BACK
before there is actual marriage, that is, before the parties come together (Matthew 1:18). The use of the words one body rather than one flesh in 1 Corinthians 6:16 would help us to see, if there were any doubt in our minds, what one flesh means. Scripture, especially in the Old Testament, often repeats a statement using a different word, as much as to say, if you don't understand this word, the use of a different word may help (see for example Psalm 19:1 where expanse is the alternative to heavens). Paul also uses the words 'one body' when speaking of the union of a man and a harlot because he wants to emphasise that a Christian's body is a member of Christ, though it cannot really be said that his flesh is a member of Christ. The latter is simply what his body is mainly composed of.

Is the putting away of a person who is other than a legal wife legitimate, but the putting away of a legal wife not so ? Is everything dependant on the marriage vows ? What is the position if there are none ? There may well be many cases where it is not entirely clear whether persons should be regarded as married, but so far as putting away is concerned this would be wrong where the relationship was clearly intended to be permanent whether legitimately entered into or not. In a relationship such as that entered into by Samson (Judges 14), which was aborted, there was a celebration and the relationship was one that the respective families intended should be recognised as one of marriage though as far as can be seen there were no legal or religious formalities.

It may be noted that the returning exiles were required to put away their foreign wives (Ezra 9 &10). The marriages were illegal (Exodus 34:13-16; Nehemiah 13:23-31). However, there is no indication that when they had put the foreign wives away they would not have been allowed to marry Jewesses. This at least shows that putting away is not always condemned as wrong or invalid in Scripture.

Betrothal (Matthew 1:18)

Betrothal (or engagement) is an agreement to marry. Strictly speaking the date of the marriage should be fixed when the agreement is made, otherwise the actual marriage could be postponed indefinitely. There may possibly be an agreement to marry at a time when a person has reached a certain age or when a certain amount of money has been saved, though in this latter case the specified figure might never be reached. I have known of at least one couple who were in a sense engaged for the best part of their life and only actually married when the woman was past childbearing age. When making a contract to buy a house the latest date for completion must be specified otherwise the contract is not valid as completion could be delayed indefinitely. In practice couples getting engaged trust each other and a formal date for the actual marriage is often left to be decided by mutual agreement. When there is a firm commitment to marry by both parties they can be said to be engaged. A ring may be given (or rings exchanged) then or as soon afterwards as is convenient. This shows to others that the person wearing the ring is engaged to be married. Once there is an engagement to be married the relationship should not lightly be broken off and if it is only by mutual agreement between the parties. Though no action for breach of promise can now be brought before the UK courts it may be that one or both parties have arranged their affairs in such a way that financial or other loss could result if the engagement is broken off. There is also the matter of the feelings of the parties to be considered.

Giving in marriage (Genesis 34:8/9)

Christ speaks of this (Matthew 24:38). So far as Eve was concerned God gave her to Adam (Genesis 2:22), but this cannot be said of all later marriages. Usually the father of the bride is the one that gives her to the man (see for example Genesis 29:19; 1 Samuel 18:17-21). The father thus takes the place of God who gave Eve to Adam. Often today the giving away, as it is called, is often a rather empty ritual as the parties if not Christians intend to get married whether their parents agree to them doing so or not.

Legal proceedings

The question may arise as to whether a Christian husband should ever go to law to obtain a divorce. Certainly he should consider carefully before the Lord if and when it would be right for him do so. In this country after the parties have been separated for a certain time divorce can be obtained virtually automatically, that is, by filling in certain forms. It doesn't then involve going before a court so that the injunction in 1 Corinthians 6:1 does not have any real force. There are plenty of other matters that need to be dealt with through due process of law, such as marriage, probate of a will etc. If it is accepted that marriage is rightly contracted using the due legal process it cannot be wrong that the marriage where necessary should be legally set aside in a similar way. The alternative to legal action as proposed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1 is not an option in the case of divorce, because the saints cannot themselves set aside a legal marriage any more than they can legally marry persons except with the approval of the authorities.

Polygamy

There is no Scripture condemning it, that is, we do not in either the New or Old Testaments get statements like: "A man may only have one wife" or "He who has more than one wife sins". There is wisdom in this for God clearly allowed polygamy in Old Testament days. Godly men such as Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon had more than one wife, though some of them

NEXT