So I wasn't sure if this should go in Culture or Theology or General Discussion. I suppose it sort of fits in all three...

What I was just thinking about in regard to the topic of marriage in general is how important is the actual ceremony? Thinking in terms of real-world marriage here, although what you decide about it would be helpful in deciding what to do in story worlds.

So as for an actual ceremony, there doesn't seem to be any Biblical guidance for what exactly must be done for a couple to become married. About the closest we get is 'a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.'

So is it purely cultural? Do you need a preacher? To be married in God's eyes, what is the most basic thing that must happen? I would say that obviously both people have to agree to it, and also make binding promises before God and each other.

Since marriage ceremony varies so much from culture to culture, then, I have to wonder, do you absolutely need to stick to your own culture's way of doing it (i.e. be 'legally' married) in order to be married in God's eyes?

I think the most basic thing that must happen is for the two partners to become married before God, and in the sight of witnesses (both of which I believe have biblical grounds.) So for story-worlds, I think that's the most basic thing.

About whether or not you have to stick to the culture's way of doing it, I would say you don't, but unless the culture's ceremony is unbiblical, I would think that you're just setting up a stumbling-block by not doing it traditionally and that it would be unwise at best.

Where's the support for the requirement of witnesses?

Exactly, that was my thought.

If we're going to review whether or not a culture's wedding is unbiblical, then that includes the kind of wedding ceremonies we have almost every day, as almost each aspect (from the flowers to the veil to the bridesmaids, etc.) has a pagan significance and was included for certain reasons. Does that mean then, that we should stop doing wedding ceremonies that way? Does doing them just because it's a modern world and meanings and rituals may have changed justify the fact that we could continue doing them?

No and no.

That brings up something else I thought of after posting this. If the basic requirement for marriage is to make promises to each other before God, then how can unbelievers be married?

Well, as a first disclaimer, I don't believe the Bible teaches the requirement of witnesses explicitly, but that I believe you can find biblical grounds for why you ought to have such a basic thing as part of marriage. Throughout the Old Testament, the fathers are portrayed as being the guardians of their daughters, and so you would need their consent to get married, which would be a witness of their marriage. So that's where I'm primarily drawing that from.

If she's not an adult, sure. But if she is an adult, that would depend on your culture...their culture back then was patriarchal and now it is not. Can we truly say that the patriarchal system is how it should be just because it's the main cultural family system found in Bible times?

Ultimately, to get married or not is up to the two adults getting married. Parents can give their opinion and support, or not, but their blessing isn't explicitly required.

I'm pretty sure both Rachel and Leah were adults, given that Jacob fell in love with Rachel and then worked another 7 years before marrying her. And the laws of Deuteronomy concerning marriage don't seem to give an age for when the father no longer can exercise these rights over her...

Regardless, stepping back to look at the purpose of this thread, I think in marriage ceremonies in our worlds, they should be done in the presence of several witnesses regardless of whether or not the Bible directly or indirectly commands it. Given that it would be foolish to marry without witnesses in this world, except in extreme situations, I think given the power books have to shape culture, it would be best to promote, rather than to ignore, that important part of a marriage ceremony.

One thing I'd like to mention is that a lot of times when a promise or covenant is made, there are witnesses as a matter of course--for accountability reasons. Something about telling/showing others what you do helps make it more real, more permanent. Also, baptism is a symbolic activity meant to show witnesses that you have given yourself to Christ. I think having witnesses is important and wise, though maybe not required.

Doesn't change that it was a cultural thing. The same goes for Paul's instruction that women aren't supposed to speak in the church. It was already frowned upon in the culture so to avoid being considered bad people, they would have to keep quiet. But that's not how things are right now.

The same goes for the age at which a daughter is no longer subject to her father's authority (as in, she can do something he disagrees with, as long as it is not a sin, and it would not be considered rebellion.) I think the very reason the Bible does not specify an age is the same reason it doesn't specify what types of clothing pertain to women and which ones pertain to men. It changes with culture.

So in a different culture, witnesses may not be needed. In some Native American cultures, the man took his fiancee into the wilderness for a certain amount of time, and when they returned, they were considered man and wife. What you're saying is that in our current society, witnesses are pretty much a must. And that's true. But I'm talking outside of that structure.

Fair enough.

I do still think though, that given we're writing to this culture, with a movement against traditional marriage ceremonies, our books ought to be upholding the important parts of them by example, rather than providing different examples.

I would agree as long as your story is set in this culture or a comparable one.

However, in a post-apocalyptic world, there may be nobody else around as witness. In a fantasy world you may want to create your own original ceremony, so there should be a definite basic idea for what needs to be accomplished, and anything beyond that should be open to creativity.

So if we factor in unbelievers, what is the basic essential piece of a marriage ceremony? Making vows under God is out...

Marriage is a commitment. It is saying that both man and woman will stick with each other, even when the emotions fade. Christians would say that before God and men. Non-believers would say that before men, or merely one another. Then again, some people don't have commitment at all...

It seems like that would work similarly, since people would (I assume) know why they left...and would be aware of the commitment being made.

I believe that a marriage, in its most basic sense, is a promise that two people make to each other -- a covenant. A very important covenant.

So really, witnesses come in because witnesses are necessary things generally speaking for an important covenant, or else no one can prove that it actually happened, that one of them did not lie and say that the other consented to the covenant, and so on. They have witnesses for wills, for treaties, all the really important stuff, and considering that marrying someone is a really important promise, you would have to have witnesses, so that if someone challenges the validity, or claims that one of the two are breaking the covenant, they have proof that the covenant exists. (Oh, and when it comes to the number of witnesses to adequately prove the marriage, I would say the more the better (to a point of course 0.0), but with a minimum of two, based off of the minimum for condemning someone to death.)

As for anything else that generally pertains to marriage -- rituals, customs, and so on -- in my opinion it is purely symbolic or habitual. You would still be married without any of it, just as you would still be saved even if you could never get baptized (like the thief on the cross).

When it comes to legality, and whether a marriage is a marriage even if they don't go through all the hoops that the state says are mandatory, again, I look at it like a covenant -- a contract -- an agreement. The government wants the records for all that stuff, because otherwise they can't enforce a contract when someone tries to break it. But it would still be a marriage, even if you deny the government that information and they won't respect what you have as proof. It would just be really difficult to survive in our highly governmentalized world. * bleak face *

There isn't much detail in that statement, but I would say that if they promised to marry each other at some point, then that would be a marriage, and if they had witnesses that they promised, then that would be a provable marriage. They had better promise before they go out into wilderness together, though, because otherwise I would assume that they would be living like they were married while they were out there and that would be fornication.

When it comes to whether you can have a marriage without parental consent, it, again, falls under the category of whether you can make a contract without parental consent.

Numbers 30: 3 - 5
3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth;
4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

So...basically you would have to decide what is meant by 'youth' here. But regardless, you couldn't get married without your father's consent if you are seven years old.

(Just as a proposition on the definition of 'youth', the Hebrew word means basically just that: 'properly, passive participle from 5288 as denominative; (only in plural collectively or emphatic form) youth, the state (juvenility) or the persons (young people): -- childhood, youth.' And as time and time again the Bible mentions all men, able to bear arms, and then defines that as 'twenty years old and upward', I would propose that when you turn twenty you are a man or woman rather than a youth.) (I am not proposing that when you turn twenty you should stop listening to your parents. 0.0)

When it comes to portraying it in your writing, I like to sometimes strip it really bare -- throw off all the finery that usually attends it. I like to point out that a marriage is a promise. Nothing more, nothing less. I generally do this by having my characters get married in less than romantic circumstances sometimes...poor things ...like while in hiding from a murderous and vengeful creed.

^I like this reply. As for the Native Americans, they weren't 'officially' married until they returned from the wilderness.

Great reply, Juliet.

Good thoughts, Juliet.

* is pleased to have contributed something *

The way I see marriage is when to people become one in the eyes of God. So basically I don't believe rituals are even really necessary not saying their bad but I believe that just because two people are made husband and wife in the eyes of man does not mean they are actually married true marriage happens when two people are made ONE in the eyes of GOD, But thats just me.

What about the role of the church in marriage?

Well, if you look at definitions, marriage is "the state of being a couple voluntarily joined for life". It's also a "close and intimate union." So strictly by the definitions of marriage, it's when two people voluntarily choose to be joined in an intimate union for life.

Since I do believe non-Christians can be genuinely married, I don't think the involvement of a church is necessary at all. And I don't think that you can define it as being joined before God, either, because non-Christians aren't...

I think you can impose extra meaning on Christian marriage, and define it differently if you want, but that's not what being married is at a basic level. I'm thinking of a post-apocalyptic situation where two people want to be married. There is no government, there are no witnesses, there is no church, it's just those two. What would they have do to be married? If they were not Christians? The answer to that question is the answer to what the act of becoming married is at a very basic level.

However, regardless of whether two people are Christians, marriage (even theirs) is still an institution of God, meant to resemble the relationship between Christ and His bride. There are deeply spiritual issues, that I believe are present even between non-believers. There is no indication in the Bible that God looks upon marrage between non-Christians as somehow less than Christian.

I agree. But they wouldn't do it specifically "before God" if they were not Christians, and I'm talking about the customs and the ceremony.

Ah, I see. I was understanding "before God" to mean "in God's eyes", not..."we recognize God in what we're doing here". That makes sense.

But I was meaning in God's eyes when I said that. Weather they believe in God a pantheon or don't believe in anything. God sees all his children and recognizes our oaths and unions even if we do not believe in him. So I restate my definition. Marriage is the act of becoming ONE in the eyes of GOD.

I see what you mean. Unbelievers wouldn't, however.