Is it allowable for a Christian to have a life partner without a civil 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

If God therefore has in rich grace and by His tender leading, arranged a marriage of two of His redeemed saints, how becoming and right it is that others should rejoice with them, and have opportunity to express their thankfulness and heartfelt fellowship in gathering on so glad an occasion. The supper itself is an expression of communion or fellowship. Whether the ceremony is performed at the same time in the presence of all guests, or just previously at the registrar's office or elsewhere, in the presence of only two witnesses, is of no real significance. But this is a precious occasion upon which the saints of God may, if confident of the Lord's ordering this union, share in the joy of the happy couple.

In certain countries only a government official is allowed to perform the ceremony. Elsewhere, while ministers of religion are authorized for this, by government, yet a couple may have this done at the registrar's office, or have a judge or justice of the peace present where the ceremony is desired; in which way the truth of Scripture is not compromised. If, for whatever reason, a minister is chosen to perform the ceremony, it is suggested that the believing couple request that no religious vows be added, and that a pronouncement be made in no other name but that of the government. Yet, let us have godly caution in remembering that these things are not written as laying down laws, but for the help of the honestly concerned consciences.

How perfectly right then that the believer should have any proper government official to perform this ceremony, and thus recognize the rightful claims of government. Sometimes Christians have urged that only a saved person out to perform this ceremony for them; but this view springs from a lack of understanding as to the ceremony being simply a government requirement. There is no more reason to insist on having a saved official to do this that to insist that only a saved person should issue the marriage license.

At least the government representative will make his pronouncement rightly on behalf of the state or province. On the other hand, a clergyman may pronounce a couple man and wife "on behalf of the church," which is thoroughly wrong, for neither the true church of God nor the churches of men have any authority of any kind in reference to marriage. And yet more gravely serious is the expressions sometimes used, "I pronounce you man and wife in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." No man has ever been given authority from God to speak in this way. When God joins, He does so without the help of any man; and this intrusion of one professing to represent God in the actual joining of a couple in marriage is akin to the error of a king's menial servant, who assumes to speak officially in the king's name, without the slightest authority, and to bring into effect something that only the king personally can rightly do.