What constitutes a marriage in the Bible?

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.

The marriage of Adam is the prototype of the marriage of all his sons. In every case of true matrimony, God arranges the union. Divine wisdom observes the moment when the loneliness of the man is no longer good for him, and He provides a bride who is the complement of his nature with its personal characteristics. Adam had no choice of brides; there was but the one that would suit him, and she was prepared of God especially for him. Adam had no rivals for the possession of Eve. Nor can such a thing be imagined in Eden, where each of the two found in the other everything required to complete their enjoyment and to perfect their capacities. There was no alternative that either could have chosen or found.

The primitive marriage in Eden was remarkably simple and exclusive. Two only shared the delights of the occasion. And this mutual reserve is a character marriage still retains. In matrimony two hearts, two lives become one exclusively in each other. At every wedding a new little world is formed with a total population of two numerically, but administratively of one only. How happy the new experience, and how momentous!

The child of God, for his own protection and blessing, and out of concern or the blessing of others, and above all, in order to honour God, should seek only the will of the Lord and the guidance of His hand in this matter that must vitally affect his entire future life for good or for ill. For if two should agree to live together as man and wife, their coming together is a solemn act, God joining them together as "one flesh," - an act therefore by which they commit themselves to a path of unswerving faithfulness to the other. The ungodly world about us today flagrantly disregards these serious obligations: countless broken homes bear witness to the treacherous dishonesty of human hearts; and gross sin multiplies its toll of sorrow and misery.

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.

The servant give the report of his mission to Isaac, and Isaac receives Rebekah as his wife. There is no mention of any marriage ceremony, for at that time it was not necessary to satisfy government as to the act of marriage. There was no doubt of marriage having taken place, however. Isaac took Rebekah into his mother's tent. Typically this tell us that, since Israel has been set aside as God's testimony on earth, the church of God has taken her place in this capacity. Isaac loved Rebekah. This is the second mention of love in the Bible. The first was the love of Abraham for his son (Gen.22:2), typical of God the Father's love of His Son. The love of Isaac for Rebekah is typical of the love of Christ toward the assembly, the church of God. It is beautiful to remark the truth symbolized also in Isaac's being comforted after his mother's death. Since the godly remnant of Israel has passed off the scene, the Lord Jesus now finds comfort in His bride, the church.

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.

We now pass to injunctions of another kind. The first of these refers to carnal desire. (v. 16.) The guilt is supposed here to attach mainly to the man — not, however, excepting the woman from her share. But man cannot lightly sin, and act as if he had not sinned, especially in the way here mentioned. Hence he incurred the obligation of endowing her to be his wife. The principle is laid down by Paul. "Know ye not," he says, "that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith He, shall be one flesh." (1 Cor. 6:16.) For the same reason our blessed Lord taught, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt. 19:9.) What a comment upon human laws which permit divorces upon other grounds — to the utter neglect of the wisdom of God, and which at the same time betray the most complete ignorance of the fundamental relationships between man and woman. While therefore we are bound to obey the powers that be, when they are not in conflict with the authority of God, the law of the land cannot be the guide of the conscience of the believer or of the church.

These were a class of inferior wives: they were at times personal servants given by wives to their husbands from their great desire for children, who then accounted the children of the servant as their own, as it was with Rachel and Leah. Such cases may have been comparatively rare, and would in no way account for the prevalence of men having concubines. Deut. 21:11 gives the root of it: a man saw a beautiful woman and lusted after her. God seems to have simply allowed it: as the Lord said about their easy way of writing a bill of divorcement: Moses permitted it 'because of the hardness of your hearts.' When God spoke of Israel having a king, one of the things forbidden to him was that of multiplying wives, lest his heart be turned away. Deut. 17:17. This alas, was the very fall of Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines, and they did turn away his heart. 1 Kings 11:3. In the Canticles we read of 60 queens and 80 concubines and virgins without number; but there was one, a choice one, the only one of her mother, that excelled them all — the bride of the song. Cant. 6:8-9. Est. 2:14 and Dan. 5:2 show that concubinage was a custom also among the heathen. Christianity disallows such evil, and recognises the relationship as established of God, and hence the sanctity of the marriage tie in those whom God joins together.

It is not now known how the negotiations were conducted that led to a man and woman being betrothed, or espoused, or what were the ceremonies usually attending it. The betrothed couple were at once looked upon as husband and wife, as seen in the case of Joseph, who thought of divorcing his espoused wife Mary. Matt. 1:18-19. In the East a man does not usually see his espoused wife until they are married (as Isaac did not see Rebecca and had no choice in the matter), the engagement, and the amount of dowry to be paid by the husband to the bride's father, being arranged by the relatives.

Of the ancient marriage ceremonies very little is known. On the night of a marriage the young women went forth with lamps or torches to meet the bridegroom and to escort him to the house of the bride, as in Matt. 25. Such processions have been seen in modern times, and the same cry has been heard, "Behold the bridegroom." They had marriage feasts, as in the parable of Matt. 22 (when a special garment was provided for each of the guests), and as the one to which the Lord, His mother, and His disciples were invited at Cana, where the Lord made the water into wine. John 2:1-11.

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.