The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The modern wedding ceremony...

My wife-to-be were having a conversation the other day about marriage-things, and we had a question emerge. Where did the wedding ceremony that we have today originate? Not only where did it come from, but when did it become the norm?

It seems to us, at least at a surface level, that the ceremony would just be a blessing of a union between a man and a woman that had already occurred (like believer's baptism) and a symbolic thing (like the Eucharist). It also seems like the church just acknowledging the validity of a government document. This isn't to say that we have a low view of marriage. On the contrary, we have a VERY high view of what marriage is and we just desire to have a fuller understanding of the ceremony itself so that our view of marriage can be the highest possible. So, if anyone can help us with any misunderstandings we may have, that would be great.

First, Let me say that I disagree with your low view of baptism and the eucharist. Something real happens in the use of the sacraments either positive for the believer or negative for the unbeliever (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 11:29).

But you are correct regarding the wedding rite. The betrothed Christian couple, having obtained the permission of their parents and made a public announcement of their engagement, are considered husband and wife in the eyes of God. The wedding rite is both the public confirmation and a symbol of a lifelong union that has already occurred.

The wedding rite was developed by the NT church for the good and useful purpose of reminding us of what scripture teaches regarding the state of matrimony. It is not a sacrament as the Papists falsely teach.

I did a little research on this. In pre-Christian Roman culture, a couple would be married by saying certain words in front of a pagan priest. Bridal consent was necessary, which she gave by saying "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia". (I do not know if they changed the names depending on the grooms name. Roman women were not given real names at birth, as I understand it. They were given a feminine form of their fathers name, and distinguished by 'major' if older' and 'minor' if younger, or numbered if there were more than two.)

I have also read that the custom of women wearing a ring on the wedding ring finger was also a Roman custom.

My theory is that the Romans Christianized the wedding ceremony, replacing the pagan priest with a Christian one, but keeping the general format of saying words in front of a religious leader as a wedding ceremony. I guess the groom carrying the bride away, pretending to steal her as legend said the early Romans did, did not catch on as a part of the ceremony.

In OT weddings, there is no priest figure binding people together. The idea that a priestly figure makes two people one flesh by declaring it is not a Biblical concept. The wedding ceremony of the west is a cultural practice, not a Biblical one. That is not to say that it is bad. As far as I know all cultures have wedding rituals. In this ritual, there is a lot of scripture reading, references to God, imo a good thing. But it is wrong, imo, for people to say that if you have not said your vows before a preacher, pastor, etc. that you are not really married.

In the OT, the groom, or his father, would go to the potential bride's father or guardian, and negotiate a deal for her that included a bride price. Some time later they would be joined. It was the custom, at least by Samson's time, to throw a feast. if a man took a woman as wife, he slept with her. According to Paul, two being one flesh as to do with sex, and not with a preacher declaring it so.

The only wedding ceremony that I know of in scripture that gives any details is that of Boaz and Ruth. Boaz met with a relative in front of the elders of the city to redeam another dead relatives estate. He said with the elders witnessing that, as a part of the deal, the widow Ruth became his wife.

I suspect elders did not play a specific role in OT weddings, except to sit in seats of honor at the feast. In a Lavrite wedding to ones deceased relative's wife, if someone passed up on the opportunity to raise up seed, the woman was to bring him before the elders, remove his sandal, and spit in his face. Maybe that is why the elders were called in in Boaz's case, or because it was a legal trasaction.

No, the wedding ceremony begins the union. The specific rituals are not so much important as the actual wedding, in which the couple is united in a marriage covenant and recognized as such by witnesses.

Genesis 2:24 describes the institution of marriage that God ordained between the first man and woman. This text is often quoted in marriage ceremonies today. Even though over time people have become more imaginative by adding other ingredients this text still remains the primary focus of what a marriage is called to be.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." The term "one flesh" means solidarity of the marriage relationship which requires a singular and total committment.


Any union between a man and a woman prior to marriage doesn't automatically make them a married couple and the church is not just validating an existing union. If you are referring to sexual relations this doesn't automatically make them married. Certainly they are joined together in the sin of fornication but that doesn't equate to a marriage.

If fornication created marriage, the fornicators would not need to get married; they would already be married to their partners through the sexual relationship. Yet this is not the case. According to the Mosaic Law, if a man enticed an unmarried girl and had relations with her, he was obligated to marry her unless her father refused to allow that (Ex. 22:16-17). The law did not say the two were already married because of their sexual union. The fact that the girl’s father could refuse to allow his daughter to become the man’s wife is proof that they were not already wed on account of the sexual act.

In marriage a man's priorities change. Obligations to his wife take precedence. To be joined together is the language of covenant committment. Humans are never more like the covenant-keeping God than when they pledge themselves in convenant to one another in front of witnesses before the Lord. Marriage pictures God's relationship to His people (Hos. 2:14-23; Eph. 5:22-32).


Wes

The more I think about it, the more I come to believe that marriage ceremony is more of a judicial act then a celebration. During this ceremony both, the dude and the woman, make a promice of commitment infront of 200+ witnesses and infront of God. It is this act which begins a marriage.

Upon further thought (because I commented on that matter slightly in another thread a while back) I realize that sex doesn't automatically equal marriage. In posing my though about the union being already existant, I was thinking more along the lines of the couple already being committed to each other. The ceremony would just be publicly validating this commitment that had already been made (at least in terms of the way our modern ceremony is done). Is this correct?

For a couple like you (Jeremy and Auni who have pledged to marry each other in October 2006) your engagement is a promise to marry which has not yet been consumated. You are not yet married to each other. The wedding ceremony binds that committment before witnesses and the Lord and then the two become "one flesh." That's why the pastor always concludes the wedding by proclaiming "I NOW pronounce you husband and wife."


Wes

"By the authority vested in me by the state of ____, I now pronounce you husband and wife." Here, the minister acts as an agent of state not as an agent of God. The state recognizes the Christian wedding rite as consumating a civil contract. I wonder why the ACLU hasn't objected to this?

Assuming the minister properly verified the consent of parents and the posting of the bans, he should know that the Christian couple was pronounced husband and wife by God prior to the wedding rite. As the agent of God, he should merely publicly announce that the couple are husband and wife.

Nonsense!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" /> If your novel idea was true, then any "couple" could freely engage in sexual activity with God's blessing, since according to you, they are already married. However, Scripture calls such sexual activity FORNICATION, i.e., sex BEFORE marriage. (cf. Jh 4:17, 18; 1Cor 7:1, 2, 9; 1Thess 4:3; et al) Marriage in Scripture is never a private matter, i.e., a simple private commitment between two parties, but rather it is a community affair where two believers come before the Church to profess publicly to bind themselves in covenant before the Lord and the saints, who will hold them accountable to that covenantal vow. Betrothal is the intent TO marry. It is not marriage itself.

FYI, O.T. marriage arrangements/contracts made by parents on behalf of their children are not binding upon those in the new covenant administration.

In His grace,

The Christian couple delights in the moral law of God. They will not dishonor their parents by becoming engaged without permission. They will not cause offense to the Christian community by failing to post their bans well in advance of the wedding. Although they are husband and wife in the sight of God, they will not commit adultery by coming together as one flesh before their betrothal contract is publicly fulfilled.

FYI, O.T. marriage arrangements/contracts made by parents on behalf of their children are not binding upon those in the new covenant administration.

...why not?

Where in the N.T. is there even a hint that parental contractual marriage was taught and/or practiced in the Church?

In His grace,

And where, pray tell, is this to be found in God's inspired Word? I did find mention of such things however, e.g., "posting of bans", "betrothal contracts", etc., in one particular book I have on my shelf which is titled, "The Devised Standard Version". Would that be your source? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

In the Bible, the covenant is usually between the bride's father and the groom (or groom's father on behalf of the groom, perhaps, in the case of Samson.)