Question Corner by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 4, 1904

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 30, No. 18.

Question Corner

By Editor

1497.—As to marriage.

Will you kindly define what constitutes a true Biblical marriage? Is a marriage ceremony of any real value, and is there any importance to be attached to it by true believers aside from the formality which custom demands of those who enter the state of wedlock? Would not a man and a woman who had solemnly, before the Lord, promised to accept and take each other as husband and wife, be as truly married as tho a civil ceremony had been performed by a justice, or a civil-religious ceremony by a minister of the Gospel?

It is impossible to set forth anything definite as to a form of ceremony. It seems to have been regulated by local customs, with certain essentials. In the first marriage, the Creator gave to the man his wife, under what form we know not, altho we do know that there was sufficient form to clearly convey to all parties involved that a marriage had taken place, and the solemn truth was conveyed that the twain should be one flesh, and that the union was indissoluble and the relationship and duty permanent. One of the essential things in marriage seems to have been the passing of the bride from her father’s house to the house of her husband or his father. This was preceded by betrothal, and accompanied with more or less ceremony, and solemn covenant. See references to these customs in the following: Eze. 16: 8-14; Mal. 2: 14; Prov. 2: 17; Gen. 24: 57-60; Ruth 4: 9-13; Isa. 61: 10; Cant. 3: 11; Jer. 2: 32; Matt. 9: 15; 25: 1-10. These and many other scriptures indicate that ceremonies accompanied the marriage, feasts were held, friends were present, pledges were given, covenants were ratified. The right of both wife and children and the good of society demand some formalities in the marriage ceremony, and this seems to have been recognized all through Bible times.

The use that is made of marriage as a symbol of the union between Christ and the individual (Rom. 7: 4; Gal. 3: 27), as well as between Christ and His kingdom (Isa. 54: 4-6; 61: 10; 62: 3-5; Rev. 21: 1, 2, 9, 10; 19: 7-9), indicates that more should be made of the marriage itself than a mere formal contract between two parties, tho the world may make too much of the ceremony and too little of the sacred union for life. The sacredness of marriage in God’s sight is also indicated by its prohibitions.

While the solemn agreement between the man and woman might, as between them and God, constitute a true marriage, they owe it to posterity and the public to make it public and of public record. And the Bible demands conformity to civil law when duty to God does not contravene. Rom. 13: 1-7.

1498.—Bride of Christ.

In the issue of March 30, 1904, in your editorial, you make use of the expression “Bride of Christ” as the church of God. Please explain in Question Corner. How can it be that both New Jerusalem and the church can be the bride of Christ? In my opinion the expression, “The bride has not wooed the bride of Christ,” needs some correction or explanation.

There are three different relations referred to in the Scriptures as marriage: (1) The union of Christ with the individual believer (Rom. 7: 4; Gal. 3: 27); (2) the relationship between Christ and the church, or the people of God (2 Cor. 11: 2; Eph. 5: 23-32; Jer. 2: 32; 3: 1, 14; 31: 32); (3) the relationship between Christ and His kingdom, the complete and glorious consummation of all His travail of soul (Isa. 54: 1, 5; Gal. 4: 25, 27; Isa. 62: 1-4; Rev. 21: 1, 2, 9, 10). Of that eternal kingdom the New Jerusalem is the capital, and her reception is the reception of the kingdom.