Marriage not based on wedding vows

[President]

Every once in a while I read or hear someone say something like, "I can divorce him/her because he/she broke our wedding vows."

Sometimes you see people say this when the situation is not adultery.

I'd like to point out that the Bible doesn't say that 'wedding vows' make the wedding. I read that the ancient Romans had wedding customs that involved the groom giving the bride a ring and their saying certain words in front of a pagan priest. The bride would say, "Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia."

There is no indication in the Old Testament that a couple exchanged vows to get married. The only details we have of the moment a couple married was when Boaz made a deal with his relative who gave up his right to redeem an inheritance and receive Ruth as wife along with it. Boaz called the elders of the city as witnesses and declared that he was taking Ruth as his wife. He redeemed the estate. She was his wife, apparently without wedding vows, a procession down the aisle, or any of the other trappings that evolved in the west.

In the Old Testament, if a woman had a father, he was the one who gave her away. If she were a virgin, a man would pay the father a bride price to marry the daughter. If there was an agreement, he paid the bride price and at some point he collected her. It became the custom for the groom to throw a feast. The key element is the father gave her away. The New Testament mentions 'giving in marriage' up to the coming of the Son of Man. Paul mentions giving in marriage in I Corinthians 7 as well. Nowhere does the Bible say that couples just decide on their own to marry or that a priest or elder has the right to join them.

I believe the Roman Catholic wedding was a 'Christianizing' of Roman pagan customs. Maybe that's a big harsh. We can say Roman cultural practice, though it was intertwined with paganism. Roman Christians did not appear before the pagan priest. Instead, they went to the church elder. After four or five hundred years, the church viewed the priest as having the mystical power to bind a couple in marriage.

About 'vows'

I don't really like the term 'vows' for wedding vows. Newspapers say presidents 'vow' when they say they are going to do something. But 'vow' also sounds like swearing or making an oath. Most wedding ceremonies I've seen don't have the couple actually swear. They are to let their 'yea be yea' and their 'nay, nay.' They just agree to it.

But if someone breaks a wedding vow, that doesn't mean the other party has grounds for divorce. Let me give you an example.

The wife says, "My husband took a wedding vow to cherish me. I want him to hold me in the morning, but he leaves for work too quickly and doesn't get up to hold me for half an hour. He isn't cherishing me like he is supposed to. He broke his wedding vow."

Or you get some husband who writes his own vows and idiotically promises to put fresh-cut flowers on his wife's pillow every morning. After a few days, he stops getting flowers. That means he lied, and he broke his wedding 'vows' but it's not grounds for divorce.

On the old TV show The Jeffersons, George and Louise were going to renew their wedding vows for an anniversary. Louise had vowed to obey George, but she didn't want it in the new ceremony. It was a point of contention.

Whether Louise had ever said that in her wedding vows or not, if she's a Christian, she should know she has to submit to her husband 'even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord' because the Bible teaches it.

I don't think I've seen a wedding ceremony that specifically says the husband or wife won't sleep with other people. Some ceremonies do say 'forsaking all others' but that isn't that explicit. No matter what your wedding vows say, you still have to keep God's requirements about sexual morality.

If your spouse violates your wedding vows, that doesn't mean you have grounds for divorce. You are not free from a marital obligation revealed in scripture just because it was not stated in your wedding vows.

 

[jasoncran]

vows?

really, then the jews got in all wrong?


http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/wedding.html

 

[President]

vows?

really, then the jews got in all wrong?


http://messianicfellowship.50webs.com/wedding.html

A lot of Protestants take something similar to a Karaite view of oral torah when it comes to post-exhilic Jewish customs. The Old Testament says nothing about wedding vows being necessary. Maybe it was done in the time of Christ. It seems to me with wedding rings and the priest declaring people marriage, the Roman Catholic wedding may draw more from Roman culture than Jewish.

The ketubah is a written marriage contract, not mentioned in the Torah, and is a little different from spoken vows on the wedding day. If a Christian couple had a marriage contract, they would still be responsible to fulfill duties of marriage that God revealed that aren't mentioned in the contract, and not fulfilling the ketubah would not free them from marriage if they were not freed according to God's revealed will.

 

[NinaMMitchell]

Some people are just looking for a good enough reason to get divorced so they say their spouse didn't keep his/her vows. I guess because that sounds really serious, but like you said, a lot of wedding vows aren't necessarily something to get divorced over if they aren't kept. If they have to search that hard for a reason to get divorced, they probably shouldn't have been married in the first place.

 

[President]

Some people are just looking for a good enough reason to get divorced so they say their spouse didn't keep his/her vows. I guess because that sounds really serious, but like you said, a lot of wedding vows aren't necessarily something to get divorced over if they aren't kept. If they have to search that hard for a reason to get divorced, they probably shouldn't have been married in the first place.

If I hear about someone who didn't keep their wedding vows, I usually think of adultery. But some people use that term very loosely. I guess they get more sympathy if they say that.

But I think it's good to keep in mind that 'wedding vows' are how we marry in our own culture, but they aren't what defines a marriage according to scripture.

 

[jasoncran]

then tell us why the word concubine is used if vows arent needed? God doesnt make marriages, sorry he allows us to choose and tells us to choose wisely. in ancient jewry the parents arranged the marriages. it wasnt like it is today. rules were given in the torah but god never forced one to obey them. he said their would consquences if one didnt.

 

[President]

then tell us why the word concubine is used if vows arent needed? God doesnt make marriages, sorry he allows us to choose and tells us to choose wisely. in ancient jewry the parents arranged the marriages. it wasnt like it is today. rules were given in the torah but god never forced one to obey them. he said their would consquences if one didnt.

I haven't done a word study in the Hebrew, but in translation, Abraham's third wife Keturah is referred to both as a concubine and as a wife. (Some Jewish traditions say she is Hagar. Just from this alone, it would seem that a concubine is a wife.

From what I have read, a concubine is a wife who was formerly a slave. She was not acquired with a bride price. If a man married a concubine, she was no longer a slave, and if he divorced her, he couldn't treat her like one. She was his wife, a concubine, but a wife with rights to food, clothing, and sexual relations.

If this is the case, it was the bride price and the freedom of the woman that differentiated the concubine from the wife, not vows.

 

[By Grace]

I am NOT about to fight with you. But I will explain my views,and explain why I believe your views are both short sighted and non-Scriptural.

Our God is a covenant- making and keeping God. the book of Deuteronomy makes that clear because Moses wrote it as if it were an ancient Suzeranity treaty. (See Meridith Kline Treaty of the Great Covenant God)

In the ASV the phrase "I will be their God" is repeated 8 different times--Guess God really meant it, eh? Several times that phrase is accompanied with the reciprocal phrase, "and they shall be my people"

Genesis 17:8

Jeremiah 24:7

Jeremiah 31:33

Jeremiah 32:38

Ezekiel 10:27

Ezekiel 37: 23

Ezekiel 37:27

Zechariah 7:7

​

Thus God believes that his covenant is very important to both Himself, and to His elect.

When it comes to marriage, there is a three-way covenant involving man, woman and God. It is not a matter of "magic words", ot a place where the marriage is done. It is a solemn promise, invoking the blessing of God to do things the way that God wants them to be done.

Since we have seen that our God is a covenant-making and keeping God, it stands to reason to believe that any covenant involving Him which is cut short ny either party besmirches God's role in the covenant of marriage. Isn't that the words we use to describe that? It is not called "saying words" or it is not called "promises" but the entire ceremony is called the Covenant of Marriage".

So when Jesus says in

Matthew 7:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so
​

He is saying in effect "Moses permitted it because you are all sinners". Thus SIN IS AT THE HEART OF ANY DIVORCE. More important, it was a protection of marriage that permitted any injured party to divorce a stubborn sinner set in his/her ways, and will neither repent, nor stop causing harm to the other. To assume that the cause of adultery is the only legitimate reason for divorce is ludicrous. That is because continuing alcoholism, drug addiction, physical abuse or emotional abuse, etc. are violations of the way that God treats His covenant people.

Divorce is a second chance at honoring God in a better situation. Our God is the God of many "second chances". If that were not so, none of us would live past our "terrible twos" years (joke) . There can be no godliiness coming from any sort of abuse, or from any sort of addiction. Ask the adult survivors of abuse, and they will tell you of the plenitude of ungodliness and cover-ups in their dysfunctional home. is it not an act of mercy to those helpless and innocent children to have protection and safety by having one parent leave?

God hates child abuse. Jesus said

Matthew 18: 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

​

Without doubt anyone who has seen any sort of child abuse first hand knows the vile nature of this sin. I have seen it as well as experienced it. And to keep the innocents in a sort of living hell like that is to perpetuate that same abuse on the child by making the spouses stay together. That is my reasons for believing as I do, and I believe that it is scripturally and logically sound.

Now you know my reasons for believing as I do. As I said in the beginning, I will not fight you on this issue if you believe differently, and want to take the issue further than here. You made your point, I responded with my point and with supporting Scripture. Case closed.

 

[President]

I am NOT about to fight with you. But I will explain my views,and explain why I believe your views are both short sighted and non-Scriptural.

If your not wanting to 'fight' you could try starting out with a more neutral tone. I don't mind a debate or intense discussion. I don't care for discussions with hurt feelings and animosity. Disagreeing with an idea doesn't have to be the same thing as attacking a person.

When it comes to marriage, there is a three-way covenant involving man, woman and God. It is not a matter of "magic words", ot a place where the marriage is done. It is a solemn promise, invoking the blessing of God to do things the way that God wants them to be done.

I think we are in agreement that marriage is not a matter of 'magic words.' I wrote that marriage is not based on the wedding vows. I did not say marriage was not a covenant. The scriptures use that term to describe marriage.

Not all covenants involve a ceremony of stating vows. The people of Israel did verbally agree to keep the law when they stood before Moses. But Abraham had a covenant with God that involved cutting animal pieces apart, and however it occurred when Abraham was asleep, whether in his dream or otherwise, the smoking pot and the torch went through the parts of the animal. Many commentators point out that Abraham did not go through the parts of the cut up animal, and that God made both the smoking pot and the torch walk through, as though God were taking up both sides of the covenant with Abraham on Himself, as a picture of salvation.

Covenants may involve the shedding of blood or tearing of flesh. Adam's side was torn open. The 'rules' for marriage were established at the beginning. Whoever marries takes upon himself a set of obligations that already exist. One can put oneself under extra obligations with a vow. Breaking that extra vow isn't grounds for divorce. If one does not mention an obligation of marriage in their wedding vows that is incumbent on anyone who marries, he is still obligated to fulfill it. For example, if wedding vows do not say 'forsaking all others' the bride isn't allowed to sleep with a boyfriend on the side. If the vows say nothing of adultery, it is still wrong for the couple to agree to an 'open marriage' and to commit mutually consentual adultery.

So when Jesus says in

Matthew 7:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so

​

He is saying in effect "Moses permitted it because you are all sinners". Thus SIN IS AT THE HEART OF ANY DIVORCE. More important, it was a protection of marriage that permitted any injured party to divorce a stubborn sinner set in his/her ways, and will neither repent, nor stop causing harm to the other. To assume that the cause of adultery is the only legitimate reason for divorce is ludicrous.

The words of Christ are 'except it be for fornication.' Not adultery. Fornication, that is porneia, could be interpreted in a much broader or much narrower sense than adultery.

My question to you is, do you think that Christ was being ludicrous with His statement?

<sup class="versenum">9 </sup>And I say unto you, 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.

That is because continuing alcoholism, drug addiction, physical abuse or emotional abuse, etc. are violations of the way that God treats His covenant people.

Christ's words do not list drunkeness, violence, etc. as exceptions.

Of course the issue is divorce and remarriage here that, if done wrongly, is adultery, not just divorce. Really, those are two different issues. Divorcing for one of these other reasons is not adultery. Divorce is not adultery. Divorcing for other reasons and marrying against is what is called adultery.

Compare to I Corinthians 7
<sup class="versenum">10 </sup>And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
<sup class="versenum">11 </sup>But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Using strong language to describe opposing opinions does not change Christ's words.

Christ's own apostle's found Christ's interpretation a bit shocking:

Matthew 19:10 <sup class="versenum"></sup>
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

He was calling them to a higher standard than Moses, or what was understood to be Moses' standard. It is believed that Moses wrote Genesis as well.

Divorce is a second chance at honoring God in a better situation. Our God is the God of many "second chances". If that were not so, none of us would live past our "terrible twos" years (joke) . There can be no godliiness coming from any sort of abuse, or from any sort of addiction.

I don't know about 'godliness' coming from it. I do know that Christ was abused and glorified God through it. Peter was abused and glorified God by his death. Numerous martyrs were abused at their deaths, thrown to lions, beheaded, crucified, and killed in other ways and glorified God. The Christian servant who is beaten for righteousness sake in II Peter 2 and bears up under it is commendable before God. Even if a Christian counselor or a pastor might advise someone in an abusive situation to get out for safety's sake, it would be presumptuous to tell someone who has endured an abusive situation out of a conscience to obey scripture that their suffering had not glorified God. I wouldn't want to tell a person in this situation that. That's up to God to decide.

Of course abuse is bad. I'm anti abuse along with every sane person in the world. David was supposed to submit to Saul, but there were some extenuating circumstances. Saul was trying to kill David. He fled to save his life. I believe David would have reconciled, as he did once before, if he were convinced that Saul would not try to harm him again.

Ask the adult survivors of abuse, and they will tell you of the plenitude of ungodliness and cover-ups in their dysfunctional home. is it not an act of mercy to those helpless and innocent children to have protection and safety by having one parent leave?

You can see my David and Saul story above. But divorce is a pretty big deal. God hates divorce, but it is rampant in our culture. There are plenty of church leaders now who aren't anti-divorce when the rubber meets the road, and there is a lot of tolerance for frivolous divorce even in churches and among church leaders. I don't believe in advocating divorce for something like a one-off case of 'emotional abuse' or 'verbal abuse.' I suppose you could label any serious quarrel as 'abusive' in some respect.

And since marriage is important to God, we should be careful not to have a twitchy trigger finger when it comes to labeling people as abusive or advocating divorce.

God hates child abuse. Jesus said

Matthew 18: 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.​

​

'Offend' has to do with causing someone to stumble into sin. I suppose one could do that by provoking another through abuse, for example. One could also do this by tempting a 'little one' to divorce when they should not, or eat meat offered to idols, or by inviting someone to the nudey bar.

Without doubt anyone who has seen any sort of child abuse first hand knows the vile nature of this sin. I have seen it as well as experienced it. And to keep the innocents in a sort of living hell like that is to perpetuate that same abuse on the child by making the spouses stay together. That is my reasons for believing as I do, and I believe that it is scripturally and logically sound.

I think everyone on here will agree that child abuse is a vile thing, but that is not really on the topic if whether the marriage consists of the words spoken before the congregation during the marriage ceremony. It's not really the same topic as our previous discussion of whether someone should divorce a spouse who makes wise cracks about them in front of relatives and argues over money.

Now you know my reasons for believing as I do. As I said in the beginning, I will not fight you on this issue if you believe differently, and want to take the issue further than here. You made your point, I responded with my point and with supporting Scripture. Case closed.

Well, thank you then for letting me have the last word on this. That is very big of you.

 

[By Grace]

If your not wanting to 'fight' you could try starting out with a more neutral tone. I don't mind a debate or intense discussion. I don't care for discussions with hurt feelings and animosity. Disagreeing with an idea doesn't have to be the same thing as attacking a person

< SNIP >

Well, thank you then for letting me have the last word on this. That is very big of you.

How should I reply to you? You tell me.

I state clearly that I was going to engage in nastiness, and you state that I am somehow fighting because you believe that I should be more "neutral tone" . Then you end with gratuitous drive by insults. Please explain why I should not take the opening and snarky closing of your post as an exhibition of hostility.

Then you post:

I don't mind a debate or intense discussion. I don't care for discussions with hurt feelings and animosity. Disagreeing with an idea doesn't have to be the same thing as attacking a person.

But in posting as you did, you seem to be hostile towards to me, and you are violating the tenor of your statement above. It just does not make sense to me

What really is your objective in posting as you did?

 

[Mike]

At the very least, this needs to settle down. This is not an issue that should divide us or cause such tension among other more viable things.