Marrying Cohabitating Couple?

Nowhere in Scripture or the WCF (no mention in ch.24, for example) are vows an essential part of marriage - vows are voluntary (see WCF 22.6), so they can (and probably should) be a part of a marriage arrangement, but they are not required.
This is an interesting point and one I haven't thought through fully. I have considered vows an essential part of marriage. I wouldn't be impressed if a couple got married without any vows and wouldn't have much hope that the marriage would last. The last wedding I attended the bride and groom exchanged wishy-washy platitudes with no mention of a life-long commitment (no "till death do us part") which I thought very unsatisfactory.

Boaz made a undertaking before witnesses when he took Ruth to be his wife. Which is at least has similarities with vows. Perhaps in Biblical marriages it was so clear what marriage involved (one flesh, God joining together etc) that vows may not have been necessary, but unfotunately this is not the case in today's culture, at least in the West.
 
This is an interesting point and one I haven't thought through fully. I have considered vows an essential part of marriage. I wouldn't be impressed if a couple got married without any vows and wouldn't have much hope that the marriage would last. The last wedding I attended the bride and groom exchanged wishy-washy platitudes with no mention of a life-long commitment (no "till death do us part") which I thought very unsatisfactory.

Boaz made a undertaking before witnesses when he took Ruth to be his wife. Which is at least has similarities with vows. Perhaps in Biblical marriages it was so clear what marriage involved (one flesh, God joining together etc) that vows may not have been necessary, but unfotunately this is not the case in today's culture, at least in the West.
I still prefer the simplicity of the DPW pattern for solemnizing a marriage. It mentions (and requires) witnesses separate from "vows," though it does not use the term "vows," using instead the terms "contract," "promise," and "covenant":

"the minister... shall cause first the man to take the woman by the right hand, saying these words:

"I N. do take thee N. to be my married wife, and do, in the presence of God, and before this congregation, promise and covenant to be a loving and faithful husband unto thee, until God shall separate us by death.

"Then the woman shall take the man by the right hand, and say these words:

"I N. do take thee N. to be my married husband, and I do, in the presence of God, and before this congregation, promise and covenant to be a loving, faithful, and obedient wife unto thee, until God shall separate us by death.

"Then, without any further ceremony, the minister shall, in the face of the congregation, pronounce them to be husband and wife, according to God’s ordinance; and so conclude the action with prayer to this effect:"

I find this section of the DPW filled with very wise instruction regarding the process of courtship and marriage, especially its brevity (in the DPW itself, the process, and the ceremony). It's always worth reading anytime the topic of marriage arises. Again, it is in the context of a marriage within the Church, and within the context of the Westminster Standards which very narrowly (Biblically) defines what it means to vow: A vow is "not to be made to any creature, but to God alone." (WCF 22.6) I think it is fair to say that, if one is a full or strict subscriptionist to the Westminster Standards, they should not be taking vows to another person, even when marrying - we can make promises and covenants with other people, but not vows. I am curious when "taking vows" became a thing at weddings.
 
Do you mean unconfessional or extraconfessional? The WCF recognizes the three-fold division of the law in Ch.19: "Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws....(.3) To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws....(.4).


So in your view everything in the Hebrew Scriptures outside Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 is civil or ceremonial?


I find this statement (emphasis added) is extraconfessional - the Westminster Standards simply states that "The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments" (WLC 98). IT does not say "fully." I agree that the 10 Commandments fully summarize the moral law, but doesn't a summary suggest there are more details? For example, WCF 19.1-2 states that the moral law predates the 10 Commandments: "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works....This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments." And then it states that "The moral law doth forever bind all... also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works... yet is it of great use to them... as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty....The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof (WCF 19.5-6, emphasis added).

Scripture is clear that the Fifth Commandment is "the first commandment with promise" (Ephesians 6.2, emphasis added) - so what are the other commandments that contain promises? Consider the proof text used for the underlined portion of 19.6 above - it does not refer to Exodus or Deuteronomy but to Leviticus 26. Isn't everything in the Hebrew Scriptures a reference, explanation, or example of either the moral, ceremonial, or judicial law? The moral law portions are not restricted simply to the 10 Commandments - you can find all aspects of the moral law just in the first 4 chapters of Genesis. Yes, the 10 Commandments fully summarize the moral law, but Paul is clear in Romans 1 that the moral law exists and is knowable apart from knowledge of the exact wording of the 10 Commandments contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Even the existence of these 2 distinct versions of the 10 Commandments seems to point to the fact that these 10 "words" are summaries, with neither being a "full" account of the moral law, but rather, as the Confession states, a summary, with examples and further instruction given throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, which is why the WLC in expounding the duties required in the commandments lists text after text after text referring to places in the Hebrew Scriptures where the commandment is further fleshed out. The moral law is "the declaration of the will of God to mankind" (WLC 93) and that declaration is not limited to the Ten Words however a complete summary they may be.

I admit that determining whether a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures is referring to the moral, judicial, or ceremonial law is extraconfessional. I also admit that Numbers 30 could be considered judicial since the passage begins "Then Moses spake unto the children of Israel according to all that the Lord had commanded him. Moses also spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded" (vv.1-2), and thus is perhaps more likely required under the "general equity" clause. But it seems as though it could also be considered an application of the Fifth Commandment, or even the created family order, the moral law predating its summary in the Decalogue.
I mean that to call laws that are not the decalogue "moral law" denies the confessional categorical distinctions. Every just or equitable law has moral quality, regardless of the source; that is not the issue. If Num.30 is identified as moral per se, then it surely is binding "as is." However, such regard puts us on us the weight of parsing the entire Israelite legislation. We may not in fact do this, but must become debtor to the whole if we attempt.

As for the word "fully," the single term "summarily" should suffice to include "fully," but I specified that aspect besides. That you or someone should revise "summarily" to truncate it, only shows it is become necessary to explicate what ordinarily is assumed. Summarily means in context to sum up, as e.g. all the numbers in a list. It does not mean "generalize/summarize" with a good deal left out. There are no other laws that comprise THE moral law, improving the sum.
 
Re your car analogy - if I have an untaxed car (UK equivalent) I can drive it on private property but not on public roads. This fits with my hypothetical marriage situation - I would be able to enjoy the domestic benefits of marriage, but not the legal privileges of marriage (tax and pension benefits for instance).

Re your point about the Lord's supper I share your concerns - and do belong to a church which still uses communion tokens. I'm not advocating people do get married without registering the marriage - it would be problematic in several ways - it was a hypothetical point mainly.

I'm not advocating ecclesiastical marriages that aren't registered with civil authorities, but due to the gay marriage fight, there are people in very conservative circles here in the United States who are saying that ministers shouldn't act as state authorities in conducting marriages and that churches should marry our own people according to our own standards and ignore the civil government.

That is not my view.
 
I'm not advocating ecclesiastical marriages that aren't registered with civil authorities, but due to the gay marriage fight, there are people in very conservative circles here in the United States who are saying that ministers shouldn't act as state authorities in conducting marriages and that churches should marry our own people according to our own standards and ignore the civil government.

That is not my view.
That would have its own host of difficulties. One reason marriage is regulated by the state is because it has a lot of legal ramifications: end-of-life issues, inheritance, parental responsibilities; it's not just taxes or government benefits. It entails a lot more than the church could or should bother to do, since their mission is to minister the Gospel. Its public nature means it has to be regulated by a publicly recognized authority. If every denomination had the authority to marry within their ranks, we'd end up with cultish multiple marriages like the Mormons espouse, or child brides like some cultures do--the answer is not to take it out of the State's hands.
 
Nowhere in Scripture or the WCF (no mention in ch.24, for example) are vows an essential part of marriage - vows are voluntary (see WCF 22.6), so they can (and probably should) be a part of a marriage arrangement, but they are not required. Note, too, that the WCF appears to give equal power to the Church or civil magistrate is dissolving a marriage: "nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage." (24.6, emphasis added)

I have considered vows an essential part of marriage.

Vows are voluntary, but in the WCF's terminology they are made directly to God. I think in the marriage scenario the relevant sections of the confession are actually about "oaths" which are promises (or assertions) made in God's presence calling him to be witness and judge (22.1-4).
 
Vows are voluntary, but in the WCF's terminology they are made directly to God. I think in the marriage scenario the relevant sections of the confession are actually about "oaths" which are promises (or assertions) made in God's presence calling him to be witness and judge (22.1-4).
Agreed. I believe it could be fitting to make a vow to God in part of the public marriage ceremony but while people call them "marriage vows" they don't actually say "Do you vow." Rather they say "Do you promise" which is the language of the WDPW and the WCF: "A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath" (22.5). In the WCF oath = promise, so, again, I think we call them marriage vows but they are really oaths/promises. I'm still curious when and why they started to be called "vows."
 
Agreed. I believe it could be fitting to make a vow to God in part of the public marriage ceremony but while people call them "marriage vows" they don't actually say "Do you vow." Rather they say "Do you promise" which is the language of the WDPW and the WCF: "A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath" (22.5). In the WCF oath = promise, so, again, I think we call them marriage vows but they are really oaths/promises. I'm still curious when and why they started to be called "vows."
Probably in common parlance people don't usually distinguish between oaths, vows, promises, all things you swear. I suppose it really only matters when it comes to mapping the concept on to the terminology. I wonder too if the WCF really intended to give a comprehensive definition of marriage, more than just picking out a few key theological/practical points. As marriage practices necessarily interact so closely with the civil magistrate, and the regulations vary so widely from nation to nation, it's probably better that way. (I was married in Scotland, but I'm still not sure whether all the English relations really believed we were legally married as the wording of the vows (or whatevers) was so different from what they were used to!)
 
I still prefer the simplicity of the DPW pattern for solemnizing a marriage. It mentions (and requires) witnesses separate from "vows," though it does not use the term "vows," using instead the terms "contract," "promise," and "covenant":

Vows are voluntary, but in the WCF's terminology they are made directly to God. I think in the marriage scenario the relevant sections of the confession are actually about "oaths" which are promises (or assertions) made in God's presence calling him to be witness and judge (22.1-4).
Thanks both for the points you have made. I've been careless in using the term "vow" and used it as it is in common parlance rather than as defined by the WCF. I should therefore rephrase my earlier post to say that the primary thing in marriage is a solemn promise before God.
 
Back
Top