Link sings this unchained melody,
I was responding to a post that said that marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman. I do not see this concept in scripture, per se. I suppose one could argue it from the 'one flesh' passage, but that does not say anything about making vows before a congregation. This is a western cultural concept-- that has been exported to other cultures through western cultural expressions of Christianity.
Marriage is a covenant relationship. Malachi 2:14 states:
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Jehovah hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, though she is thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
God even looked at the Old Covenant as a marriage contract between Himself and Israel. Through the prophet Jeremiah, He tells Israel, "
I am married to you" (Jer 3:14, KJV, ASV uses
husband, etc.). Moreover, in Ezekiel 16:8, the prophet Ezekiel, connects the Old Covenant with marriage, saying:
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord Jehovah, and thou becamest mine.
However, even the NT uses the covenant language/illustration(s) of
Marriage. Look at Matthew 26:27-28:
And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
Hebrew tradition states that when a young man and woman were to be betrothed for marriage, the groom poured wine into his cup and invited the woman to drink of it (
sheva brachos, you may also look up the terms;
shidduch, vort, ketuvah, bedekin, chuppah, and the kiddushin). The choice was hers: If she drank from it, she was considered betrothed to the young man. She was agreeing to experience all the things that his life entailed. When the woman drank of the cup, she drank of the marriage covenant and accepted it. Above we see the husband and His bride (the church) in covenant communion.
Paul refers to this when he tells the church in 2 Corinthians 11:2, saying “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.” Indeed, the church is the bride of Christ (Rev. 19:7-8; 21:2, 9), which carries on the covenant similarity with the OC. We could go further and trace the covenant from the Old to the New and reveal the whole story of redemption beginning with God’s eternal plan (
The Covenant of Redemption) and ending with the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8), but time or space does not permit…... However, the proof is overwhelming in both the Old and New Testaments that marriage is a covenant relationship. I find it very interesting that the Bible opens and closes with scenes of marriage.
As far as taking vows before a congregation I see Adam and Eve taking them before the whole world! Was the Garden part the western cultural concept? Even the Jews take a vow. The groom, takes a plain gold ring and places it on the finger of the bride, and recites in the presence of two witnesses, "Behold you are sanctified (betrothed) to me with this ring, according to the Law of Moses and Israel" (
kiddushin). At the reception, the first thing usually done is the completion, signing and witnessing of the
ketuvah, or marriage contract. This contract is ordained by Mishnaic law (circa 170 CE) and according to some authorities dates back to Biblical times. The
ketuvah, written in Aramaic, details the husband's obligations to his wife: food, clothing, dwelling and pleasure. It also creates a lien on all his property to pay her a sum of money and support should he divorce her, or predecease her. The document is signed by the groom and witnessed by two people, and has the standing of a legally binding agreement, that in many countries is enforceable by secular law. (OhrSomayach.edu)
Link stated,
Some would interpret I Corinthians 7 to refer to fathers or heads of households arranging marriages for their daughters. Take a look at the footnotes of an NIV. One interpretation is that the man who gives his virgin in marriage is the father giving his daughter in marriage. I suppose the other interpretation would be that a man promised a woman in an arranged marriage could choose not to marry her.
Other than this, the New Testament does nto go into great detail into how marriages are to be arranged. Aside from a possible intepretation of I Cor. 7, it does not specify that fathers arrange marriages for their daughters (though that must have been practiced by many Christians living when the NT scriptures were written.)
It may do you some good to study Jewish history? In it you will discover the discussion of
shidduch.. Here is a quote that may help;
The very first stage of a traditional Jewish marriage, is the shidduch, or matchmaking. This means that the process of finding a partner is not haphazard or based on purely external aspects. Rather, a close friend or relative of the young man or woman, who knows someone that they feel may be a compatible partner, suggests that they meet. The purpose of the meeting is for the prospective bride and groom to determine if they are indeed compatible. The meetings usually focus on discussion of issues important to marriage as well as casual conversation. The Talmud states that the couple must also be physically attractive to each other, something that can only be determined by meeting. According to Jewish law physical contact is not allowed between a man and a woman until they are married (except for certain close relatives), and also they may not be alone together in a closed room or secluded area. This helps to ensure that one's choice of partner will be based on the intellect and emotion as opposed to physical desire alone.
Thus, this is
not an arranged marriage….
While there may be many things within
a marriage ceremony that we may not embrace today as Christians, it is important to note the following phrase which if used correctly can be of great benefit; “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.
