by Hadley Robinson
updated November 14, 2022
This has been adapted with some comments of my own from Wenham and Heth "Jesus and Divorce" (Waynesboro, Georgia: Paternoster Press, 1984). It should be unnecessary but it must be noted that there are exceptions where these four essentials could not be met e.g. if the parents or relatives are dead or unreachable, the couple is entirely alone, or the couple finds out that consummation is physically impossible after they consider themselves married. Such a couple can still be considered married in the eyes of God and, less importantly, in the eyes of men. These essentials may not all apply to a subsequent marraige. Please refer to this page on second marriages.
See Gen. 24:57-58; Song of Songs 1:15-16; Ruth 3-4; and Rom. 3:3-4. It is a binding covenant that is no more capable of being broken than the covenant between Christ and the Israel of God, the Church. Adulterous behavior of one spouse no more annuls the marriage covenant than Israel’s spiritual adultery annulled her covenant with God. The result of the union between the man and woman is that a new kinship or family unit is formed. John the Baptist understood this which is why he referred to Herodias as the wife of Herod’s brother, Philip, not Philip’s “ex-wife” – a modern invention created for the benefit of adulterers. E. Neufeld recounts the ancient biblical laws regarding intention:
[Marriage requires the]… intention of the parties to enter into a binding marital union and actual consummation. Neither the mere intention nor the sexual act was in itself sufficient. Intention would be indicated by conduct such as courtship or by promises or other expressions aiming at an immediate union.1
See Gen. 21:21, 34:4-6, 38:6 and Eph. 6:1. This aspect is largely ignored by those cultures which are firmly in the hands of the godless, such as here in the U.S. The result is apparent: We are awash in adultery and divorce. The destruction of the family unit places unsustainable burdens on the culture at large, especially the explosive growth in the population of undisciplined and violent young males. As De Tocqueville and others have observed, such cultures begin an inexorable and irreversible descent into anarchy with resultant political tyranny. Tyranny follows social anarchy as darkness follows day. Without the permission of the parents, the new couple has not honored their parents and cannot expect God to bless them. Nonetheless, the union is a still marriage.
See Gen. 29:22 and John 2:1-11.
See Gen. 4:1, 29:21; Deut. 22:13; 1Sam. 1:19. The absence, however, of this fourth element does not make the betrothed woman anything less than a man’s wife (Deut. 22:23-24; Matt. 1:24-25). Consummation should eventually occur as it is the duty and obligation of each. In fact, the husband and wife own each other’s bodies in a way that is entirely unique in the Creation (1 Cor. 7:4). Such is the extraordinary bond between a man and his woman. If consummation cannot or does not occur, it is a lawful reason to annul the marriage – as if it had never been. The Church has always allowed this. There was never a marriage in the first place. Nonetheless, the couple can still remain together, if they both should choose so.
Sexual relations between a man and an unmarried (and un-betrothed) woman by itself does not make a marriage. This is discussed in Exod. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29. Various things must happen: They must marry, the man must pay a fine if the father of the girl disapproves, and he cannot ever divorce the woman. Some of the teaching of the Reformation in this matter is in error and was more designed to accommodate contemporary mores which were no less evil than those of the present era. As with chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession, legal fictions abound in order to indulge the evil purposes of some in the Church who needed excuses to dissolve a marriage and not appear to be adulterers.
That sexual relations alone do not make a marriage is clarified from the Old Testament distinction between a man’s concubines and his wives.
By implication, neither do sexual relations outside a marriage dissolve the marriage covenant/bond. Therefore, such passages as 1 Cor. 6:15-18 must have
some other meaning than the one popular with most American Evangelicals i.e., extramarital sexual relations dissolves the original marriage. It does not
dissolve but defiles it – the correct understanding of Deut. 24:4 and in line with the nature of God’s covenant with Israel.
The doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Eastern Church teach that Mary remained a virgin. This broadly contradicts Old and New Testament teachings on marriage. As with many Christian sects, there is an inability of some to correctly parse the sexual relationship of godly married people and what goes on in a whorehouse. More importantly, to imply that human sexual activity is inherently evil is an attack on the character of God, who created it in the first place.
Joseph took Mary home to be his wife, although he did not lie with her until Jesus had been born (Mt. 1:24-25). That she would remain a virgin, though married to Joseph, would have been unthinkable to any godly Jew of the time. Her body did not belong to her but to her husband. As a pious and godly woman, Mary would have lovingly and faithfully been a godly wife to her husband. Like Abraham and Sarah, Joseph and Mary are supreme examples of faithful, godly people.
This writer is sorry to say that these doctrines foreign to Scripture took hold in the early period of the Church, mostly before the 4th century. Men have been burned at the stake for suggesting that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage after Jesus was born and, in some places on earth, this has not changed.
There is no suggestion whatsoever in the Greek of the NT that that Jesus' brothers were anything other than His brothers. The Greek has a specific word for the offspring of one's uncle or aunt and other blood relatives. It is not used in describing Jesus' close relatives e.g., John 7:3. But many bow to tradition, despite the evidence from Holy Scripture which, in this case, takes a lower position in the hierarchy of truth.
No true Christian, this writer included, wishes to insult the mother of Jesus. Nonetheless, we have serious problems with those whose doctrine regards her as an active part of Man's redemption and to whom we should pray. Jesus taught us to pray in His Name, not His mother's.
If God had intended Mary to remain always a virgin, He would have rather placed her with relatives, for example, instead of with a man. What scandal it would have been for Mary to claim she was a virgin yet living with a man? Her own husband suspected her of unfaithfulness but he, like the LORD who loved Israel, did not want her stoned to death according to the Law. What kind of unbiblical speculation is it to suggest, as Athanasius did, that Mary was too pure to be an ordinary wife? This impugns the character of all godly wives, such as Sarah, Ruth, and Elizabeth and radically distorts the image of God in a human being.
Joseph and Mary did not come together “…for a time” in obedience to 1 Cor. 7:5 and recorded in Matt. 1:24-25. Nonetheless, there is mystery here as to why God placed Jesus in a home consisting of a stepfather and mother. Why was she engaged to Joseph instead of living with her parents as a single woman? Would the scandal be worse there? As a young child with a single mother, there would have been deep suspicion that Mary had him ouf of wedlock if she was not a married woman.
It is neither slanderous of Mary nor blasphemous towards God to maintain that she was an ordinary wife of a godly Jewish man. It would only be something bad if, somehow, the consummation of a marriage is impure or unclean, as too many in the 4th century Church taught. The Word of God states unequivocally that the Creator was seeking godly offspring when He instituted marriage (Mal. 2:15). Jesus Christ is the arch-godly offspring – a man born of a woman whose father is God. And we may safely leave it at that.