We don’t need any contracts to tell who is responsible for what. A woman is to submit to her man. That’s it. There are no other requirements.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Are marriage vows Biblical?
- Thread starter Joleneakamama
- Start date
I think we do. In keeping with the pattern of the wedding God and his Bride made a wedding contract or Katuba which is the Bible. He laid out what he would do for us and what we would do for him. If God felt like he needed to make a Katuba with his bride its probably safe to say we need to do the same.
I hope you single ladies are taking notes here... if it comes down to a toss up between Zec and I, I believe there is second requirement... a husband is required to love his wife. Just thought I’d throw that out there
That is a giant stretch. There is barely even an implication of a covenant surrounding marriage in scripture let alone a contract. The idea of the Bible as a ketubah is interesting but not in the Bible itself. Ultimately you see a woman, you take a woman, she submits. Voila, biblical marriage! Don’t over spiritualize it.
Coming from just about anyone else I would assume nefarious motives behind this statement but since it is you I will point that we are talking about the formation of a marriage not the conductment and that command would not be in an agreement because that would mean a woman could waive the right. Husbands are commanded to live their wives as Christ loved the church. That has nothing to do with ketubahs or contracts.I hope you single ladies are taking notes here... if it comes down to a toss up between Zec and I, I believe there is second requirement... a husband is required to love his wife. Just thought I’d throw that out there
In my defense, I would like to point out that I was simply making a joke
What is that supposed to mean?
Its not giant at all. I'll show you in old testament becuse it is all together at Mt Sinai.
God states terms of Contract/Katuba
Exodous 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him.
People/ Bride Agrees
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.
Step 3 is washing in the Mikveh
10 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes,
Groom shows up to get wife after preparing for her. In this case 3 days. In Jesus' pattern with the Church we are on the third day. "A day with the Lord is as a thousand years" Jesus comes back for the Church with a shout and a trump. This is all wedding imagery.
19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.
I could keep on going but I think you get the point. I would encourage anyone to study out the Hebrew Wedding. It will help you understand why Jesus said things like I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. He said that because it is what a man would say to his bride before he left to prepare the house for her arrival. Or why Joseph and Mary were married but hadn't consummated there marriage. They had signed the contract which is stage one wedding. Joseph would have been working on their future home when the Census came. That is why he could have divorced her. They were married.
The Church is married to Christ. We have agreed to the Katubah and are now waiting on him to return for us to take us to his Father's House.
Another cool thing. Jesus says no one knows the day or the hour save the father. Not even Jesus knows. Why is that? Its the wedding. The father told the son when the house was ready and it was time for him to go get his bride.
Last edited:
I don't. I mean, I don't think I've read of anyhuman in the scriptures ever taking a marital vow, so there's not much to argue from.
Hrm... I see the logic, but my perspective is different. I'm a lazy and procrastinating soul that also hates being seen as wrong (or inconsistent or a liar). So whenever I fear I may be in danger of cheesing out of something that I still think I should do, I tend to publicly commit to it with maybe a little bit of dramatic flair. That way I can use it a dynamite to break me from my couch.
Jesus is refining me to be sure, but I'm still a tangle of moral failings, and solemn promises are one of my tools that I occasionally employ to adjust for them. I could see tacking on "If God wills" to the end of every promise, like we're supposed to do with all of our plans for the future. (Just so long as I'm not tempted to use that as and excuse to cheese out by saying 'guess the Lord didn't will, haw haw')
It's interesting to read an old thread....and shocking sometimes to see how many years have passed!
I understand lazy and procrastinating @Slumberfreeze! I was just thinking today that I need to share my next "defluffing goal" with the ladies here, and ask any willing to remind me to share my progress on my goal date.
"Lord willing" and us being subject to that will is a very good thing to keep in mind.
On the marital vows subject I still see problems with open ended commitments. I think a ceremony to make public ones intent to marry, and to state a desire to live "by the book" might be better then a bunch of flowery sounding vows. I really believe that love is more important then the rules in the book, but the rules are far better then letting ANY man or woman decide what love is, or redefine it.
It was a husbands authority to disallow a vow that kept me here....where I am happiest and where I really wanted to be anyway.
I appreciate the instruction manual!
I understand lazy and procrastinating @Slumberfreeze! I was just thinking today that I need to share my next "defluffing goal" with the ladies here, and ask any willing to remind me to share my progress on my goal date.
"Lord willing" and us being subject to that will is a very good thing to keep in mind.
On the marital vows subject I still see problems with open ended commitments. I think a ceremony to make public ones intent to marry, and to state a desire to live "by the book" might be better then a bunch of flowery sounding vows. I really believe that love is more important then the rules in the book, but the rules are far better then letting ANY man or woman decide what love is, or redefine it.
It was a husbands authority to disallow a vow that kept me here....where I am happiest and where I really wanted to be anyway.
I appreciate the instruction manual!
lol I didn't even realize this thread was so old...
I think he means that you are you.
Oldie but goodie!
These old threads come up and I am all like "I remember that guy!"
Looking back over this, @Asforme&myhouse, I believe you are the one who conflated this conversation all on your own, and I would also continue to assert that you aren't recognizing the semantic and definitional differences between 'marriage vows' and 'swearing oaths'. You started off by stating,
. . . introducing your questioning of marriage vows being scriptural . . . then quoted this passage:
. . . then quoted a Gospel passage about swearing oaths.
Swearing oaths is something that is usually done in a legal context in which God is invoked to further solidify the import of avoiding bearing false witness. In a courtroom, to swear an oath is to swear allegiance to the law, the truth and to God. Marriage vows are public statements made for public consumption among one's peers (family, friends). I agree with you, @Asforme&myhouse, that marriage vows are not scriptural, but I don't see the context Matthew 5:33-37 to definitively indicate that the oaths being discussed in that section of the Sermon on the Mount to be wedding vows. The preceding verses discuss treacherous divorce, and the subsequent verses discuss turning the other cheek; how would marriage vows bridge the gap between divorce and turning the other cheek? To the extent that either would relate, it would seem that Christ could have been introducing the solemnity of oaths relating to marriage by mentioning the dire consequences of treacherously ending a marriage, but, again, that would only reinforce the importance of keeping marital promises rather than being a proof for refraining from making oaths or covenants. The point has been made by many here that covenants should be kept to a minimum but to include covering of the wife on the part of the husband and sexual fidelity to the husband on the part of the wife.
All I was attempting to assert in my earlier post was that I see no scriptural basis for swearing allegiance or announcing covenants before either State or Church, because I see them as having no authority over our relationships. Please don't conflate 'Church' with 'God.' Covenants made with or before God can be done so privately, just as we are exhorted to do with our prayer life. Again, as others have already effectively articulated, Scripture does not indicate that these vows are to be licensed or regulated by the State or the Church. Nor is there any requirement that vows must be publicly announced. Such practices seek to acquire approval from the world rather than approval from our Father.
Matthew 5:33-37 NASB
[33] "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.' [34] But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, [35] or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the CITY OF THE GREAT KING. [36] Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. [37] But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.
Leviticus 19:12 NASB
[12] You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
Context there is making false vows... the religious class at the time were twisting and shoehorning the commandment from Lev. 19:12 that as long as they aren’t swearing by the name of the Lord they weren’t sinning in making false vows. He is specifically challenging there legalistic interpretation and the fact that they were twisting the scriptures to allow for their own sin. It’s not a blanket prohibition against making vows. It’s a prohibition against making false vows.
That being said I do believe we need to be uber careful about making vows especially as men because God takes them very seriously and we will be held accountable for them.
My understanding is that passage comes across much more clearly in the original Hebrew because the word “false” is specifically found in verse 34 but that wasn’t carried forward into the Greek. Either way the context of it being about “false vows” is set in verse 33 as well as in the balance of scripture. @Kevin might have some additional resources about this.
Sorry but you're redefining oath, and that's not what you're swearing to in court.
Swear and vow are verbs, oath is the object of that verb. They're talking about the same thing.
That I knew you were not being sarcastic even though I was misreading your post ad sarcastic so I was going to treat it seriously (as I obviously missed the joke) but wanted to reserve the ability to come back and roll in the mud if my first incorrect assumption turned out to be correct even though never roll that way.
Got it! Lol
All of that is very interesting and even well thought out EXCEPT that you’re taking an interesting idea and trying to pull a spiritual imperative out of it. There is no talk of contracts or ketubahs connected to marriage in the Bible which also contains nothing about itself being a ketubah or contract. Marriage is literally bondage. The wife bound to the husband the way the church is bound to Christ. The church doesn’t negotiate with Christ. It obeys Him. When we come to Christ we surrender are all to Him. We don’t wave our marriage contract in His face and asset our rights. You find me a marriage contract or ketubah proscribed in scripture as being a necessary part of even an important part of forming a marriage and you will have single handedly changed my entire faith on a fundamental level. You won’t because such a thing doesn’t exist and is actually antithetical to what Biblical marriage is but it will keep you busy for a while looking.
There are Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew as old and older than the Greek copies of Matthews Gospel (which Eusibus quotes Papias speaking about when they received Matthews writings in Hebrew that they did their best to translate it) that say false vow.
Integrity is important. Without it, testimonies are worthless. God keeps His promises because He has integrity. I think most will like the Greek translation because it gives them liscence to say they're not bound to any vow they made.
Last edited: