• 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.

"Who gives this woman?"

Mark C

Mark C

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Once again, the "marriage and divorce" topic has resulted in a number of related "spin offs".

This one came to me the other day, following a time of prayer, and seems to be very much related to the topic of divorce and remarriage, and today's discussion elsewhere:


Do you remember the phrase which is often traditionally used in marriage ceremonies, just before the time when a father walks his daughter down the aisle and to the groom at the altar?

"Who gives this woman to be wed?"

This tradition actually has a Biblical history; it traces directly to Numbers 30 (a favorite chapter of mine ;) ) and the explicit authority of a man over the vows of his wives and daughters. Since a man may void, or annul, the vows of his daughter while she is under his authority, it makes sense that that transfer of such authority would be explicitly observed.

This tradition shows that a father is giving his God-given authority over his daughter to her new husband.


Now I ask the question:

What is a certificate of divorce, as outlined by God in Deuteronomy 24:1 and 3 as an explicit part of the proper and complete process for lawfully sending a wife out of his house?

Is it not yet another explicit transfer of authority? A woman who has been lawfully and completely "put away" is now responsible for HER OWN vows, and has no husband in headship over her. With such a certificate, as a believer, she is eligible for remarriage; without it, she is not - and is guilty of adultery for joining with any other man while her husband yet lives.

Likewise, if that husband puts her away unlawfully, then HE, as her covering, is guilty of adultery for what he has done to her (as Matthew 5:32, properly translated, makes clear).


"Who gives this woman to be wed?"

If she was ever married, her certificate of divorce is lawful proof that her former husband does!
 
dittos on what sadan said
 
BRILLIANT, Mark. Thank you. It clarifies the transfer of authority.
 
Mark

I have been through this issue in three different denominations and this is the most sensible explanation of the issue I have ever heard. No way are loving father would ever consider locking a sister into an abusive relationship but the adultery issue seams to prohibit remarriage, but if the authority transfers to the woman or her father She is free to marry.


Rob
 
I saw this article posted in an unrelated thread earlier today by Pastor Randy, and thought it was worthy of both response and further comment in a discussion like this one:

There is a slow underground movement of churches that are refusing to sign government marriage licenses.
Some of these churches are extremely liberal and are doing it as a protest against the government not allowing homosexuals to marry [but]...
...there are others that are doing it because of their convictions concerning the word of God (http://www.mercyseat.net/pamphlets/marriagelicense.html)
Click to expand...

I thought this pastor's points number one through four were excellent; Biblicly-sound and well-argued, they sounded like things many here have written, but were summarized nicely in a single thesis:

(And I put this post here because I obviously agree with his point #4 as well. :) )

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State�s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)?
...The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own...

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by un-Biblical and immoral laws...
...As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father's blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

...By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don't need your parents permission, you need our permission."
Click to expand...

But then he ran right into the Sacred Cow, and veered into the ditch:

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State's point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure... published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist!
Click to expand...

He then goes on to state that "God intended" for the State to have jurisdiction over "crimes", like "bigamy".

At this point, I wrote the following rebuttal. This is that response, in part:

I was quite impressed with your article, 5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
...right up to the point at which your initial solid Biblicly-based analysis ran into the 'sacred cow' of man's tradition, and then turned from the clear teaching of the Word, as well as our Savior's warnings.


Along the way, you missed the obvious REAL point #5, which is that a license before Caesar is service to "another master". Quite frankly, the corporate (Caesar-created) "State of Ohio" and their agents have it right: marriage licensed by Caesar is hardly "polygamy", or marriage TO Caesar; it is marriage BEFORE Caesar, CREATED by Caesar, ordained by Caesar, controlled by Caesar, under Caesar's terms, and under Caesar's 'law'.

Not only does Yeshua (Jesus) teach that we cannot SERVE two masters, but His other well-known warning about Caesar is equally appropriate, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and unto God that which is His."

Who ordains marriage? That lesson of our Savior is equally clear here as well, and the question to be asked is "does this marriage belong to God, or the State?"

Finally, if all that is not definitive enough, re-read Exodus 21. Note that immediately after the giving of the "Ten Commandments" in Chapter 20, and after a warning against idolatry, the next teaching is about slavery! Pay special attention to v.3-4; "if he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself." But, "if the master has given him a wife"...then "her children shall BE HER MASTER's"!

"Who gives this woman?"

You were correct, in other words, about giving improper jurisdiction by choosing to serve "another master" -- but overlooked the full implications of that choice.

As we have also been warned, the Adversary knows Scripture well, and will use it as both the 'accuser' and 'prince of this world'. The State of Ohio clearly understood the lesson that both Joshua (Yeshua, son of Nun) and Yeshua, son of God, taught: Choose this day Whom you will serve.

Finally, it should be pointed out that there is nothing at all "wrong" with being "like a polygamist", since YHVH our Elohim clearly says (at least twice) that He is Himself One! (Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 23; and don't forget the 'parable of the ten virgins). Every major metaphor of our relationship to Him is a "many-to-one" example:
multiple servants to one Master, multiple subjects to one King, and multiple wives to one Husband. Whether it is two wives (Jerusalem and Samaria, Israel and Judea), two sticks, two branches, five prepared virgins with the oil of the Ruach Hakodesh, seven letters to seven churches, or twelve tribes, that message is consistent*.

Like all of His Word, His teaching about "headship" is consistent as well. He "changes not", and is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow". When we allow the Enemy to trick us into accepting something "added to" or "subtracted from" His Word in direct violation of that His commandment, just as Eve did in Genesis 3:3, we are well along the path to the idolatry of bowing before 'another master'.



----------------------------
* Exodus 21:10, among others, makes what should be an obvious point, too. God does not provide "how-to rules" for that which He prohibits! Note that, in stark contrast, He repeatedly calls male homosexuality "abomination" -- and never says, "but IF you want to lie with another man, here are the rules..."
Click to expand...

There is more that could be added, of course. Ultimately, however, I contend that either the Word of God is True, as Written...or it is not. He was very specific about the commands that we were not to "add to" or "subtract from" His Word.

The many examples from our own lives and history, from Eve's deception onward, make it clear why this is so important. "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Blessings,

Mark
 
What happens if a woman is abandoned? What happens in the case of abuse, drug addiction, criminal behavior and other situations that a woman finds herself in, but does not get a certificate of divorce, especially in the case that her husband calls himself a 'Christian'? In the Old Testament days the man would be stoned to death in some of these cases and that would settle it. Today this does not happen. So now what?

No offense guys, but trying to live a NewTestament believer's life by the Old Testament rules simply will not work. We are here to bring liberty, not bondage. In those cases, Jesus will give the woman - FREEDOM, just like He sets all the prisoners free. Let us stop trying to put women in 'prison' when they deserve to be free. Each case must be taken individually and God will decide what is right. For those saved 'after-the-fact', we are not to be unequally yolked, if we cannot live in peace through no fault of our own. We are not to even share a meal with a person who calls themselves a believer and is a reviler, immoral person, etc., so do not tell me that women are supposed to stay married to those types of men if they refuse to give a certificate of divorce. If a man takes off and leaves a woman abandoned, then that should serve as 'default certificate of divorce'. Can we not get past this stuff please?

Be blessed,

Ray
 
What happens if a woman is abandoned? What happens in the case of abuse, drug addiction, criminal behavior and other situations that a woman finds herself in...
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ray, but I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the point I was trying to make (and not anything to do with divorce directly, either, other than Caesar's obvious claim of jurisdiction):

Don't get a license. Don't ask the State for permission, instead of God. Don't subject your house to a jurisdiction in opposition to Him.

I'm far more concerned about bondage to "another Master" than to any aspect of His Word, and submit that the way to be "free indeed" is to serve Him only, and "seek first the Kingdom of God".
 
Mark,

You know I am the same page with you re licenses...however, let me throw a 'what if' at you for your feedback.

Let's say that you met someone overseas, and you want to bring them to the US. The EASIEST thing to do is to go through the process, get a marriage license, etc, the whole nine yards. You have a decent chance of getting them approved to come over.

If you choose NOT to do that, and you want to try to bring them over on like a work visa, or student visa, etc., the the process can be incredibly long, and in some cases, self-defeating.

So, my question is this: how MUCH do we render to Caeser? On the one hand, we don't want to submit to that authority, but on the other, we find ourselves fighting a system that is designed to prevent emigration, when a license would make it easier. If we get a license just for the sake of making emigration possibly, aren't we manipulating the system?

Is this a moral dilemna, or a practical one?

I would appreciate feedback from anyone on this.

Doc
 
...how MUCH do we render to Caeser? ...

Is this a moral dilemma, or a practical one?
Click to expand...

It's a great question, Doc, and one which -- like it or not -- we will all ultimately have to answer for ourselves, and for our house.

I guess I have a reputation as a hard-liner...so I'll go ahead and answer somewhat directly. So perhaps the 'humor' should come first - THEN the Bible. (My own concession to a background in radio. ;) )

Remember the old joke about the man who asks the woman, "Would you sleep with me for a million bucks?"

"I guess so," she replies.

"Then would you sleep with me for twenty bucks?"

She slaps him, saying, "What do you think I AM, anyway?"

"Well," he replies, "we've established that. NOW we're dickering price!"

Like with so many things where God has one standard, and the world has another - we seem to be inclined to consider dickering price. But He, too, has a Word for that type of compromise with 'the world' - and did not seem to be shy about using it either. :o

I can't help but follow up at this point with the observation of what the Last Book says about the coming "Mark" -- without which no one will be able to buy or sell. It sounds like we'll soon "find ourselves fighting a system that is designed to prevent" life itself - outside the iron-fisted control of that Ultimate Caesar! Without doubt, we'll be told that a "license", or "mark", will make that easier.

"Friendship with the world" is always the easiest path, doesn't it seem? But we both know how that particular verse ends as well.

I have come to see this part of the process -- of learning to "come out of her" by recognizing what should belong to God, as opposed to Caesar -- as good practice for the challenges that are to come. Maybe He even planned it that way. After all, if we can't stand up for "the hope that is within us" now, when it's relatively easy, and Caesar has ALREADY "outlawed" what God ordains, and even replaced it by what God calls "abomination", "how much more so" will it be hard for us to do it later, when "the world" will argue (correctly) that it's a matter of life and death?


Blessings,

Mark




----------------------------------------------------------

PS> Up until a while ago, I always thought that what happened to Lot's wife was pretty hard. After all, all the poor woman did was turn around and LOOK, perhaps a bit wistfully, at what she had left behind.

But I now see it's the same story, and the same warning for US, as "come out of her".

Remember that the English word "repent" really comes from the Hebrew "t'shuvah", which literally means "to turn". Once we truly "turn" from the path that leads to destruction, and begin to walk the "narrow path" that leads to Him, and to life - is it any surprise that to again turn away from that Salvation (literally, "Ya-shuah", of course!) is death?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top