By Douglas Wilson
“Tradition is not a dry and dusty and antiquated affair. Tradition
is as vital and dramatic as treason, which is the same word. The silent passing
of a scrap of 
history
from father to son is as personal and passionate as the silent passing of
a scrap of paper from traitor to spy.” (G.K. Chesterton)
Those
who blindly follow traditions and those who blindly throw traditions overboard
share at least ignorance in common. One keeps what he does not know, another
throws away what he does not know. An area where many traditions have been lost
or mindlessly kept has been that of the wedding. In the sixties we all began to
do our own thing; writing our own vows, inventing our own little ceremonies,
and generally marching around in our own little circle. Since then we have
settled down somewhat, but we still have the idea that the wedding belongs to
the couple, and not to a culture. We have come to believe that each wedding
should be shaped by the personality of the couple, and not that our culture
should bestow recognition on a couple according to the custom of our people.
What
has happened to weddings has also happened in many other aspects of our
cultural life, with the result being an “every man to his tents, O Israel” approach.
We have a horror of sameness, which is the same thing as being appalled by
continuity and stability. In the midst of this chaos, some Christians have
added their voices to the general babble, and have wanted to rethink
everything; they have wanted set up their own customs for weddings from
scratch.
In
contrast, a far wiser course would be to defend what might be called the
traditional wedding, and if the chaos of our times allows changes to be made,
they should be made in the direction of older customs, and not in the direction
of innovations. As always, when we consider what we are to do, we should look
to the Scriptures for final
authoritative guidance.
This
defense of traditional weddings may be divided into three categories. The first
revolves around a discovery that many elements of our traditional wedding
practices have their roots in antiquity, and were observed in biblical weddings
as well as in ours. The second category will be areas where we have a
corresponding practice but we do not practice these customs with the same
enthusiasm. The third category are traditions which we have not adopted, or
have lost, and which, if recovered, could greatly enrich our appreciation of
weddings. But with this last category, such additions to the wedding ceremony
should be made with extreme caution, and not as individual distinctives for
individual weddings. They should be brought into our weddings in some broader
cultural way, or not at all.
Common Practices
A marked feature of biblical weddings
is the fact that both bride and groom were gloriously attired. This was true
of a royal wedding, where the bride had a gold robe (Ps. 45:13-14), and it was true of ordinary weddings. The joy and glory
of wedding ornaments is used as a wonderful picture of our justification (Is.
61:10). 
The
place and importance of bridal ornamentation is clearly assumed in the Lord’s
rebuke of Israel. “Can a virgin forget her ornaments,
or a bride her attire? Yet My people have forgotten Me
days without number” (Jer. 2:32). A bridal veil may have been
a part of this attire (Gen. 24:65).
At the marriage supper of the Lamb, the bride is arrayed in wonderful linen
(Rev. 19:8-9). In every description of weddings
given to us in Scripture, the bride
is adorned (Rev. 21:2). Tuxedos
and uniforms, gowns, trains and veils, are very much in keeping with how Scripture
describes a wedding. Christ in His teaching assumed that special wedding garments
were not limited to the couple. All who came to a wedding had special clothing.
“How did you get in here without a wedding garment?” (Matt. 22:1-14). In a biblical ceremony, all are dressed appropriately
-- bride and groom, members of the wedding party, and guests.
We
also have the practice of having bridesmaids and friends of the groom stand
with the bride and groom at the wedding. This is also a biblical practice,
although in at least one instance the number of groomsmen was fairly large. “They
brought thirty companions to be with him” (Judg.
14:11). Still the groomsmen were very clearly part of a biblical wedding. Jesus
refers to His disciples in the figure of groomsmen (Matt. 9:15). This includes the counterpart to our custom of having
a best man (Judg. 14:20; 15:2). This
best man was called “the friend of the bridegroom” (John 3:29); he may even have been the one who had various important
responsibilities at the wedding -- the master of the feast (John 2:8-9). If this is the case, we
have a parallel in the various duties which we assign to the best man.
Common Practices in Disrepair
Feasting in association with weddings
was common (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14). Of some historical interest,
these feasts were not two-hour affairs. “And he kept the 
wedding
feast fourteen days” (Tobit 8:19).
We have toned this practice down to what we call a wedding reception. In contrast,
the biblical practice was to have a feast. Many moderns attend wedding receptions
out of a reluctant sense of duty, and not because the feasting will be glorious.
This is clearly something we have to work on.
Weddings
in biblical times were a cultural voice of gladness. A terrible judgment was
promised to Judah when God said that this mirth, the voice of the bride and
groom, would be removed from the land (Jer.
7:34). In the extracanonical book of 1
Maccabees, we find a wedding party described in the course of some
fighting. But the wedding party itself was…well, a party. “Where they lifted up
their eyes, and looked, and, behold, there was much ado and great carriage: and
the bridegroom came forth, and his friends and brethren, to meet them with
drums, and instruments of musick…” (1
Macc. 9:37-41; KJV). “And Jesus
said to them, `Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is
with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast’” (Mark 2:19; Matt. 9:15). This wedding feasting included some good music. “Fire
devoured their young men, and their maidens had no marriage song” (Ps. 78:63, RSV).
Our
weddings frequently have a toast to the bride and groom at the reception. This
could perhaps be improved if we self-consciously named the toast what it really
is -- a blessing. “And they blessed Rebekah and said to her: `Our sister, may you become the mother of thousands of ten
thousands; and may your descendants possess the gates of those who hate them’”
(Gen. 24:60). We also see the
beautiful blessing given to Boaz and Ruth. “The Lord make
the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two who built
the house of Israel…” (Ruth 4:11).
This blessing could be incorporated into the wedding ceremony,
or at the feast afterward. The blessing would come from the families of both
the bride and groom.
A
wedding is an occasion where a covenant is made, and marriage is defined in Scripture in terms of that covenant. An
immoral woman in Proverbs is condemned
because she has forgotten the “the covenant of her God” (Prov. 2:17). The Lord rebukes the men of Israel because they dealt
treacherously with their wives “by covenant” (Mal. 2:14). In our weddings, the vows are central to the ceremony,
but the language of covenant -- language of blessings and curses -- should be
much stronger. No guest should be able to depart without understanding the
covenantal union which has been formed, with Christ as the Lord of that
covenant, and with the guest as witness to the covenant.
A Few Suggestions
We have various symbolic gestures
in our wedding ceremonies -- our older custom of exchanging rings, and newer
innovations like the unity candle. A custom 
which
we do not practice, but which would be good to recover if we could, would
be some symbol of the practice of covering. In the following passages,
the phrases “under your wing,” and “spread My wing,” refer to the practice of spreading a garment over
the bride. “And he said, `Who are you?’ So she answered,
`I am Ruth, your maidservant. Take your maidservant under your wing, for you
are a close relative’” (Ruth 3:9).
When God spoke of taking Israel as a bride He used this same picture of covering
as a sign of covenantal protection and security. “When I passed by you again
and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an
oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine, says the Lord God” (Eze. 16:8). For a hypothetical example, this might be done with a
quiet eloquence if the groom had some sort of special wedding cloak which
he could use to cover his bride after the exchange of vows.
The Jews had another custom with their weddings which we are unlikely
to revive any time soon (and I am not advocating it), but the principle concerning
it should be recovered. In biblical times, the newly wedded couple
did not head off to a motel room in another state; they were escorted to the
bridegroom’s chamber which was established right there on the grounds. “Which
is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber…(Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16; Gen. 29:23; Tobit 7:16-8:1). No one wants
a return to consummation on the wedding premises, but there is a principle
which 
needs
to be recovered -- an abandonment of Victorian prudishness. A marriage covenant
is a public covenant fence built around a private sexual relationship. In
a biblical wedding, Christians should crowd into church to witness the vows
which mark the beginning of a life of faithful lovemaking. Those who struggle
with even saying this would have had real trouble at covenant weddings
in the Old Testament where the groom
escorted his bride into his chamber at the wedding to general applause and
cheering by the guests. We need to grow up a little.
Lastly,
conspicuous by its absence, we do not see in biblical weddings a sacerdotal
proclamation by some minister which makes a man and woman “husband and
wife.” The sooner we lose this foolishness the better. The church has an
important role to play in witnessing the vows (see Presbyterion, p. 13), and a minister may, with propriety, declare
the vows to have been made, but the minister is no priest and marriage-maker.
The couple do not stand before him to be
transubstantiated.
All
the governments established by God have a role to play in witnessing this
covenant. Because marriage involves property, the civil authority should have a
witness at all weddings, and each wedding should be registered with the
magistrate -- but not licensed by the magistrate. In the same way, the
church must witness each wedding, and may administer the vows at the wedding,
but the church “creates” nothing at a wedding.
Only
Christ is the Lord of weddings.
Douglas
Wilson serves as pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho and is a popular
speaker at conferences on history, education, theology, and family issues. He
has authored a number of books on education and family life including Reforming
Marriage, The Federal Husband and Future Men and is the
editor of Credenda Agenda Magazine as
well as being a regular contributor to Table Talk Magazine. For more information regarding his
ministry visit his web site at www.christkirk.com.
