Christian rite of Marriage

[thepaulinator]

I guess that this is the best place to pose this thought...

The wedding ceremony is quite a "trademark", if you will, of Christianity. The preacher reading those words (though I understand not everyone does, it is just the cliche phrase) "dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this man and this woman in holy matrimony..." is something we all grow up with and understand to be words at a wedding. My question here is, where in the world are these words, or even this act found in scripture? If you know please show me, because I find it quite interesting. Peace

[thepaulinator]

...Anybody?

[disciple]

My question here is, where in the world are these words, or even this act found in scripture? If you know please show me, because I find it quite interesting. Peacein regards to the words, they aren't found in Scripture. the words and ceremony are a custom. but i believe most cultures have a marriage custom of some sort and we all recognize it with different ceremonies with different words, etc. so i don't think the concept is necessarily unique to Christianity though the words themselves may be. we also find it in various cultures in the Bible. is that what you were looking for or were you specifically interested where we might find the explicit details for a Christian wedding ceremony?

also i honestly don't think the exact manner in which one is married is important...the Scripture really only speaks to the idea of fidelity and love within marriage and not the ceremony. that's because the concept of marriage transcends all cultures and times, but the specific ceremonial customs are specific to each culture and are not the real issue of concern. unless of course one views that the ceremony itself is a magical rite whereby the exact details of the ceremony are supposed to carry some power with it.

[thepaulinator]

Thank you.


also i honestly don't think the exact manner in which one is married is important...the Scripture really only speaks to the idea of fidelity and love within marriage and not the ceremony

So would you say the ceremony is necessary before living in an actual marriage, or is cohabitation and sex before the marriage ceremony morally ok?

[disciple]

So would you say the ceremony is necessary before living in an actual marriage, or is cohabitation and sex before the marriage ceremony morally ok?i think that whatever cultural equivalent that one has for the marriage ceremony is what one needs. for example, if a tribe in papua new guinea gets converted to christianity, it is not necessary for them to copy western culture's (or western chrsitianity's) marriage ceremony for it to be valid and them to be married. whatever they do in their culture to consummate marriage they need to do before cohabitation, sex, etc. but the important thing is that not everyone has to do it (marriage ceremony) the way we do it in order for it to somehow be valid.

[wildboar]

Marriage is not a sacrament. It is a civil ordinance. Certainly as Christians we ought to reflect the picture of Christ and His church and in our wedding ceremonies we should also try to make this apparent, but there is no specific formula given which makes a marriage valid or invalid. Fornication is prohibited by Scripture, so a marriage must take place. However a marriage at court house between two people is considered just as binding before the eyes of God as a marriage which takes place in a church building. We do not find very specific references to the ways marriage ceremonies were conducted in Scripture.

There seem to be allusions to wedding vows in the Old Testament where God says, "I will call them a people which were not my people." We find similar statements in the very short Mesopotamian wedding vows.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[thepaulinator]

So when you boil it down, the wedding ceremony doesn't necessarily matter? Am I understanding that correctly?

[Brandan Kraft]

1. There is a solemn commitment between two people never to be broken.
2. Cohabitation is then permissable.

Cohabitation without the "til death do us part" commitment is not a marriage but sin.

[disciple]

So when you boil it down, the wedding ceremony doesn't necessarily matter? Am I understanding that correctly?it depends on what you're meaning by "doesn't necessarily matter". because it matters greatly (i.e., that it is done before cohabitation, sex, etc.) though the particular method does not seem to be a crucial issue since there is absolutely no time spent on it (the particular method of consummating marriage) in Scripture. if it was so crucial a thing (i.e., if it was of utmost importance that it was done such and such a way, with a duly authorized priest, conferring some mystical power, etc.), then would we not see something explicit on it in Scripture? since we do not see any treatment on it in the pages of Scripture, i think it is safe to say that the particular manner in which it is consummated (e.g., the words that are spoken, the clothes that are worn, where it is done, who officiates, etc.) is not what is important.

[thepaulinator]

i think that whatever cultural equivalent that one has for the marriage ceremony is what one needs. for example, if a tribe in papua new guinea gets converted to christianity, it is not necessary for them to copy western culture's (or western chrsitianity's) marriage ceremony for it to be valid and them to be married

My question is why is it needed at all unless specified in scripture? Where in scripture does it say a couple needs a ceremony that is the cultural equivalent? If such a culture has no ceremony at all, is one still needed?

[GraceAmbassador]

Originally posted by thepaulinator

My question is why is it needed at all unless specified in scripture? Where in scripture does it say a couple needs a ceremony that is the cultural equivalent? If such a culture has no ceremony at all, is one still needed?


In fact, there are many cultures that, at first glance, one could say that threre is no such a thing as a marriage ceremony. After closer study, however, one may find that they have a very elaborate system of marital exigences and ceremonies. I have not found, even in the most aboriginal culture, one that has not some type of ceremony for marriage. Often, more binding and with more severe penalties for violations than we find in our little world.

[thepaulinator]

In fact, there are many cultures that, at first glance, one could say that threre is no such a thing as a marriage ceremony. After closer study, however, one may find that they have a very elaborate system of marital exigences and ceremonies. I have not found, even in the most aboriginal culture, one that has not some type of ceremony for marriage. Often, more binding and with more severe penalties for violations than we find in our little world.

Beautiful! So my question remains, what, if anything, does the ceremony do?

If it does nothing, then why is it needed?

If it does something, what does it do?

[GraceAmbassador]

Beautiful! So my question remains, what, if anything, does the ceremony do?

If it does nothing, then why is it needed?

If it does something, what does it do?
It accomplishes public recognition of a promise, a vow, a contract between two parties, to say the least. I know you've heard the joke before that "if marriage was anything good it would have no need for witnessess..." or, if you commit a crime you at least have a chance of parole after 25 years, but not in marriage...", however, public recognition, which implies a public announcement of the "contract" respects some minimal laws of decency and government.

The Bible tells us that laws that do not override God's commandments must be respected. Jesus respected the law of His day even when it did not make sense.

Between disparaging a public ceremony for marriage or making a sacrament thereof, there is a chasm of a difference. The Bible teaches that we are to respect the authorities established over us and that includes following some common sense rules of marriage which may or may not be celebrated with a party. The word "ceremony" is often confused with "party", I hope we are not falling into this confusion here. The ceremony may be ONLY before a man of God, or a representative of goverment such as a judge.

The balance however is that the "ceremony" is not the marriage. The marriage has to have taken place in the heart and then there is such a thing as a public ceremony, or announcement.

I don't know if I went off the topic here, but I believed the question to have been about the "need" for a ceremony.

Milt

[thepaulinator]

The marriage has to have taken place in the heart and then there is such a thing as a public ceremony, or announcement.

I agree the marriage must take place in the heart. And it seems as if you are saying, fundamentally and spiritually, this is all that is necessary, or needed.


The Bible tells us that laws that do not override God's commandments must be respected. Jesus respected the law of His day even when it did not make sense

Agreed, and I guess you are saying this to show that since some kind of public "ceremony" is prescribed by the law of the land, be it before a minister or a judge, it is only because the land says so. Should this be the case, it actually accomplishes nothing, in regards to the actual marriage, other than making it officially a marriage to the ruling authorities. That being said, it seems the only thing making the marriage a marriage is the hearts of the two being wed, and the vows they take.

With that in mind, could I hear your definition of fornication?

[thepaulinator]

This is open to any who would like to share by the way.

[thepaulinator]

What is the definition of fornication?

[thepaulinator]

A dictionary definition is the following...

"Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other"

Good start. Now what does the bible say is fornication?

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fornication.html

So the dictionary is pretty close. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

So two teenagers, who believe themselves to be in love and married, and take vows to be with eachother for their entire lives, and have sex before the marriage ceremony, are not guilty of fornication (provided the keep to their vows)?

[disciple]

Should this be the case, it actually accomplishes nothing, in regards to the actual marriage, other than making it officially a marriage to the ruling authorities. That being said, it seems the only thing making the marriage a marriage is the hearts of the two being wed, and the vows they take.this is a non sequitur. it is not true that the legal ceremony accomplishes nothing. it legally and ceremonally makes it a marriage. it is the thing without which you do not have a marriage. if you aren't legally married (whatever that symbol or ceremony is in that culture) then you aren't married...period. this means everything.

what exactly are you suggesting? is there something "magical" that goes on in a church ceremony? if one is married before a justice of the peace is that then not a marriage (because they have not been married in a church)? i'm at a loss as to where you are going with this.


With that in mind, could I hear your definition of fornication?fornication is intercourse between individuals not married to one another. so if one is not legally married and they have intercourse then that is fornication. is there more to it than that?

[thepaulinator]

this is a non sequitur. it is not true that the legal ceremony accomplishes nothing. it legally and ceremonally makes it a marriage. it is the thing without which you do not have a marriage. if you aren't legally married (whatever that symbol or ceremony is in that culture) then you aren't married...period. this means everything.

I was implying the legal ceremony accomplishes nothing in regards to the spiritual aspect of the marriage. The justice of the peace or whatever related legal overseer of the marriage does not spiritually join the two people in matrimony. If the legal ceremony legally and ceremonally makes it a marriage, then could two males or two females who are legally and ceremonially married actually be married? I don't think you are saying this at all, a couple may be legally married, but that does not neccessarily make them married in the eyes of God...the two have not become one because of a legal document/and or act. That is what I am saying. When do two people become one in the eyes of God?


what exactly are you suggesting? is there something "magical" that goes on in a church ceremony? if one is married before a justice of the peace is that then not a marriage (because they have not been married in a church)? i'm at a loss as to where you are going with this.

First, I wasn't trying to go anywhere, nor was I suggesting anything. The only person who has thus far implied I was trying to make a case for the Sacrament of Marriage was Wild Boar in his post on 2-10-2004, first sentence...

"Marriage is not a sacrament"
-WildBoar

I had yet to mention anything of the sort, nor would I to this very post. I began this thread purely interested in discovering how a non-Catholic views the "rite", if you will, of marriage, specifically the ceremony's relation of the spiritual change, for lack of a better phrase, of two becoming one, if any relation should exist.


fornication is intercourse between individuals not married to one another. so if one is not legally married and they have intercourse then that is fornication. is there more to it than that?

I don't know, I was asking you. If two people are legally married, sexual intercourse is no longer fornication, am I understanding this correctly? (Should I cease asking what it means to be married?)

[tomas1]

Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman the covenant is universal and biblical. However the method of “sealing the covenant” is cultural. In scripture you find lots of different covenants between individuals and lots of different “Seals”. In America the accepted seal is a license or its equivalent in the case of common law weddings. This is why the gay marriage debate is important. If the state defines marriage differently than scripture, as is the case of Saudi Arabia or San Francisco then Christians must decide whether to obey God or men and possibly look to another method to seal the covenant.

BTW Paul considered marriage out side the church valid. (1Cor 7:13)

[disciple]

I was implying the legal ceremony accomplishes nothing in regards to the spiritual aspect of the marriage. The justice of the peace or whatever related legal overseer of the marriage does not spiritually join the two people in matrimony. If the legal ceremony legally and ceremonally makes it a marriage, then could two males or two females who are legally and ceremonially married actually be married? I don't think you are saying this at all, a couple may be legally married, but that does not neccessarily make them married in the eyes of God...the two have not become one because of a legal document/and or act. That is what I am saying. When do two people become one in the eyes of God?but i think you may be drawing an unneccesary distinction. i know of no Scripture verse or principal which draws a distinction between spiritual marriage and legal marriage. if you're married legally (however that cultural cermony and covenant is consummated), then you're married period. that seems to be the way that paul is treating the issue in 1 co 7. perhaps you could direct us to the passage which might say otherwise or that you believe supports your assertion that on is not married before God unless spiritually married.


I began this thread purely interested in discovering how a non-Catholic views the "rite", if you will, of marriage, specifically the ceremony's relation of the spiritual change, for lack of a better phrase, of two becoming one, if any relation should exist.out of curiosity, why are you interested in learning about non-Catholic views of things? you seem very interested in that around here and i'm just curious as to why?


I don't know, I was asking you. If two people are legally married, sexual intercourse is no longer fornication, am I understanding this correctly? (Should I cease asking what it means to be married?)that is correct. would you say that sexual intercourse is no longer fornication only if two people are spiritually [and legally] married (if we accept that distinction)?

[thepaulinator]

In America the accepted seal is a license or its equivalent in the case of common law weddings. This is why the gay marriage debate is important. If the state defines marriage differently than scripture, as is the case of Saudi Arabia or San Francisco then Christians must decide whether to obey God or men and possibly look to another method to seal the covenant.

Let me get this straight, a marriage is not marriage unless made legally so (as in America, a liscence). If it is legally made so, it is a marriage. So if the state legally marries a man and a man or a woman and a woman, it is NOT a marriage?

Where in scripture does it say that the community's common way of marriage is what makes two people married?


but i think you may be drawing an unneccesary distinction. i know of no Scripture verse or principal which draws a distinction between spiritual marriage and legal marriage. if you're married legally (however that cultural cermony and covenant is consummated), then you're married period.

Then I ask again, if a man and a man are legally married, God does not recognize the marriage, only if a man and a woman are? Does God base his view of two people's marital status on the law of men? When Jesus said "they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD has joined together, no man shall separate". God joins people in marriage, not a legal system. I want to know your opinion on when this happens.


that seems to be the way that paul is treating the issue in 1 co 7. perhaps you could direct us to the passage which might say otherwise or that you believe supports your assertion that on is not married before God unless spiritually married.

I am asking if you believe the legal ceremony to be the time when God actually joins the two people together.


out of curiosity, why are you interested in learning about non-Catholic views of things? you seem very interested in that around here and i'm just curious as to why?

Honestly, I have seen little of the matter in scripture, and I wanted to see how those who believe in Sola Scriptura view the matter, not to start a debate, but out of pure curiousity. I feel that knowing how others believe will help in my interactions with them, in other words, so I don't assume they believe something that is not true. This is not so I can "evangelize" or anything, this is out of pure curiousity. Marriage is a big deal to a lot of people, and I wanted to know how you men of faith viewed it.


that is correct. would you say that sexual intercourse is no longer fornication only if two people are spiritually [and legally] married (if we accept that distinction)?

To be fair, I believe the marriage takes place in the church ceremony, both aspects. So intercourse after the event would no longer be fornication.

[disciple]

Let me get this straight, a marriage is not marriage unless made legally so (as in America, a liscence). If it is legally made so, it is a marriage. So if the state legally marries a man and a man or a woman and a woman, it is NOT a marriage?at least in america, there must be a legal document. so if someone in america wants to say they are married, before man and God, they need to have that legal document. if that law contradicts God's definition on what a marriage is, then it may be a legal marriage (per the laws of that region) but i do not believe it is a marriage Scripturally.


Where in scripture does it say that the community's common way of marriage is what makes two people married?it doesn't seem to speak in those terms and in that level of detail about it. i think it is implicit in paul's words in 1 Co 7 (the assumption seems to be that some were married before coming into the church and paul appears to recognize that marriage as a "binding" or "valid" covenant).

where in Scripture does it say that one is not married unless they are married in a church or by a priest? where in Scripture is there a distinction between spiritual and legal marriage?


Then I ask again, if a man and a man are legally married, God does not recognize the marriage, only if a man and a woman are? Does God base his view of two people's marital status on the law of men? When Jesus said "they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what GOD has joined together, no man shall separate". God joins people in marriage, not a legal system. I want to know your opinion on when this happens.yes God joins together but He can and does do this through the human vehicle (i.e., a covenant). would you say then that if a couple was married by a priest but it was not a legally recognized marriage then they'd still be married in the eyes of God? or that if they were legally married but not married by a priest then they would not be married in the eyes of God? when can they have sex and have it not be fornication? can the one who is only legally married (say by a justice of the peace) have sex without it being fornication since they didn't have a marriage ceremony?


I am asking if you believe the legal ceremony to be the time when God actually joins the two people together.marriage is something which happens in this life which is created and finite. i know of no evidence that is it the ceremony and not the covenant (e.g., contract) which consummates a marriage. perhaps you can point me to this evidence. and where do you see that there is a distinction between the timing of the marriage covenant (contract) and when God recognizes/consummates the marriage via a ceremony or whatever?

[thepaulinator]

at least in america, there must be a legal document. so if someone in america wants to say they are married, before man and God, they need to have that legal document. if that law contradicts God's definition on what a marriage is, then it may be a legal marriage (per the laws of that region) but i do not believe it is a marriage Scripturally.

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. There must be a legal document, but it is not the legal document itself that makes the two people married, but the covenant between the two people that it is publically representing. Without this document/public representation (depending on the culture), the marriage does not exist. Correct me if I am wrong.


it doesn't seem to speak in those terms and in that level of detail about it. i think it is implicit in paul's words in 1 Co 7 (the assumption seems to be that some were married before coming into the church and paul appears to recognize that marriage as a "binding" or "valid" covenant).

Of course.


where in Scripture does it say that one is not married unless they are married in a church or by a priest? where in Scripture is there a distinction between spiritual and legal marriage?

It doesn't, I hope I didn't say that it did, or that I believe that is necessarily true. There is no distinction, scripture doesn't have a whole lot to say about marriage, other than the classic versus (two become one flesh, etc.). Which is why I was curious as to how one who believes in Sola Scriptura views the matter, I find it quite interesting.


yes God joins together but He can and does do this through the human vehicle (i.e., a covenant).

Could you possibly eleborate on the covenant being a human vehicle? That seems to be vague to me. By this do you mean God uses the Civil Court as the human vehicle to join the two, or does he use the vows of the two people toward eachother as this human vehicle? As far as your questions, I will answer them the best I can...


would you say then that if a couple was married by a priest but it was not a legally recognized marriage then they'd still be married in the eyes of God?

I would say yes, if it were, like you said, a "scriptural" marriage (i.e. between a man and woman). For example, if a couple wished to be married in a time where the civil authorities claim the rite of prima nocte (please excuse the braveheart reference :) ), and for this reason avoided the legal marriage, it would indeed be a marriage.


or that if they were legally married but not married by a priest then they would not be married in the eyes of God?

Honestly, I am not sure. If two people wished to be married only legally, in defiance of their faith's prescriptions (be it a sacrametal ceremony or a presbyter's blessing or what-have-you), I am not sure. However, if two people do not have any prescribed marriage ceremony from their faith, or if they have no faith at all from which to derive such a thing, the legal ceremony would indeed make them married in the eyes of God.


when can they have sex and have it not be fornication?

After the marriage, to me that takes place at the religious ceremony. To you, at the legal ceremony, at least I think so.


can the one who is only legally married (say by a justice of the peace) have sex without it being fornication since they didn't have a marriage ceremony?

Again, I think it depends on why they only sought after legal marriage.


marriage is something which happens in this life which is created and finite. i know of no evidence that is it the ceremony and not the covenant (e.g., contract) which consummates a marriage.

I agree with that. We do not keep our spouses into eternity. As well as it is not necessarily the ceremony itself that joins the two, it is the covenant made during the ceremony, I guess.


and where do you see that there is a distinction between the timing of the marriage covenant (contract) and when God recognizes/consummates the marriage via a ceremony or whatever?

I don't think there is, necessarily. I think it is common practice to order the liscence before the actual marriage, if one is getting married via a religious ceremony. So the liscence itself is not necessarily the factor, but whe the covenant between the two people is made.

[disciple]

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying. There must be a legal document, but it is not the legal document itself that makes the two people married, but the covenant between the two people that it is publically representing. Without this document/public representation (depending on the culture), the marriage does not exist. Correct me if I am wrong.that's correct. in our country, the legal document is required to recognize one as married. no legal document, no marriage. it matters not that you are married in your heart or in God's eyes (whatever that might mean). imagine if a man said to a woman, "hey, let's get married...but let's not let anyone know about it and let's not get a marriage license. we're already married in our hearts and in the eyes of God anyway. what's the point of the license and ceremony"? but yes, the legal document is what legally consummates the marriage so the legal document is what makes the two people married. you might say that the legal document is the covenant (e.g., a covenant is a contract and that's what marriage is).


It doesn't, I hope I didn't say that it did, or that I believe that is necessarily true. There is no distinction, scripture doesn't have a whole lot to say about marriage, other than the classic versus (two become one flesh, etc.). Which is why I was curious as to how one who believes in Sola Scriptura views the matter, I find it quite interesting.you seemed to say that one isn't married unless they have a ceremony. perhaps you mean something different than i do by ceremony. i don't believe there needs to be any ceremony at all for one to be married. you just go down and get a marriage license and everyone signs it (the covenanting parties and two witnesses). that's all you need in our country. no ceremony required.


Could you possibly eleborate on the covenant being a human vehicle? That seems to be vague to me. By this do you mean God uses the Civil Court as the human vehicle to join the two, or does he use the vows of the two people toward eachother as this human vehicle? As far as your questions, I will answer them the best I can...as we've been discussing, marriage is a human contract/covenant (it is between humans and before humans and God). God uses the officially/legally recognized vehicle in that particular culture for marriage. now this may get sticky when you talk about stuff like on braveheart or an unmarried couple on a desserted island. there are all sorts of scenarios we could probably dream up to challenge this (this applies to both my argument and yours for there would be no way to publicly recognize anything since it's just the two of them). anyway, under normal circumstances, i believe a marriage is a marriage when it is officially, publicly, legally, etc. recognized as such (and is a Scriptural marriage if it agrees with what Scripture describes it as, i.e., between one man and one woman).