Until Death Do Us Part? To Vow or Not to Vow

Until Death Do Us Part?

To Vow or Not to Vow

That standard line is included in many traditional Christian marriage ceremonies, but what does it really mean?

In this article, I will try to trace its origin and put many things in context.

I believe a Christian has a right to investigate what he or she believes and make informed decisions based on the truth rather than coercion or deception.

Blind faith only applies to the dealings between a believer and God; when it comes to the doctrines of men, a believer must investigate and stand firm on what is true.

Romans 7

Released From the Law, Bound to Christ

7 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law, a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

Pay attention to verse 2 above; it starts with BY LAW (referring to the law of Moses), then it says a MARRIED WOMAN is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is RELEASED from the law that binds her to him.

Did you notice that nothing was mentioned about the MARRIED MAN being bound to his wife in such a manner?

I am not being disingenuous or deliberately trying to twist what was clearly written in the Bible so that it will look to mean something else; I am deliberately drawing our attention to the culture and tradition of the JEWS under the LAW, which typically binds the woman to her husband or her father in all circumstances.

Numbers 30:10-16 The Message (MSG)

“When a woman who is living with her husband makes a vow or takes a pledge under oath and her husband hears about it but says nothing and doesn’t say she can’t do it, then all her vows and pledges are valid. But if her husband cancels them when he hears about them, then none of the vows and pledges that she made are binding. Her husband has canceled them and GOD will release her. Any vow and pledge that she makes that may be to her detriment can be either affirmed or annulled by her husband. But if her husband is silent and doesn’t speak up day after day, he confirms her vows and pledges—she has to make good on them. By saying nothing to her when he hears of them, he binds her to them. If, however, he cancels them sometime after he hears of them, he takes her guilt on himself.” These are the rules that GOD gave Moses regarding conduct between a man and his wife and between a father and his young daughter who is still living at home.

The husband was not considered bound to his wife till death because, according to Jewish laws and traditions, the husband can marry more than one wife if he chooses

In this polygamous setting and agreements, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and when he does this, he will give the woman a bill of divorcement

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 King James Version (KJV)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it comes to pass that she find no favour in his eyes because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

This bill of divorcement can only be issued by the husband as we can see in the passage above, the wife was clearly the only one bound to the husband in this vow and her fate is determined by only her husband.

She had no say in the matter.

She cannot initiate a divorce, and while she is alive, she is bound to him till death, but he is not bound to only her. He can be bound to another woman in marriage too.

Exodus 21: 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Deuteronomy 21: 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

The scriptures above both made it clear that in Jewish societies as at the time of the law, the husband can be bound to more than one woman while the woman is only bound by marriage to her husband until death do them part or until he gives her a bill of divorcement and puts her away.

The wedding vows, as practised in most English-speaking countries, derive ultimately from the Sarum rite of mediaeval England. The first part of the vows of the Sarum rite is given in Latin, but is instructed to be said by the priest "in linguam materna", i.e. in the "mother tongue" of those present.

(Sarum Rite or Sarum Use is the manner of regulating the details of the Roman Liturgy that was obtained in pre-Reformation times in the south of England and was thence propagated over the greater part of Scotland and of Ireland. Other, though not very dissimilar, Uses, those of York, Lincoln, Bangor, and Hereford, prevailed in the north of England and in Wales. The Christian Anglo-Saxons knew no other Liturgy than that of the Mother Church of Rome.)

The oldest standard wedding vows can be traced back to the Book of Common Prayer, by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury: "I, _____, take thee, _____, to be my wedded Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish, and to obey, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance." The vows included in that book are derived from the Sarum rite of medieval England, which was originally translated in the earliest versions of the Book of Common Prayer as "to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us depart." The earlier 1549 version of the Book of Common Prayer retained the "till death us depart" ("depart" here meaning "separate"), changing over as of the 1662 version to read "till death us do part." Eventually, the "us" and "do" were swapped, giving us the modern version: "till death do us part." Remarkably, they've remained much the same ever since.

The Quakers were once even more explicit, with their earliest standard vows directly addressing God's hand in ending a marriage: "Friends, in the fear of the Lord, and before this assembly, I take my friend AB to be my wife, promising, through divine assistance, to be unto her a loving and faithful husband, until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us."

Despite the minor changes in wording, the meaning in the vow is clear — only death (in other words, the interference of God himself) can end a marriage (a Catholic marriage, anyway). It's considered a lifelong commitment, with the marriage pact only able to be broken in death. That's made blatantly clear in Romans 7, which states "[By] law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."

To this day, the Catholic Church doesn't recognise divorce, citing Jesus in Matthew 19 saying that having other relationships after a divorce (except in the case of "sexual immorality") is always adultery: "'Haven't you read,' [Jesus] replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'" In this sense, God is the third "person" in the marriage, and the only person authorised to undo it.

Unless you're Henry VIII, in which case you refuse the right of the religious leaders to control your life by making you marry someone you do not want to be married to or stay married to someone you don't want to be married to and then choose to walk in the reality of your own destiny.

There's no denying that the "till death do us part" aspect of the traditional wedding vow is restrictive (to put it mildly), at least when it's taken as literally as the religious text on which it's based.

Ironically, matrimony, at first, wasn't religious or legal — the earliest marriages were essentially casual agreements between families or clans, to establish "peaceful relationships, trading relationships, [and] mutual obligations." Marriage wasn't even officially one of the seven sacraments until 1563.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24, NKJV)

Keeping It in the Family

The bond between man and wife is considered by many to be the closest tie possible for two human beings, closer even than that between blood relatives. However, in many societies throughout history, two people might share both the marriage bond and blood kinship. Generally, modern people find the idea of marrying a blood relative to be disgusting. Such was not the case, however, among some ancient peoples. In some periods, for example, it was accepted practice for an Egyptian pharaoh to marry his sister. The reason had to do with keeping the royal line pure by not allowing other families to marry in.

Other ancient societies did much the same thing, although the blood connection might not always be so close. The patriarch Abraham’s wife Sarah, for example, was his half-sister. Whether this was common among the early Hebrews is unclear, but both Isaac and Jacob got wives (Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah) from their cousins.

The ancient Greeks also preferred that their young people marry family members. Their reasons, however, seem to have been primarily economic. By marrying cousins or other relatives, farmland was kept in the family, and the clan never saw its ancestral lands end up in the hands of outsiders.

Americans and Europeans up through the early nineteenth century were not always opposed to marrying within the family. European royal families, in particular, tried to find marriage matches from a very restricted group of prospective mates.

At some point, however, the desirability of keeping a line pure or holding onto family property runs head-on into the need for a bigger gene pool. Genetic health problems caused by breeding among relatives can be devastating. A clear example of this was the haemophilia carried in several of the related royal houses of Europe, such as the Russian Romanov family.

He Who Finds a Wife

Not only who a person marries, but how he or she finds that mate has varied greatly in different times and places. Among tribal people, ancient and modern, capturing women from enemies has been a time-honoured way of procuring wives. In Roman mythology at one point in their early history, Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, and his followers wanted to marry the daughters of a neighbouring tribe, the Sabines. 

When their request was rejected, the Romans decided on a stratagem. They held a great religious festival and invited the Sabines and other neighbours. At a prearranged signal during the festival, the Romans grabbed the Sabine maidens they wanted and hurried away with them, fighting off any Sabine men who tried to interfere. Eventually, Romulus convinced the women to accept legal marriage, and the two groups peacefully integrated.

A similar situation occurred in the Book of Judges when the other tribes of Israel decimated the rebellious tribe of Benjamin in war. Their brother, Israelites, felt sorry for the few surviving Benjamite men and helped them capture girls from another tribe at a religious festival so the Benjamites to produce children and continue to exist as a tribe.

In more modern times, the Comanches and other Plains Indian tribes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries regularly captured women from other tribes and from American and Mexican settlements and made them their wives. Similar examples of gaining wives by capture are fairly common in parts of central and southern Asia. Credible reports of forced marriages of Christian women to Muslim men in Egypt and elsewhere show that the practice is still very much alive.

A different method of obtaining a wife throughout much of history has been by an arranged marriage, with money passing between the parties. The marriage is arranged between the groom or his family and the bride’s family. The two types of money exchange, dowry and bride price, work in different ways. Some societies follow one of the two practices, while other societies may use both.

The dowry is money or property that the bride brings from her family into the marriage. It often gives the young couple a start, something to build their household upon, but in other situations, it is simply kept in reserve. Muslim women in some societies wear their dowries around their necks in the form of coin necklaces. In cases where a dowry marriage ends in divorce, the bride takes her dowry and goes home to her family.

The bride price is just what it sounds like. The groom must pay an agreed sum to the bride’s family for the privilege of marrying her. An example of this from the Book of Genesis is Jacob’s years of unpaid work in order to marry Leah and Rachel.

Marriage based simply on the desires of the bride and groom has become almost universal in the Western world only in modern times, but such marriages for love seem to have always existed in individual circumstances. Folklore and traditions in many countries tell of love as the main driving force of marriages.

The Many Faces of Marriage

One thing we can all probably agree on is that there’s a lot of disagreement about what properly constitutes a marriage. Although it’s clear that God instituted marriage, in the beginning, there have been differing views about whether weddings are primarily religious or secular events. For much of the early Christian Era, the Church stayed out of weddings and let the state handle the union of man and woman. Finally, sometime after 800 AD, the Church began to perform weddings, and a few centuries later the Catholic Church made marriage one of the sacraments.

Catholic and Protestant differences in their view of marriage became clear from the beginning of the Reformation. Catholics had long seen marriage as somewhat less godly than singleness, and during the Middle Ages, it is estimated that 40% or more of men and women remained single, either for spiritual reasons or economic necessity. Martin Luther, however, held the view that marriage was the normal, proper condition of men and women, and it became almost universal among his followers and other groups of Protestants.

Polygamy has been widely accepted in many societies since ancient times. But what exactly is polygamy? Most people have the idea that it means one man has multiple wives at the same time, but polygamy is more generic than that. It means one person (man or woman) having multiple spouses of the opposite sex simultaneously. The term polygyny (literally, “many women”) refers to a man with multiple wives, but in very few societies, a woman can have multiple husbands at the same time. This latter practice is called polyandry (literally “many men).

One type of marriage that is less prominent now than in the last century is common-law marriage. Basically, a man and woman living together and wanting to consider themselves married, even though they had never gone through a marriage ceremony, would be legally married under common law. Few couples today seem to want the status of marriage unless they have actually gone to the trouble of having a legal ceremony.

The Question of Children

A final aspect of marriage that applies to only a very limited group of people is the responsibility of a marriage to produce an heir. We’re not talking about a family’s heir but rather an heir to a country’s throne. In other words, this situation only involves royal families. Possibly the most famous such situation occurred in the early 1500s with England’s King Henry VIII.

Henry’s father (Henry VII) had been the final winner in a bloody series of civil wars known as the Wars of the Roses, in which two branches of the English royal family fought it out over which of its members would finally be the unanimously approved monarch. The problem all along had been that no one person had the clear-cut best claim to be the rightful king. To avoid another potential civil war over the throne when he died, Henry VIII wanted to make sure that he had a son. That way, there would be no doubt about who the rightful heir to the throne was. When his first wife, Catherine, couldn’t seem to have a son, Henry started down the road that would eventually bring him to six wives and the country to a new brand of Christianity.

Three centuries later, young Queen Victoria of England faced her own situation of having to produce an heir. Although she didn’t really want to marry, the law actually required her to do so to produce an heir, or she would have lost the throne.

A Final Thought

Marriage has had a multitude of faces during the time that mankind has been on earth. One thing seems certain, however—there is no marriage in heaven and marriage does not determine who gets eternal life or who does not.

It is not a deciding factor regarding salvation and walking in the supernatural life of God.

It is a union between humans, by humans and for humans, and there is nothing supernatural about it.

PS: Till death do us part was never in the vows taken by the Jews in the Bible, it was never written in any of the prayers and instructions we saw in the New Testament

It was a vow written by men who took the words of Roman 7 out of context and then applied it broadly to bind a husband and wife together in Holy Matrimony.

It is neither evil nor good, as the intention of the institution of marriage itself was noble and necessary to build strong and healthy societies.

Breaking this vow, however, is not cause enough to feel one has become eternally damned and undeserving of salvation.

Nobody should be forced to take it, as vows must be a matter of choice and personal determination rather than a religious rite.

-GSW-