What does the Bible say about the concept of a common law marriage?

Choosing to live together rather than marry is prevalent in the world around us. This is clearly fornication; there is no commitment to marry and no public declaration of marriage. The laws of most countries states that marriage must be lawfully enacted and Romans chapter 13 verse 1 tells us "the powers that be are ordained of God", they must, therefore, be obeyed.

Here however, it is needful that we differentiate in things that are greatly distinct, but which have been too often confused. In the marriage of Adam or that of Isaac we read of no official ceremony. Nor does Scripture anywhere indicate that God at any time required or suggested such a ceremony: it is rather He Himself Who joins together, and not by means of a ceremony of any kind.

Nevertheless, civilization being what it is, and man untrustworthy, when nations were formed on earth, it became an absolute necessity that, to maintain proper government, a due public recognition should confirm the marriage of any couple. Certainly the believer must fully recognize the requirements of government, and "be subject unto the higher powers." Since the government then requires a ceremony, the Christian gladly conforms to this ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake. But to go further than this, in a ceremony that adds a religious element, including vows as before God, is not Scriptural, and confuses the principle of subjection to secular authorities with that of God's sovereign operation in uniting two lives in marriage.

Another aspect of the marriage tie may now be considered. As a relationship established by God in the original circumstances of man's creation, it possesses a pure and holy character. It is obvious, however, that in Eden there were necessarily no human witnesses to the first marriage contract. But with the multiplication of the human species, there arose the necessity that each matrimonial alliance should have a propriety in the eyes of men generally, and should receive public confirmation and approval.

From the days of Noah, God set up among men forms of government for the maintenance of civil order and social well-being. The “powers that be” in the community are ordained of God, and their regulations are to be recognised and obeyed by the Christian (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14). It is seemly, therefore, that Christian marriage should conform to the requirements of the law of the land. Indeed, it is expressly enjoined upon the believer to “be subject to the higher powers,” and to submit “to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake.” Where this is done in the case of marriage, the act of union is formally and legally recognised, and its validity established in the eyes of all men.

The ceremony of marriage required by civil laws to bestow a wedded status upon the persons concerned is altogether distinct from the spiritual union of husband and wife which results from the exercise of God's own will and guidance upon the hearts of the same two persons. The latter is the most serious and yet the most happy side of the undertaking. For this reason, the married couple, realising the solemn nature of the initial step they have taken in the united life to which they have committed themselves, seek the fellowship and prayers of the assembly of God on their behalf. Thereby, they openly confess that in their new relationship, their joint desire is to receive divine help that they may walk together in the fear of the Lord, in obedience to His word, and in the furtherance of the glory of His name.

Supposing two persons were perfectly married according to English law, living in England, Protestants from childhood are bonâ fide married in church by banns, or elsewhere, but by legal connection belonging to a Roman Catholic country, and are within prohibited degrees which go to being godfather and godmother to the same child: if they go to their own country (legally in this country, too) their marriage is not accounted such; it is concubinage: are they to separate because of popish law? They cannot be married then at all: they have been married in England, and it goes for nothing, and the same as to every country. Again, put the case in this country. A person marries, and his marriage fully recognised for years: he commits some crime which involves infamy; his marriage is dissolved and annulled. Is he to hold his wife as not his wife, and the woman be free to marry some one else?

But in principle, to make human laws the measure of christian right and wrong is in my judgment a total subversion of Christ's and the word's authority. There may be extreme cases, but if the principle be true it is true everywhere. … You cannot make a bonâ fide marriage before God vary with the law of the land. A Swiss is married with his wife's sister: it is legal. In this country it is null (if they belong to this country): is the marriage different in itself as entered into before God? There were three kinds of marriages in pagan Rome. Suppose Christians married before the church of God: is it not clear that the church would recognise them as married before God, and, if unfaithful, treat it as adultery? The marriage of parties before God does not depend on the State recognising it. The truth is, that while I should look for a Christian bowing to the powers that be more than most, I do not understand a Christian taking civil law as a rule or standard for christian obligation in any way or in any respect. I obey. Why? Because the word of Christ tells me to do so; but I know of no other rule, no other ultimate authority for one born again. I know no rule but God's will expressed by Himself. Any other principle seems to me to be a fatal one. The question, and the sole question, is, Does the word of God pronounce it valid? I should hold a marriage before the church of God, if according to God's word in itself, valid before the church of God. … I think it a very alarming principle to make human law in any way the source and measure of Christian obligation.

p494 C McAdam, I think the passage should be borne in mind, "What God has joined together let not man put asunder." A suggestion was made to me which I think well worthy of consideration, that where there exists on the consciences of brethren a doubt as to the present fact of their being man and wife before God, but have been married and such in their own thought, they should come before the assembly and declare that they hold themselves such before God, and have ever done so, and beg the assembly to take knowledge of and recognise their declaration. They would thereafter be married before God at any rate; supposing, of course, that there is nothing wrong in it before Him - that it is not a divinely forbidden case. This would make the consciences of all clear. The law, of course, leaves them necessarily where they were.

We have completed all that is necessary to satisfy the law of this land; and now for a moment we happily turn to what we believe to be a very much higher matter, that is to regard this happy union as before God.

In such a relationship of grace, vows are utterly foreign and contrary to its very character. God asked no vows of either Adam or Eve, nor do we see this in Isaac and Rebecca, but rather the confidence of trusting one another. If God has Himself brought a couple together, and they have unshaken confidence that this is so, can they not trust one another without the addition of a vow? Under the covenant of law (which is a contrast to grace) vows were introduced, but not in reference to marriage. Under grace even such legal vows have no place: how much less then is there place for vows in that which speaks of the blessed relationship of pure, free grace existing between Christ and His Bride! Sadly, in formal Christianity, by which even godly believers have been affected, such vows, flavoured with a religious tone, administered by a minister of religion, have become increasingly popular. Instead of the happy couple simply and solely thanking God for His Divine grace and ordering in the union, the vain element of confidence in the flesh is introduced by the intrusion of human vows. How it spoils the sweet simplicity of Divine grace which would shine more brightly than all else in such a union. Would this not remind one of Jacob's unseemly vow, after God had unconditionally promised him His gracious blessing? (Gen 28:13-22).

The True Purpose Of Marriage Ceremony

"H. J." We fully accept the rendering of 1 John 5:16, as given in our most excellent authorised version. As to the scriptural mode of celebrating marriage, we believe that Christians are bound to submit to the law of the land, and comply with the requirements of the government of the country, which surely are framed in such wise as to meet the most tender conscience. We are called to "submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake."

Are we, then, at liberty to disregard human law on such a matter, because it may go beyond the requirements of God's word? No Christian should accept such a proposition for a moment. We are to "be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1) We are to be obedient to rule (Titus 3:1) and to submit ourselves to every human institution for the Lord's sake, as Peter (1 Peter 2:13) exhorts us. Are we, then, advocating a blind subjection to earthly rule? By no means. For when human commands conflict with the divine word this same apostle has taught us how to act, as he, with the other apostles boldly told the Sanhedrin. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). But in this matter there is no conflict of authority — God's word does not enjoin on us the contracting of such unions as those of which we write, though it permits them. No one, therefore, is under divine obligation to do in this matter what the law of the land will not sanction. The Christian is clearly bound to respect such an enactment, though it may curtail the freedom allowed him by God's word. For the Lord's sake this law of the land should be respected by the child of God.