failed.

That can have many causes. Given the amount of chemicals and the changes in the world that stress all life, I do not see that as a judgement, but rather a symptom that is common in our time.

One of my sisters after trying for a while got some "help" with fertility drugs.

Many people adopt...and then have their own.
I trust that ALL things work together for good....and that means the only question that matters is if we love Him.

 

[rockfox]

Including mine of 20+ years with a barren woman? We meant to have children, and tried to, but failed.

I don't see that view of marriage as a mark against you. You pursued what was good and did try. It is God who gives the increase.

 

[FollowingHim]

I suggest we all get into ECARS.

I strongly disagree. All that does is adds confusion.

It also means that the first reaction (wrong, but still important) of standard monogamous Christians is "they refuse to call themselves married, so they must be doing something really sinful they're trying to justify using twisted reasoning". They start off considering our relationships some strange cultic justification of extramarital sex, and then you have to fight to change their attitude back to even consider it as being anything related to what they would consider "marriage" and therefore acceptable.

You turn people even more against you and your understanding of marriage immediately, making the job of talking to them immeasurably harder.

Just say you're married (which makes Christians instantly feel more positive towards it because you're using the right word), and then talk about the differences. That way they start on a positive note, then get turned away by the detail (polygamy), but only by those specific details that you actually do differ on, which can then be discussed. They do not start with a complete revulsion to everything.

 

[FollowingHim]

Remember that even a monogamist will readily talk about an African chief having "five wives". That is the terminology they will use. Even if they think he should not have five wives, they will call them wives. In that language is an implicit recognition of polygamy as real marriage. That is a valuable starting point for further discussion.

Throw away the terminology and you throw away all existing common ground.

 

[Bartato]

Remember that even a monogamist will readily talk about an African chief having "five wives". That is the terminology they will use. Even if they think he should not have five wives, they will call them wives. In that language is an implicit recognition of polygamy as real marriage. That is a valuable starting point for further discussion.

Throw away the terminology and you throw away all existing common ground.

Well said, as soon as you say a man has more than one wife, you admit that it is possible for a man to have more than one wife (even if you think he shouldn't do so).

 

[Quartus]

Remember that even a monogamist will readily talk about an African chief having "five wives". That is the terminology they will use. Even if they think he should not have five wives, they will call them wives. In that language is an implicit recognition of polygamy as real marriage. That is a valuable starting point for further discussion.

Throw away the terminology and you throw away all existing common ground.

Why not start with a righteous man who we know will be in the kingdom like Jacob (Matt 8:11) with four wives? Or was it two...? (Gen 30)

Two or four?

Heads you win, tails you don't lose...

Problem is, not everyone lives in countries where it's legal to have more than one.

 

[FollowingHim]

Those examples are also great. I just didn't use those ones.

Problem is, not everyone lives in countries where it's legal to have more than one.

That is true but off-topic. This thread poses the question "Is there really such a thing as biblical marriage". Whether or not biblical marriage is legal in a specific jurisdiction makes no difference to the question of whether it exists.

Having said that, Biblical marriage is basically legal everywhere in the world apart from a few specific US states where you could get in trouble with the law if you call more than one woman your "wife" or cohabit with more than one woman, as laws have been enacted in those states for the explicit purpose of state persecution of Mormons. Also some specific countries like the Philippines have laws against concubinage which could be technically triggered by Biblical polygamy. These are details that are important to know for people who live in those places, but are certainly the exception rather than the norm.

In most of the world, it is basically entirely legal to have more than one woman, and also entirely legal to call those women your "wives". You just can't get a marriage licence for it from the government. The idea that polygamy is illegal is largely a myth.

 

[Quartus]

Those examples are also great. I just didn't use those ones.

That is true but off-topic. This thread poses the question "Is there really such a thing as biblical marriage". Whether or not biblical marriage is legal in a specific jurisdiction makes no difference to the question of whether it exists.

Having said that, Biblical marriage is basically legal everywhere in the world apart from a few specific US states where you could get in trouble with the law if you call more than one woman your "wife" or cohabit with more than one woman, as laws have been enacted in those states for the explicit purpose of state persecution of Mormons. Also some specific countries like the Philippines have laws against concubinage which could be technically triggered by Biblical polygamy. These are details that are important to know for people who live in those places, but are certainly the exception rather than the norm.

In most of the world, it is basically entirely legal to have more than one woman, and also entirely legal to call those women your "wives". You just can't get a marriage licence for it from the government. The idea that polygamy is illegal is largely a myth.

The topic in the opening post concluded

Biblical marriage is beginning to sound like an oxymoron.

and it also mentions "legal implications" and
"I've come to the conclusion that I can no longer use this language to describe my relationships."

I absolutely love the "oxymoron" bit, although I might have some questions about the use of the word "beginning".

Anyway something clearly does exist biblically and it can only become an oxymoron because of the way it is described. In the UK bigamy is defined in terms of "marriage" and "wives" and because (say they) it's actually impossible to be legally "married" to two "wives" at the same time what's actually illegal is for a UK citizen to go through a second ceremony of "marriage" anywhere in the world while already "married" according to UK law. Checking out anything like a legal definition of bigamy will reveal widespread use of "marriage" and "wives" and will state that more than one at the same time is actually illegal. So to claim two would be to admit to having performed an illegal act.

Maybe depends who is your neighbour. If it's a law enforcement officer next door, it may pay to choose words carefully, particularly if children are involved because we don't want to see any more homes broken up.

 

[Bartato]

The topic in the opening post concluded

and it also mentions "legal implications" and
"I've come to the conclusion that I can no longer use this language to describe my relationships."

I absolutely love the "oxymoron" bit, although I might have some questions about the use of the word "beginning".

Anyway something clearly does exist biblically and it can only become an oxymoron because of the way it is described. In the UK bigamy is defined in terms of "marriage" and "wives" and because (say they) it's actually impossible to be legally "married" to two "wives" at the same time what's actually illegal is for a UK citizen to go through a second ceremony of "marriage" anywhere in the world while already "married" according to UK law. Checking out anything like a legal definition of bigamy will reveal widespread use of "marriage" and "wives" and will state that more than one at the same time is actually illegal. So to claim two would be to admit to having performed an illegal act.

Maybe depends who is your neighbour. If it's a law enforcement officer next door, it may pay to choose words carefully, particularly if children are involved because we don't want to see any more homes broken up.

It is interesting that you refer to UK law prohibiting bigamy/polygamy, yet I would bet money that there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of muslim men in the UK that have multiple wives, yet the legal system largely overlooks it. There may even be a few Christian immigrants from Africa that have multiple wives.

On the other hand, if a Christian man (especially a white Englishman) did the same, he would be "frowned upon".

 

[Quartus]

It is interesting that you refer to UK law prohibiting bigamy/polygamy, yet I would bet money that there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of muslim men in the UK that have multiple wives, yet the legal system largely overlooks it. There may even be a few Christian immigrants from Africa that have multiple wives.

On the other hand, if a Christian man (especially a white Englishman) did the same, he would be "frowned upon".

Immigrants' existing plural marriages would be acknowledged in the UK, but I don't know too many details. I was pursuing the "if Abraham turned up here he would get locked up" but that didn't work for that reason. But come to think of it I may have been right because I don't suppose Abraham had any certificates to show he was married in the legal sense. Of course its purely hypothetical because I don't suppose he would have had a passport either to be allowed in in the first place.

 

[Bartato]

Immigrants' existing plural marriages would be acknowledged in the UK, but I don't know too many details. I was pursuing the "if Abraham turned up here he would get locked up" but that didn't work for that reason. But come to think of it I may have been right because I don't suppose Abraham had any certificates to show he was married in the legal sense. Of course its purely hypothetical because I don't suppose he would have had a passport either to be allowed in in the first place.

When the UK government recognizes any polygynous marriages (even those performed elsewhere) they admit that polygynous marriage is legitimate. We always weave a tangled web when we go against the word of God.

 

[Quartus]

When the UK government recognizes any polygynous marriages (even those performed elsewhere) they admit that polygynous marriage is legitimate.

I think it's more to do with admitting that other countries are entitled to make their own laws. There's not much sign they admit that God is entitled to make laws though.

 

[FollowingHim]

In the UK bigamy is defined in terms of "marriage" and "wives" and because (say they) it's actually impossible to be legally "married" to two "wives" at the same time what's actually illegal is for a UK citizen to go through a second ceremony of "marriage" anywhere in the world while already "married" according to UK law. Checking out anything like a legal definition of bigamy will reveal widespread use of "marriage" and "wives" and will state that more than one at the same time is actually illegal. So to claim two would be to admit to having performed an illegal act.

I am more familiar with New Zealand law than UK law, however as they come from the same roots I expect these provisions are largely identical. And I think you are slightly mistaken.

What is forbidden is, explicitly, having a second legally recognised marriage. Having two legally recognised marriages simultaneously is bigamy, and is illegal. And to avoid the obvious loophole, it is also illegal for someone with a marriage in the UK to go overseas, have a second legal marriage in a different country, and then come home.

And this loophole is one people will take. One of my own ancestors married one woman, who became ill and eventually died, and he then wished to marry her sister (who had moved in when his wife became ill so had by the end of her protracted illness been housekeeping and childcaring for him for some time). The church in England refused to let him marry her, because in their understanding the sister of your wife was your sister-in-law, and this would be incest. Which was ridiculous. So they went up to Scotland where nobody knew the situation, got married there, and came back. That's what people do to skirt local marriage laws when they disagree with them.

However, this is completely incorrect:

So to claim two would be to admit to having performed an illegal act.

Maybe depends who is your neighbour. If it's a law enforcement officer next door, it may pay to choose words carefully, particularly if children are involved because we don't want to see any more homes broken up.

Neither New Zealand nor (I believe) the UK recognises a marriage just because someone "claims" to be married. Only formal legal marriage licences are accepted as evidence of marriage. However much you claim to be married, if you don't have a marriage licence, you're legally unmarried. There is no recognition of "common law" marriage in Commonwealth countries.

To illustrate, I recall a famous murder case from NZ back in the late 40s or early 50s. Two teenage girls murdered the mother of one of them. In the trial, although the mother had always called herself by the name of her husband and claimed to be married to him, it came to light that she did not have a marriage licence. So from that point forward she was referred to by her maiden name - her marriage was not recognised at all by the court, because it was not licenced.

It is interesting that you refer to UK law prohibiting bigamy/polygamy, yet I would bet money that there are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of muslim men in the UK that have multiple wives, yet the legal system largely overlooks it. There may even be a few Christian immigrants from Africa that have multiple wives.

The legal system doesn't overlook it. It's simply not illegal.

In the same way, there are polyamorous households where various number of men and women live together in sexual relationships. These also are ignored by the legal system because they too are not illegal. You can live with and sleep with as many people as you like, and the government simply does not care.

Immigrants' existing plural marriages would be acknowledged in the UK, but I don't know too many details.

In New Zealand, there is some limited recognition of immigrants existing plural marriages. This is mainly regarding social welfare and immigration, so that a refugee family (for example) could access the help the government wishes to offer them, and to allow the entire family into the country without being separated. That's about the extent of it. I expect that's the same in the UK.

This is also consistent with other legislation. For instance, although the minimum marriage age and age of consent are both 16 in both NZ and the UK, if a legal marriage is contracted overseas in a jurisdiction where the marriage age is lower (say 15), this is recognised and there is an exemption to the age of consent law (in NZ, and I presume in the UK too as our law is based on yours). So if a couple get married at 15 in France they can honeymoon in the UK and won't be arrested for underage sex.

 

[FollowingHim]

It is important to understand that bigamy laws only apply to somebody who is a citizen of the country the law is enacted in. This means the laws are actually irrelevant to immigrants. The detail of the New Zealand law against bigamy is defined in the quote below (Crimes Act 1961 s205), but I'll summarise it here.

Bigamy is when:

• Anybody who is married has a second marriage in New Zealand.
• Anybody who is a New Zealand citizen, and is married, contracts a second marriage anywhere in the world
• Where "marriage" means "any form of marriage recognised by the law of New Zealand, or by the law of the place where it is solemnised, as a valid form of marriage".

So if somebody who has married one wife overseas tries to get a second marriage in New Zealand, this is illegal - because the second marriage is under NZ jurisdiction, and is prohibited.

Or, if a New Zealand citizen tries to take a second marriage anywhere in the world, this is illegal because as a NZ citizen they are subject to New Zealand law. In practice they'd only be prosecuted if they actually returned to the country with their second wife, so came within NZ jurisdiction.

But if anybody who is not a NZ citizen marries two people overseas, that is completely outside the jurisdiction of NZ law. Not only is it outside the law, it is explicitly NOT defined as bigamy under the law! It is whatever the law calls it in whatever country they do it in. If this family then chooses to move to New Zealand, they will not be prosecuted, because they are not considered to be bigamous. It would be illegal for the man to marry any further women in NZ, or after becoming a NZ citizen. But his existing marriages are completely legal under NZ law.

UK law will be essentially the same.

205Bigamy defined
(1)

Bigamy is—

(a)
the act of a person who, being married, goes through a form of marriage or civil union in New Zealand with a third person; or

(b)
the act of a person who goes through a form of marriage in New Zealand with any other person whom he or she knows to be married or in a civil union; or

(c)
the act of a New Zealand citizen, or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, who, being married or in a civil union, goes through a form of marriage with a third person anywhere outside New Zealand; or

(d)
the act of a New Zealand citizen, or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, who goes through a form of marriage anywhere outside New Zealand with any other person whom he or she knows to be married or in a civil union; or

(e)
the act of a person who, being in a civil union, goes through a form of civil union or marriage with a third person; or

(f)
the act of a person who goes through a form of civil union with a person whom he or she knows to be in a civil union or to be married.

(2)

For the purposes of this section,—

(a)
a form of marriage is any form of marriage recognised by the law of New Zealand, or by the law of the place where it is solemnised, as a valid form of marriage:

(b)
a form of civil union is any form of civil union recognised under the Civil Union Act 2004 as a valid form of civil union under that Act:

(c)
no form of marriage or civil union may be held to be an invalid form of marriage or civil union by reason of any act or omission of the person charged with bigamy, if it is otherwise a valid form.

(3)

It shall not be a defence to a charge of bigamy to prove that if the parties were unmarried or not in a civil union they would have been incompetent to contract marriage or enter into a civil union.

(4)

No person commits bigamy by going through a form of marriage or entering into a civil union if that person—

(a)
has been continuously absent from his or her spouse or civil union partner (as the case may be) for 7 years then last past; and

(b)
is not proved to have known that his or her spouse or civil union partner (as the case may be) was alive at any time during those 7 years.

 

[Quartus]

You're absolutely right about Scottish Law being different from English law. I'd better stop saying UK law,

Perhaps the most famous difference is summed up by "Gretna Green" where English couples eloped to to marry without their parents permission:
"Scottish law allowed for "irregular marriages", meaning that if a declaration was made before two witnesses, almost anybody had the authority to conduct the marriage ceremony. The blacksmiths in Gretna became known as "anvil priests", culminating with Richard Rennison, who performed 5,147 ceremonies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_Green

There's at least one street where one side is in Scotland and the other side in England so of course it doesn't take too much imagination to imagine two lovers living across the road from each other who can do the something in England and not be married but if they did it across the road they would be legally married.

Then of course you have all the changes to the law throughout time to factor in as well.

"Going through an act of marriage" is basically because the second marriage is void. Since it's not recognised it can't be illegal, but it's not good enough for them to ignore it completely so to make it illegal it's going through the act of getting married again that is the actual offence:
Bigamy in United Kingdom
Definition of Bigamy
In accordance with the work A Dictionary of Law, this is a description of Bigamy :
The act of going through a marriage ceremony with someone when one is already lawfully married to someone else. Bigamy is a crime, punishable by up to seven years’ imprisonment; however, there is a defence if the accused honestly and reasonably believed that his or her first spouse was dead or that their previous marriage had been dissolved or annulled or was void. There is also a special defence if the accused’s spouse has been absent for at least seven years, and is therefore presumed by the accused to be dead, even if he does not have positive proof of the death. Even though a person is found not guilty of the crime of bigamy, the bigamous marriage will still be void if that person had a spouse living at the time that the second marriage was celebrated. https://lawi.org.uk/bigamy/

Regarding the second marriage as void in those circumstances is clearly without any scriptural foundation whatsoever.

And then there are the parish registers here, some notably maintained by alcoholics and others by well-intentioned volunteers who were barely literate but nevertheless "did their best"... but I spare you.

So those are some of the reasons I have no confidence in "legal" marriage from different countries and different ages.

But as you rightly say, a lot depends where you live. And presumably, also where you go on holiday.

 

[FollowingHim]

What is actually illegal is defined by legislation, not dictionaries. Dictionaries only give simplified definitions. The actual law against bigamy in England and Ireland is in the "Offences against the person act 1861" section 57.

Bigamy. Offence may be dealt with where offender shall be apprehended. Not to extend to second marriages, &c. herein stated.
Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . F1 to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years . . . F2:

Provided, that nothing in this section contained shall extend to any second marriage contracted elsewhere than in England and Ireland by any other than a subject of Her Majesty, or to any person marrying a second time whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to be living within that time, or shall extend to any person who, at the time of such second marriage, shall have been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction.

Italics added by myself. Check that sentence carefully. The result of that sentence is that the law is exactly as I stated above for New Zealand: A second marriage is only an offence if the parties to the marriage are UK citizens, this law does not in any way apply to polygamous marriages of immigrants as they were not under UK jurisdiction at the time of the marriage. Legally, an immigrant with two wives is not considered a bigamist.

Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge the ancestors I mentioned did marry at Gretna Green. It was the place to go at the time.

 

[FollowingHim]

In Scotland, the relevant legislation does include the wording "purports to enter into a marriage", which raises some red flags as it is similar to the wording in places like Utah. However, it also includes another provision that states clearly that the act does not affect freedom of speech, which would no doubt be a useful defence against prosecution - or more likely a reason for the state to not bother trying a prosecution in the first place.

So maybe taking a second unofficial wife may have legal questions in Scotland, depending on how you read Scottish marriage law. But not in the rest of the UK, where the law is simpler.

 

[Bartato]

Book three of Thelyophthora tells the sad history of the the Roman Catholic Church restricting and prohibiting more and more legitimate marriages as time went on.

It wasn't just polygyny that they prohibited. They went FAR beyond the Bible in what they considered incest. Some of that was carried over into the Anglican church and English law. The fact that the Scottish permitted a wider variety of lawful unions likely sprang forth from their more thorough Protestant Reformation (I am speculating here).

At some points in history, the Church frowned severely on a man remarrying after his wife died. They said it was little better than adultery.

If the modern Church made that argument, they would probably say that "it isn't ideal, and does not best display the sacrificial love of Christ". One woman man means one woman man right?

 

[Quartus]

The fact that the Scottish permitted a wider variety of lawful unions likely sprang forth from their more thorough Protestant Reformation (I am speculating here).

Tricky. Differences are basically Scots Law forllows Roman Law. How that happened when the Romans never got into Scotland (Hadrians' Wall) is explained here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

Meanwhile in England, although the Romans had conquered England and then we had William the Conqueror who imposed continental law here in 1066, Henry VIII was busy getting rid of any Roman Catholic laws he didn't like, so our English law is (was?) more Protestant than Scots Law in some respects.

One woman man means one woman man right?

There's a great post on this somewhere but I keep finding other things I want to read while I'm looking for it.

 

[Bartato]

Tricky. Differences are basically Scots Law forllows Roman Law. How that happened when the Romans never got into Scotland (Hadrians' Wall) is explained here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law

Meanwhile in England, although the Romans had conquered England and then we had William the Conqueror who imposed continental law here in 1066, Henry VIII was busy getting rid of any Roman Catholic laws he didn't like, so our English law is (was?) more Protestant than Scots Law in some respects.


There's a great post on this somewhere but I keep finding other things I want to read while I'm looking for it.

Excellent! Thank you for the info. So much for my theory