What are the elements of marriage?

This is the first post I will be posting from a series on betrothal. Enjoy, for there will be more content soon. This is a rough draft. It is from a series, so it does relate to other sections, out of order. Look for my new website and forum on betrothal soon...as in the next six months.

It is helpful for understanding betrothal and marriage if the elements which make up a marriage are defined. As noted in What is Marriage?, sexual intercourse alone, even with a virgin doesn’t make the couple married. So, while consummation might be one element, it is obviously not the only element. We see that in a combination of the Exodus 22 and Deut 22 accounts of intercourse with virgins. Both require some sort of marriage later, even if forced.

We also could deduce that intercourse does not equal marriage from two other interesting points in the law. The first would be that intercourse with a married woman who is not a man’s wife doesn’t make her unmarried to the other man--they are merely subject to a death penalty, if proof is forthcoming. The second comes from the lack of information concerning unmarried non-virgins or widows. Their sexual intercourse with men does not result in automatic marriages and is not punishable by specific civil laws, either. Of course a specific citation for this assertion is not possible because I am asserting a negative--there is no mention of punishment for sexual intercourse with men by widows and non-virgin unmarried women.

Now that we know what marriage is not, we must still analyze what makes a marriage. This is a difficult exercise in negatives or proofs. This would involve bringing up theories and seeing if each stands the test of Scripture. So, if marriage requires X, then in all cases it is present in Scripture--unless there is some definable exception. This is the assumption under which we are operating.

There are really two camps concerning elements of marriage. The first is that there are two elements: 1. public declaration 2. consummation. The second camp would be that there are three elements: 1. giving in marriage 2. public declaration 3. consummation. Where “public declaration” is just that, a declaration that the two are to become married to all who are concerned and enough that could serve as witnesses to hold the couple accountable in case of later denial of the existence of the marriage. “Consummation” is the sexual intercourse which follows the declaration of intent to marry. “Giving in marriage” is what an authority does for a female, on her behalf (as it is proper she should at all times remain under her God-given authority whose charge it is concerning her protection).

In order to prove these basic elements, we should look, not to the most complex marriage arrangements, but the bare-bones ones listed in Scripture. After all, we are trying to see what minimum elements constitute a marriage. The first, the most basic marriage, is Adam and Eve. God presented Eve to Adam, and Adam declared to all present (God and all creation--best Adam could do at the time) his intention to marry Eve, then presumably, he consummated this union. There is no mention of unity candles, marriage licenses, the church, preachers, justices of the peace, etc.

In analysis, we could conceivably fit both camps’ elements into this case. God bringing the woman to Adam might be considered a giving as it was His creation. At the very least, there does seem to be a public declaration of intent to marry (as well as a descriptor of it being the reason men leave their father’s household) and consummation. Point to camp #2.

Now, are there marriages that might have less than a “giving in marriage”? First, there are plenty of marriages listed in the Genesis account which only list language of “taking to wife”--which would cover public declaration and consummation. It is unclear if the women were given. Really there is not enough information to know that a “giving in marriage” did not also take place. In most instances we could even safely assume this also occurred. The proof is probably more in that widows and unmarried women without living earthly authorities were assumed to be able to marry. It could be that they “gave themselves” in marriage? This is also possible.

There also exists other special cases such as women taken in wartime. There are specific laws which cover this particular event, too. Esther is yet another interesting story in that she was basically forced to marry, outside her authority. She was not given at all, but rather taken. It is really hard to make a determination based merely on singular cases--and probably bad reasoning. Throwing out such special cases whereat legitimate authority allowed the forcing of women, what is left is merely the outline of the principle.

The Can of Worms -- Stinky

As discussed above, what really is left between this giving as a requirement versus not concerns the effects of accepting either position. Accepting camp #1’s proposition creates issues concerning accepting marriages of rebellious daughters, potentially to non-christian mates. Accepting camp #2’s position leads to issues of whether churches need to investigate circumstances of marriages before accepting purported valid marriages.

Firstly, the issue of a daughter running away and having the power to tie the knot with some man absent her God-given authority’s consent is the result of accepting camp #1’s elements. This is not good in that it allows women to circumvent their father’s authority and bind themselves potentially in such a manner that could get them excommunicated. Marriage is a lifelong affair. This event opens up a can of worms concerning marriage to non-Christians and the rightness of divorce in this case vs. excommunication (those who would join themselves to a non-Christian willingly are joining themselves and Christ to the world--not something a believer does). Whew.

This second camp’s elements have a different effect. By requiring a proper “giving”, all marriages become suspect. While the issue of marriage to a non-believer is cleared up concerning the rebellious daughter, all marriages probably would need to be investigated if there was some reason to believe there was not a proper assent. This would mean a measure of women tooling around in the various churches are still living in sin. If a marriage were found to be deficient, then action would have to be taken as a church should not allow its members to live in sin.

When looking at the two camps from these perspectives, it becomes more clear that camp #1 is still superior as it probably aligns itself with the Scriptures of the New Testament and the Old Testament law closer than camp #2. There really isn’t mention or assumption of action taken on purported but deficient marriages. One would think that something would be mentioned in all of Scripture concerning deficient marriages if such could exist in this manner.

Concerning other elements, such as lawful papers, licenses, preachers, churches, Papal recognition, unity candles, vows, hocus pocus spells and incantations; all seem to be not necessary elements to constitute a marriage. Thus, judgments made about people who pare down their marriage “ceremonies” as being “less spiritual” or even carnal is just sinful judging not based in any defensible Scriptural understanding. Shame on you unity candle people.