The Tangent Series
Episode 5

Covenantal Marriage * Holy Vows NOT A Civil Contract?

​______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unity, Bliss, and Other Marital Myths

Full disclosure—this topic almost didn’t make the cut. My next book (currently in the
editing phase) originally included a tangent on marriage dynamics—but it fell flat.
Boring, even. I’ve already written extensively about leadership in the home, specifically
where headship has been both assumed and horrendously misrepresented. I’d done a
deep dive into the logistics of that dynamic, and frankly, this felt like recycled material.
So, I sidelined the marriage discussion.

There was an underlying retraction as well—if I’m being completely transparent. Who
the heck am I to talk about marriage? Certainly not from some lofty position of moral
authority on what it is—or isn’t—on a covenantal or contractual basis. And I’m not about
to turn this into a memoir, but let’s just say I won’t be receiving any awards for Marriage
Done Right anytime soon.

My girls could probably write memoirs of their own—entire volumes titled What Not to
Do: Marriage Edition. I’m sure they’ve got anecdotes stashed somewhere—tucked in
the back of their minds or scribbled in a long-lost notebook—chronicling the circus show
they witnessed growing up. And I’d love to sit here and deny it, to pretend my home was
the poster child for unity and marital bliss… but if you’ve ever met me, you’d probably
spit your coffee across the room. (And honestly? I wouldn’t blame you.)

Although, to be fair, you might have fallen for the whole “glued together for
appearances” act—slipped under the radar thinking, seems perfectly fine to me. I
wouldn’t blame you. Most of us aren’t exactly pressing pause on the highlight reel to
showcase the slow-motion derailment of a marriage going off the tracks. I mean, I
certainly didn’t. We don’t know what we don’t know… until we know it. And by then, it’s
screaming at us from the wreckage.

But since I’m already mid-self-fillet, I might as well throw in a little extra seasoning. Truth
is, there was a flicker of awareness back then—faint, but there. I didn’t waltz into
marriage under some fairytale delusion. No glass slipper, no enchanted forest, no clue.
Not even a sweet clue. Just a gut feeling that something was off, even if I couldn’t name
it yet.

But I’m not about to unpack that suitcase here.

What I will say is this—standing where I am now, I’d rather keep learning alongside
others who are also figuring it out—warts, wreckage, wisdom, and all—than pretend I
ever had the manual to begin with.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Garden Called—it Wants a Do-Over

And while we’re at it, let me confess something else—I had to step away several times
while putting this together. Sometimes to compose myself, other times to pray (and not
the polite, church-lady kind of prayer—more like “Lord, are you serious right now?”).

Because the more I read, the more I study, the more I dig into scripture—the more my
heart sinks. I honestly can’t wrap my head around how we’ve gotten this so twisted. And
I’m not talking about them—I’m talking about me. I’ve bought into it. I’ve enforced it. I’ve
been part of the problem. Probably more than most.

And to my girls—I’m sorry.

You already know why.

So with that, I’m going to pretend I’m starting over. Wipe the slate clean. Scrub off the
distortions that have been swirling around in my head like spiritual graffiti. And I’m going
to do my very best to unglue all the crap that’s managed to stick itself to my sense of
worth, value… or marital eligibility.

As usual, I’ll do what I always seem to do when things get tangled—I’ll close my eyes
and head back to the garden. That’s the Garden of Eden, in case anyone thought I
meant backyard landscaping therapy. (Though honestly, that might’ve been cheaper.)

And while I know there are more takes on marriage these days than there are oat milk
options at a hipster café—covenantal, contractual, open, closed, partially thawed—I’m
going to focus on the one that has somehow settled into my spirit. The one I keep
circling back to, even when I’m kicking and screaming. You do you, and I’ll do
me—unapologetically.

It’s not that I don’t understand the theory behind covenant versus contract—it’s that the
execution has been… well, let’s call it inconsistent. And that’s me being generous.

But maybe that’s the whole point. Maybe the clearest understanding doesn’t come from
pristine examples or theological lectures—it comes not from doing it right, but from the
wreckage of doing it wrong. And frankly, that’s my starting point.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Theology Check — We’ve Been Naming Things Wrong

Before we even touch marriage, covenant, law—or anything really—let’s just call it:

Patriarchy got a branding head start.

Just a pre-refresher, shall we say—to get things started. You’ve likely heard of the
“Adamic Covenant”—a title liberally assigned by post-biblical theologians.

But here’s the kicker:

- In Genesis 3, God doesn’t covenant with Adam.
- He hands out consequences —not covenants.
- The promise? That goes to Eve.

Genesis 3:15—often called the protoevangelium—isn’t about Adam at all. It’s a
redemptive promise made through Eve’s seed, pointing directly to Christ (cf. Galatians
4:4 – “born of a woman”). It's referred to by scholars as the first gospel.

And yet—centuries later—we deny women the right to preach that very gospel. We muzzle the mouths of those through whom salvation first entered.

But that's a separate tangent. 

(Or is it?)

So, if we're naming things accurately—and we really should be—why isn't it called the Eveinic Covenant?

Too feminine? Too accurate?

Doesn't roll off the tongue like "Adamic"?

Or maybe we just aren't used to covenants being associated with women—unless it involves submission, silence, or sandwiched obedience.

Some argue "Adamic" simply refers to humanity—Adam as the collective man.  And yes, in Hebrew, ha' adam does mean "the human," a reference to shared humanity rather than an individual male. If that's how the Adamic Covenant were truly applied, the argument would hold. But that's rarely how it plays out.

Because if "Adamic" truly implied inclusion in the way we teach or apply it, Eve wouldn't have been excluded from so many theological frameworks that claim to honour this covenant.  What we see instead is selective inclusion—ha' adam in theory, but Adam the man in practice.

This isn't about shared humanity. This is where primogeniture theology takes root—where being formed first was mistaken for being first in authority. But scripture never equates chronology with hierarchy.

In fact, it's Christ—not Adam—who was called the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15). The One who was before time is also the One who redefined order.

So what does this have to do with covenantal marriage?

Well, somewhere along the line, that promise made in the garden of Eden got repackaged, stamped “Adamic,” and
 launched into centuries of male-centered theology.

Because of course it did.

What theologians later named the “Adamic Covenant” was really a theological land
grab—grabbing power, naming rights, and the narrative.

It's a case of erasure by naming—a quiet but powerful tradition of attaching the wrong name to the right promise, thereby shifting the authority from the one entrusted with the word, to the one holding the pen.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Eden With Love — God's Actual Marriage Model

That misnaming?  It didn't stop with Eve. It kept going—all the way to the altar.

It was true then.
​It's true now.

We’ve been building our understanding of marriage on a twisted interpretation of
consequence—as if God looked at the mess and said, “Yep, let’s make this the model.”

Except… He didn’t.

Every time Jesus was asked about marriage, headship, or divorce, He didn’t quote
Genesis 3. He went back to Genesis 1–2.

Back to mutuality. To wholeness.

To what God intended before sin rewrote the script.

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 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.”— Mark 10:6–9

And in Matthew 19, Jesus doubles down with a reminder:

“From the beginning it was not so.”—Matthew 19:8

The true covenant?
Eden.
Unity.
Mutuality.
No rank. No contracts.
No vows of obedience—especially not with an asterisk beside gender.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Covenant or Contract? Asking for a Friend…

But, as per usual, let’s start off with the basics. Merriam-Webster defines marriage
as—and I quote—“the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual
relationship recognized by law.”

Romantic, right?

Nothing says forever and always like “contractual obligation.” Makes you want to grab a
pen and draft a prenup just for the nostalgia.

But in fairness, Merriam’s just doing its job—offering a tidy little summary of what
society, courts, and tax forms agree on. It’s clean. It’s clinical. And if that definition were
the whole truth, we probably wouldn’t be here digging through the theological rubble
trying to figure out why our understanding of marriage feels more like a courtroom
drama than a sacred covenant.

So… what does the Bible define as marriage?

Is it a covenant? A contract? A divine set-up gone wildly off the rails? Honestly, the term
marriage isn’t used in the Garden. There’s no fancy ceremony, no flower girl, no
Pinterest board full of rustic wood signs and mismatched bridesmaids’ dresses. What
we do see is union. Intimacy. Purpose. Design.

Genesis 2:24 gives us the first blueprint:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they
shall become one flesh.”

Not, “and they shall sign a legally binding agreement,” or “and they shall argue over
where to spend Christmas.” One flesh. One life. Shared identity, shared mission.

And that’s before the fall.

Before sin, before shame, before fig leaves and blame games—there was unity. Not
hierarchy. Not headship debates. Not submission wars. Just man and woman, face-to-
face, side-by-side, created with shared dignity, carrying God’s image.

So yes--biblically, marriage is a covenant, not a contract. But the covenant wasn’t
framed in legal language or power dynamics. It was relational. Reflective. Rooted in
connection, not control.

The word marriage came later, and honestly, the language has been doing damage
control ever since. What began as oneness got buried under patriarchy, power
structures, and property exchanges. And somewhere in all that mess, we lost sight of
Eden.

So if we want to define marriage in its purest form—the way it was meant to be, not the
way it’s been marketed—we don’t start with law. We start with design. We start with the
Garden. And we pay attention to what existed before sin entered the picture.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But What Breaks a Covenant? Asking for the Martyrs in the Back…

And to be frank—before we go waxing poetic about what a covenantal marriage is (or
any form of relationship, really—contractual, definitional, dysfunctional)—can we just
ask the question that actually matters?

What constitutes breaking one?

Because if we’re going to talk about covenant, we’ve got to talk about breaking it too.
“Forever” doesn’t always go unfractured. Sometimes it shatters.

Biblically speaking, covenants are serious business. No debate there. They’re sacred.
But so are justice, safety, and truth.

Let’s just say it. No softening, no spiritual gymnastics, no “yeah, but…”

A covenant is broken when:

-There’s unrepentant infidelity.

Jesus Himself spoke plainly:

-“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,
and marries another woman commits adultery.”-- Matthew 19:9

Infidelity breaks something sacred. And when there is no repentance, no rebuilding, and
no return—Jesus doesn’t call staying holy. He calls it broken.

-There’s abuse—emotional, physical, spiritual, financial. (Name them all. God
sees them all.)

This one’s often dismissed. Excused. Spiritualized. But God does not ignore violence
cloaked in religious language. He does not condone oppression behind closed doors.
He sees it. All of it.

“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel,
“does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty. So be on
your guard, and do not be unfaithful.”— Malachi 2:16 (NIV, footnoted translation)

The original Hebrew here ties hatred, divorce, and violence together. God doesn’t just
condemn divorce flippantly—He condemns the treachery, the betrayal, the injustice that
so often leads to it.

-One partner abandons the covenant in action, even if their lips are still reciting
memory verse promises.

Paul wrote about a spouse who physically left the marriage, but the principle speaks to
more than just geography. Emotional, spiritual, and relational abandonment can all
sever covenant.

“But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or
sister is not bound. God has called you to live in peace.”-- 1 Corinthians 7:15

Peace matters. Presence matters. Reciting memory verses while actively neglecting,
demeaning, or destroying the relationship isn’t covenant—it’s captivity.

Covenants require mutuality, not martyrdom. If one person is carrying the entire weight
while the other is chipping away at the foundation, that’s not a covenant—that’s a
collapse in slow motion.

Jesus confronted hard hearts that refused reconciliation (Matthew 19:8). But He never
demanded anyone stay yoked to what was slowly destroying them. He came to set the
oppressed free—not to bind them to suffering and call it sacred.

So yes, covenant matters.

But survival does too.

And sometimes, honouring the sacred means walking away from what’s desecrating it.

That’s not failure.

That’s faithfulness—to truth.

That’s what I wish someone had told me sooner.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Compass for the Confused

Okay—circling back. I just didn’t want anyone confusing “covenant” with “just endure it
and call it holy.”

If you’re looking for a compass to discern what covenant is supposed to look like—turn
to Galatians. The fruit of the Spirit wasn’t given for the prayer closet alone. It’s meant to
show up in our homes. In our marriages. In how we treat each other.

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, and self-control.”— Galatians 5:22–23 (NIV)

That’s the real checklist. If those are consistently absent—if love has turned to fear, if
peace has been replaced by eggshells, if gentleness is nowhere to be found—that’s not
covenant.

And you are not wrong for noticing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cultural Cling-Ons and Holy Assumptions

So now that we’ve tiptoed barefoot through Eden and seen marriage in its rawest, pre-
sin form—no legal jargon, no altar decor, no personalized hashtags—it’s time to do a
little dirty work.

Because let’s be honest—what we call “marriage” today is a cocktail of cultural
traditions, religious interpretations, Pinterest inspiration boards, and just enough
theology to sound credible. Somewhere between Genesis and the guest list, we picked
up a whole pile of rules, rituals, and expectations—many of which have been duct-taped
to Scripture and passed off as divine ordinance.

Take the white dress. A symbol of purity, right? Sacred, biblical, God-ordained? Well…
not exactly. You won’t find a single mention of white wedding gowns in your Bible. And
that’s just the tip of the iceberg veil.

This next section isn’t about trashing tradition. It’s about tracing it. Digging into the soil
of Eden, the dust of ancient Israel, and yes—even the fine print of Levitical law—to
understand where these ideas actually came from.

Because when we confuse man-made customs with God’s intention, we risk building
our marriages—and our identities—on someone else’s blueprint. And let’s be honest,
that’s exactly where this tangent is headed—unearthing whose blueprint we’ve actually
been following. No wonder the foundation starts to crack.

So grab a shovel. We’re going digging. Deep. Into definitions, regulations, rituals, and
theology—not to bury tradition, but to uncover the truth beneath it.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Something Old—Something New—Something Deeply Misunderstood

Let’s tackle a few universally “solid” stances when it comes to marriage—the ones that
seem untouchable, unquestionable, practically etched in stone. We’ll explore their
supposed biblical roots… and then trace where those ideas actually came from.

And just for fun, let’s begin with the white dress since we’ve already mentioned it. I’m
willing to bet most of us walked down the aisle wrapped in that symbolism without ever
questioning its origin. Holiness, purity, all that.

And for the record—cue the drumroll—I didn’t invent these traditions. But yep… guilty.
Fell for them like they came straight out of the book of Genesis.
​______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who Wore It Best—Culture or Scripture?

The White Dress

Modern Tradition

- Brides wear white to symbolize purity and virginity.
- It’s viewed as a visual cue of innocence, moral uprightness, and a squeaky-clean
past (insert nervous laughter here).

Biblical Reference Check

- Spoiler alert (but not the cliché kind): there is no white wedding dress in
Scripture.
- Closest you’ll get is symbolic use of white in verses like:
“Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.”— Isaiah 1:18
- But that’s about spiritual restoration, not wardrobe requirements.
- Nowhere in Genesis, Leviticus, or any marriage passage do we find, “And lo, she
wore a white gown with tasteful lace trim.”

Where It Actually Comes From

The tradition took hold after Queen Victoria’s 1840 wedding to Prince Albert.
- She wore white because she liked the color and wanted to highlight the lace in
her dress (Howard 2006).
- The British press and public swooned, and voilà—white became the gold
standard.
- Over time, the Church began retrofitting theology into the trend, linking white to
sexual purity—particularly female virginity.
- This evolved into a patriarchal purity culture where a woman’s value was often
tethered to her sexual history (or lack thereof).
- Men? Not held to the same standard. Shocking, I know. I could hardly believe it
myself.

Still Common Today

- White remains the dominant color in bridalwear, though ivory, champagne, blush,
and even bold colors are gaining popularity.
- Many brides wear white simply because it's tradition—not necessarily because of
its symbolism.
Translation: “I look good in white and it photographs well.”
- The expectation of virginity? Thankfully being questioned (and deconstructed) by
modern Christians and theologians alike.

Personal Take

Let’s be clear—wearing a white dress doesn’t mean you're perpetuating patriarchy. It
just means you liked the dress. But thinking it makes you holier? Or expecting it of
others? That’s where we need to pause and ask: Did this come from God… or from
Queen Victoria’s stylist?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Price of Love—Now in 14K Clarity

Engagement Rings

Modern Tradition

- The groom presents the bride with a diamond engagement ring, often
accompanied by a dramatic proposal, tears, and someone filming from behind a
bush.
- It’s viewed as a symbol of love, commitment, and (let’s be honest) financial
capability.

Biblical Reference Check

- Engagement rings do not appear in the Bible—not even in a metaphorical sense.
- You’ll find covenants sealed with altars, agreements made with sandals (Ruth
4:7), and even nose rings gifted in betrothal (Genesis 24:22)—but no diamond-
studded surprises in velvet boxes.

Where It Actually Comes From

- In ancient Rome, engagement rings were essentially a down payment—the legal
equivalent of earnest money.
Translation: “Here’s proof I intend to marry you… and here’s a token you can keep if I
bail.”
- The diamond standard? That was courtesy of “De Beers’ 1947” marketing
campaign:
“A diamond is forever” (Sullivan 1985).
Catchy. Also, completely commercial.
- The practice reinforced the patriarchal model of the man as provider—offering a
ring to prove his economic worthiness.
(Meanwhile, no one asked the bride to present her retirement portfolio.)

Still Common Today

- Engagement rings are still widely expected, especially diamond ones.
- Proposals have become more inclusive—some women propose, some couples
shop together, and some forgo the ring altogether.
- Wedding rings (for both partners) are now more about mutual symbolism. An
outward sign of inward unity—not a requirement, but a gesture of shared
commitment.

Personal Take

Sheepishly? I like diamonds. Maybe because I didn’t get one until the tenth year of
marriage, or maybe because—hey, shiny things are nice. But I also like plants,
handwritten cards, and lined notebooks. Liking something doesn’t make it sacred.

If a ring works for you—get one that suits your style, gender irrelevant. Just don’t
confuse a rock on your finger with a rock-solid foundation. One is tradition. The other?
That’s built through time, trust, and a whole lot of trial-by-fire.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Veiled Intentions

The Wedding Veil

Modern Tradition
- The bride wears a veil over her face or hair, often lifted by her father during the
handoff—or by the groom before the kiss, depending on how much drama the
ceremony calls for.
- It's associated with modesty, purity, and (let’s be honest) just another thing to
fidget with while trying not to trip walking down the aisle.

Biblical Reference Check
Veils do appear in Scripture—but not in the way we associate with modern weddings.
- Rebekah covered herself with a veil when meeting Isaac (Genesis 24:65)—a
sign of cultural modesty, not marital necessity.
- Tamar veiled herself to disguise her identity (Genesis 38:14)—so, slightly
different tone.
- In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul discusses head coverings during worship—but that’s a
separate can of cultural worms.
- The Bible does not mandate a bridal veil as part of any wedding or covenant.

Where It Actually Comes From
- In ancient times, veils were often used to hide the bride’s face, especially in
arranged marriages—because, well, surprises were a thing.
- The veil also symbolized the bride’s modesty and submissiveness—a property
exchange, veiled for dramatic effect.
- In Roman tradition, brides wore flame-colored veils called flammeum to ward off
evil spirits (who apparently had strong opinions about fashion).
- In Christian history, the veil began symbolizing spiritual purity, tying it to virginity
and reinforcing the idea that a woman was being "unveiled" by her husband.

Still Common Today

- Veils remain popular, especially in formal weddings, though many brides now opt
for alternatives: floral crowns, headpieces, or nothing at all.
- Some choose the veil purely for the look, not the symbolism—others see it as
outdated or oppressive.
- It’s no longer lifted by the groom in many ceremonies—some brides lift it
themselves, or forgo the tradition entirely.

Personal Take

Look, if the veil completes your look, wear it. Channel your inner dramatic queen and
float down that aisle like you're in a historical romance novel. But let’s not pretend it’s
some sacred rite from Scripture.

It's not a holy object—it’s tulle. Symbolism shifts, and what once screamed “property
transfer” now just whispers, “my hair cost $300, please don’t mess it up.” Do what
honours your story, not someone else’s superstition.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Handoff Heard ‘Round the Aisle’

The Father Walking the Bride Down the Isle

Modern Tradition

- The bride is walked down the aisle by her father, who "gives her away" to the
groom.
- Usually accompanied by the classic question:
“Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”
- Cue misty eyes, handoffs, and everyone trying not to trip over the train.

Biblical Reference Check

- This isn’t a covenantal command—it’s a cultural holdover.
- In Scripture, women were often viewed as property, passed from father to
husband. Not romantic, just reality.
- Genesis 29: Laban gives Leah and Rachel to Jacob as part of a deal—seven
years of labour per daughter.
- Exodus 22:16–17: If a man seduced a virgin, he was expected to pay her bride
price and marry her (with the father's approval, of course).
- The “giving” wasn’t about emotion—it was transactional. Literal ownership
transfer. Think about this.

Dowries, bride prices, and marital negotiations reinforced the idea that daughters were
assets, not autonomous people.

Where It Actually Comes From

- In ancient legal systems, women were under the authority of their fathers until
they were given to their husbands.

It wasn’t “Who loves this woman and celebrates her choice?” It was “Who owns this
woman and is now releasing her?”

The role of the father in giving away the bride symbolized financial and legal transfer.
Emotional investment? Maternal sacrifice? Personal autonomy? Not factored in.

The ceremony of "giving away" symbolized a transactional handoff, typically tied to
money, land, or alliances. The assumption? Dad paid the bills. Groom will now take
over. Emotions optional.

Still Common Today

- The practice is still widespread, especially in traditional weddings.
Some modern tweaks include:
- Both parents walking the bride down the aisle.
- The couple walking together to symbolize mutuality.
Acknowledging families joining, rather than ownership changing hands.
- Language has shifted—“Who presents this woman…” instead of “Who
gives…”—but the visual message often stays the same.

Personal Take

This one’s… complicated. As a daughter, there was something
comforting—protective—about having my dad walk me down the aisle. But as a mom,
this hits different. I carried my daughters, birthed them, and shaped my life around
theirs—career sacrifices, sleepless nights, years of being their constant. Even when my
marriage was crumbling, they were still front and center.

So, when tradition implies that only a father "gives away" a daughter, reducing her worth
to financial provision—it lands wrong. Deeply wrong. It erases the emotional, spiritual,
and sacrificial labour that goes into raising a human. It says, “I funded her childhood,
now you take over,” as if her whole life has been one long invoice.

That’s not a handoff—it’s a handwave to everything else that goes into parenting,
nurturing, and loving a child into adulthood.

But then—my husband offered a different take.  And I respected it. He told me that
when he walked our daughter down the aisle, it wasn't about transaction or
tradition—though he knew where it came from.  
It was about protection.
A sacred passing of care.
Not control.
When our youngest got married, he felt peace knowing her husband would protect her
above all else. That meant something to him.  And it made me pause.

Because while patriarchy has hijacked that moment and turned it into a property
exchange—there's something redemptive in a father who's spent his life standing between
his daughter and the storm—and now prays her husband will do the same.
Not in dominance. But in devotion.
This is the kind of strength scripture honours—not force—not hierarchy—but sacrificial love.

Now, that said—I’m not entirely anti-tradition. Done with intentionality, this moment can
become a symbol of trust, unity, and the welcoming of a new family member.
I get that. But let’s not forget—the deeper narrative matters. When it comes to love,
partnership, and covenant, no one gets given away.
We walk into that together—side by side, fully seen, and wholly free.

Quick Sidebar
For the record—this is not a man-bashing tangent. I'm not here to torch masculinity. 
I'm here to expose hierarchy disguised as holiness.  There's a big difference. 
God designed men with strength, grit, and a fierce capacity to protect—not to control. And 
when that strength is used to uplift instead of dominate?
It's breathtaking. Sacred even.
So if you're a father who walked your daughter down the isle with a heart full of love--
not transaction—you're not the problem. You're the counter narrative.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
She Said Yes - Not Yes, Sir

Wedding Vows (Obedience Clause)

Modern Tradition

- Wedding vows often include promises like “to love, honor, and cherish.”
- Traditional versions (especially older religious scripts) included the bride vowing
“to obey.”
- Vows are spoken publicly during the ceremony, symbolizing mutual commitment
and providing accountability through witnesses.

Biblical Reference Check

- The “obey” language is not a direct biblical command--it’s a theological
interpretation built around Ephesians 5:22–24:
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord…”
- However, the preceding verse (Ephesians 5:21) is often conveniently skipped:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
- Mutual submission was always the intention, but history has a funny way of
cherry-picking.

Where It Actually Comes From

- The infamous “obedience” clause entered the scene via the 1662 Book of
Common Prayer (Church of England), which instructed the bride to vow “to love,
cherish, and to obey” (Crawford 2004).

The groom? Just love and cherish. No “obey” required. Written by a man, or a woman?
Let’s roll the dice on that one.

- This reflected the legal and social status of women at the time—where marriage
was a hierarchy, not a partnership.
- Women were legally considered subordinate to their husbands—obedience
wasn’t just a vow; it was an expectation under law.

Still Common Today

- Most modern vows drop the “obey” language in favor of mutual promises like “to
love and support” or “to walk beside.”
- Some faith traditions still include it, though many couples request custom
language.
- Writing personalized vows has become more popular—allowing couples to reflect
their unique values, goals, and theology.

Personal Take

Marriage is a sacred bond. Promises matter. Vows can be beautiful—should be
beautiful. They’re a way of saying: Here’s what I’m committing to, not just today but on
the days I don’t feel like it.

And yes, speaking those promises in front of others adds weight. It builds in
accountability. But let’s not ignore the giant red flag that was historically waved only at
brides: obedience.

That word? It rubs me the wrong way. Always has. And why shouldn’t it. I carry the
creators image – I’m not a second class heir…Because while mutual commitment is
holy, hierarchical control is not.

You’re not pledging allegiance to a ruler—you’re joining your life with a partner. A co-
heir. A fellow image-bearer.

So go ahead, write your vows. Make them sacred. Make them honest. And when things
get hard—and they will—go back to them. What did you promise? And did you both
mean it?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Signed, Sealed, Renamed

The Bride Taking the Husband’s Last Name

Modern Tradition

In many Western cultures, it’s still expected that the bride takes the husband’s last
name.

Variations include hyphenation, blending, or keeping one’s maiden name—though
traditional expectations still linger.

Official documents, holiday cards, and monogrammed towels seem to assume the
switch is automatic.

Biblical Reference Check

- While Genesis 2:24 speaks of becoming “one flesh,” it doesn’t specify which
name gets kept:

“A man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they shall
become one flesh.”

In Scripture, names carry symbolic weight—but there’s no biblical mandate that a wife
must take her husband’s surname.

In fact, biblical women were often referred to by their father’s name or simply their own
identity (think: Deborah the prophet, Mary of Magdala, Lydia the dealer of purple cloth).

Where It Actually Comes From

This tradition is rooted in patriarchal and legal systems, not spiritual ones.
- In Roman culture, a woman became part of her husband’s estate upon marriage.
She was no longer legally tied to her birth family.
- Coverture laws in England and early America took it further: A woman’s legal
identity was absorbed into her husband’s.
- She couldn’t own property, sign contracts, or make legal decisions without his
consent.
- Her name change symbolized complete dependence—not partnership.

Still Common Today

Legally, women are no longer required to take their husband’s name—but social
expectations often still apply.

Hyphenation is more common, though it presents logistical complications when passed
down through generations.

Some couples choose entirely new names, others keep their own, and some men take
the woman’s last name—though that still raises eyebrows in certain circles.

In professional spheres, many women retain their maiden name to preserve their
identity or career history.

Personal Take

This one hit me harder than I expected. I really struggled with the idea of losing my
name—because for me, it wasn’t just a word on a driver’s license. It was a lifeline to
who I was before everything else.

My pen name--RJB—isn’t just branding. It’s my grandparents’ initials and my maiden
name. It’s how I’ve chosen to keep part of my identity alive in a world that subtly (and
sometimes not-so-subtly) encourages women to let it go.

Now, I get it—hyphenating seems like a sensible compromise. But practically? It’s tricky.
When a hyphenated name gets passed down, it multiplies like a math equation no one
signed up for. My daughter marrying someone else with a hyphenated last name?
Suddenly we’ve got four names and no space on the credit card.

Here’s where I land—names should be a personal choice between spouses. Period.
You’re committing your lives to each other. You should have the freedom to decide what
you want to be called while doing it.

Because taking someone’s last name should never mean losing your first self.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Last Dance and the First Bite

The Wedding Reception (Father-Daughter Dance & Cake-Cutting)

Modern Tradition

- The father-daughter dance is a sentimental staple—symbolizing the bride’s final
moments as “daddy’s little girl” before being handed over to her new husband.
- The cake-cutting ceremony usually features the couple slicing the cake together
and feeding each other a bite (sometimes sweetly, sometimes
aggressively—depending on who’s holding the fork).

Biblical Reference Check

- Neither the dance nor the cake-cutting ceremony appears anywhere in the Bible.
- Receptions and feasts do show up in Scripture (hello, wedding at Cana), but with
wine, storytelling, and general rejoicing—not choreographed symbolism.

Where It Actually Comes From

The father-daughter dance is a more modern tradition, but its meaning echoes the older
patriarchal custom of transferring authority—a final performance of the father’s role
before the husband takes over.
- It’s sweet in sentiment, but let’s not ignore the undertone: “My job’s done—she’s
yours now.”
- The cake-cutting tradition has roots in ancient Roman weddings, where the
groom would break bread over the bride’s head as a symbol of dominance,
fertility, and provision.
- Romantic, right? Crumbs in your hair and patriarchy on your plate.
- Over time, the act evolved into a shared ritual symbolizing unity… with less head-
smashing and more buttercream.

Still Common Today

- The father-daughter dance remains popular, though some brides now choose to
dance with mothers, siblings, step-parents, or no one at all.
- Some couples even open the floor to everyone for a “family dance” instead.
- The cake-cutting ceremony continues but is now largely symbolic—a fun, photo-
worthy moment, often tied to the couple’s shared joy, not the groom’s bread-
breaking bravado.
- Unless, of course, someone gets smashed in the face with frosting. Then we’re
right back to ancient Rome.

Personal Take

This one’s a mixed bag. On one hand, the father-daughter dance can be incredibly
touching—especially if you’ve had a father who’s shown up, stuck around, and loved
you well.  ​It’s a way of honouring that relationship.
Personally, I really enjoyed sharing that moment with my own dad at my wedding.

But as a mom? I’ll admit—watching a ceremony that centers only on the father as the
“giver” of the bride rubs me a little raw. Parenting isn’t a one-person show. And last I
checked, I was there for every scraped knee, teenage meltdown, and milestone.

As for the cake? Well, I like dessert as much as the next person. And if feeding each
other a slice is your thing, go for it. Just know where it started—and decide if that’s the
meaning you want to carry forward.

Because at the end of the day, every tradition is just a habit someone decided to repeat.
You get to decide which ones still hold meaning—and which ones just hold frosting. Or,
which ones you’d like to create for meaning yourself. 
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stand By Me (and Also Fight Off Spirits)

The Bridal Party

Modern Tradition

- Couples select bridesmaids and groomsmen—usually close friends or family—to
stand with them during the ceremony.
- The maid of honour and best man carry extra duties: holding rings, fluffing
dresses, signing papers, wrangling emotions.
- Matching outfits, emotional speeches, group photos, bachelorette weekends, and
one very stressed-out group chat are standard.

Biblical Reference Check

- While the Bible contains many wedding references, there is no directive for bridal
parties as we know them.
- The Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25:1–13) references bridesmaids—but
they’re waiting for the groom, not standing beside the bride.
- Weddings in ancient Jewish culture were community events, but there’s no
scriptural model that features a coordinated party in matching dresses standing
at the altar.

Where It Actually Comes From

In Ancient Rome, bridesmaids dressed like the bride to confuse evil spirits and ward off
bad luck.
- Yes, apparently demons were fixated on ruining the bride’s day.
- The solution? Clone the bride. If you can't tell who’s who, you can’t hex anyone.
Genius.
The best man? Not just a supportive bro with good toast skills.
- In some Germanic tribes, the best man’s role was to help the groom kidnap the
bride if her family didn’t approve (Fraser 1996).
- He was chosen for his sword skills, not his planning abilities.
- Because what says everlasting love like “hold her down while I ride off with her”?
Over time, these roles softened into more ceremonial ones—but the patriarchal
foundation remained:
- The bride needed protection from spirits and control by strong men, and the
groom needed someone to ensure he got what was “his.”

Still Common Today

Bridal parties are still a major part of weddings, but many couples are reinventing the
rules:

- Mixed-gender wedding parties (bridesmen, groomswomen)
- No bridal party at all to keep things intimate and simple
- Including children, pets, grandparents, or non-traditional roles
- Expectations around matching outfits, number of attendants, and pre-wedding
events remain strong in many cultures—but there's growing flexibility.

Personal Take

Okay--evil spirits and kidnapping? I need a moment. Because apparently, spirits were
only after the bride (how convenient), and grooms needed a bodyguard in case her
family refused the deal.

Let’s just pause and say it—that is so far from biblical strength it’s not even in the same
zip code. Godly strength protects. It doesn’t overpower. It lifts up. It doesn’t pin down.

Now, don’t get me wrong—having your people stand beside you on one of the biggest
days of your life? That’s beautiful. Symbolic. Sacred, even.

But when the tradition gets tangled in toxic roots, it’s worth asking: Is this still about
support? Or are we just playing dress-up in ancient patriarchy’s hand-me-downs?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Genesis Before the Gender Roles

Let’s rewind. Strip away the ceremony, the customs, and the corsages. Let’s go all the
way back—to the Garden. Before the Fall. Before hierarchy, dowries, obedience
clauses, and diamond rings. Back to where it started.

Genesis 2:24 (NIV):
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they
become one flesh.”
That’s it. That’s the blueprint.
No “he shall rule over you.”
No submission clause.
No authority handoff.

What you see is mutuality, oneness, and a shared calling to rule and steward together:

Genesis 1:28 (NIV): “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in
number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish…’”

Them. Not him. Not him first, her second.
The dominion was co-dominion. The calling was co-calling. This was the design. The
covenant. Unity without hierarchy. Intimacy without imbalance.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Fall—Where Patriarchy Was Born

But then comes Genesis 3.

The serpent slithered in, the fruit was eaten, and the design unraveled. And with the
unraveling came hierarchy--not as a divine command, but as a consequence of sin.

Genesis 3:16 (NIV):

“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

That wasn’t a divine prescription. That was a description of brokenness (Keener 2017).
A consequence of the fall, not a covenantal upgrade. Yet we’ve built entire theological
systems off that one consequence—as if patriarchy was God’s best idea.
It wasn’t.

We took a sentence of judgment and turned it into a structure of control (but only selectively to this one consequence...).
We confused God’s permission with God’s intention. And those are not the same thing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Law—A Temporary Structure, Not a Permanent Standard

Enter Mosaic Law—a set of rules designed to help manage post-fall brokenness. These
laws were never the original design—they were divine damage control for a world now
bent inward by sin.

But here’s what religious traditionalists get wrong: Not all laws were created equal.

There were:
- Moral laws (reflecting God’s eternal character)
- Ceremonial laws (ritual purity, sacrifices, etc.)
- Civil laws (specific to Israel’s theocratic government)

Patriarchal customs fell largely under the civil and cultural categories—laws written for
fallen people in a fallen system.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christ—The End of the Law & the Restoration of Design

And then Christ came.

Not to add new rules. Not to polish patriarchy. Not to reinforce Mosaic scaffolding.

But to fulfill the law—and to restore what was lost in Eden.

Romans 10:4 (NIV):
“Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who
believes.”

Galatians 3:13 (NIV):
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…”

Colossians 2:14 (NIV):
“He canceled the record of the charges against us and took it away by nailing it
to the cross.”

And for the complementarian who claims this doesn’t apply to marriage roles?

Galatians 3:28 (NIV):
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Yes, I know—silver bullet verse. I’ve heard it all before.
And so have they. Usually dismissed with a theological shrug and a “but that’s just
spiritual unity.”)

Fine. Let’s go deeper.

Let’s take a later letter—Paul’s more fully developed, prison-penned theology.

Ephesians 2:15 (NIV):
“By setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose
was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace.”

Not just restored. Recreated.

All one.
Not all ranked.
Not all structured by hierarchy and headship.
One.

Christ didn’t just restore Eden’s relationship between us and God—He restored Eden’s
relationship between us and each other. That includes marriage. That includes gender
dynamics. That includes all the things we’re still trying to manage with fig leaves and
formulas.

So if your theology still sounds like Genesis 3, you may have missed the point of the
cross.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Christ Redeemed Us—Maybe Let Him

Turns out, I had to come to terms with the fact that most of the “tradition” (or, let’s be
real, the patriarchal patootie) we’ve attached to marriage—and a whole lot of other
things, but I’ll spare you that rabbit hole—were effectively abolished by Christ’s sacrifice.
That’s not to say those things were all bad or that they didn’t (or don’t) serve a purpose.
That’s not the point of this tangent.

And before anyone grabs their pitchfork—or communion wafer—I want to be clear:

I mean no disrespect to the sanctuary of marriage or the oneness it represents.
Whether covenantal or contractual, whether faith-based or legally bound, marriage—at
its truest—is a sacred echo of divine unity.

In true Eden form, we humans have a habit of leaning harder into the laws born out of
the fall rather than circling back to the Genesis blueprint. It's like we're more comfortable
managing the aftermath than restoring the original design. Easier to enforce rules than
embody grace.

But here’s the rub—marriage was never meant to reflect the fallout of the fall—it was
designed to reflect the unity of creation. That’s covenant. Not contract. And yet, here we
are, still living like Genesis 3 has the final word.

Eating the apple didn’t make humanity more like God. And following traditional,
patriarchal hierarchies posturing as “God’s order” isn’t making us any holier either.

The serpent’s pitch hasn’t changed.
"Do this, and you’ll be more like God."

But sorry—nope. Still false.

Then and now.

- It means that hierarchical marriage reflects the Fall, not the Garden.
- It means mutual submission, not top-down authority, is the restored design.
- It means that marriage, from a biblical and covenantal standpoint, is not about
roles—it’s about oneness. Co-laboring. Co-heirship.

So that’s my take.

Just in case anyone’s wondering.

Or gives a flying feather.

But that’s the whole point of Christ’s death, isn’t it? He didn’t just die to secure us a
prime seat in eternity—He died to restore what was lost in Eden. So, when we choose
to remain in the state He died to save us from, we’re essentially misrepresenting or
outright denying His sacrifice. It’s like getting a free pass out of prison and deciding to
stay in the cell because you’ve gotten used to the view.

Marriage was never meant to mirror the curse. It was designed to reflect unity—and
that’s what Jesus came to restore.

So maybe the question isn’t “What’s my role?” Maybe it’s, “What part of Eden am I still
resisting?”

And if someone wants to keep preaching a curse like it’s a covenant?

Just smile politely and remember--you’ve already been redeemed.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources Consulted

The following sources were referenced to support historical, cultural, and
theological claims throughout this piece. In-text citations reflect Chicago Author-
Date format.

Crawford, Patricia. Women and Religion in England, 1500–1720. London: Routledge,
2004.

Fraser, Antonia. The Warrior Queens: The Legends and the Lives of the Women Who
Have Led Their Nations in War. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

Howard, Vicki. Brides, Inc.: American Weddings and the Business of Tradition.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Keener, Craig S. Genesis: A Theological Commentary for Preachers. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2017.

Sullivan, Barbara M. “Marketing Wedding Rituals and the Culture of Consumption.”
Journal of Consumer Culture 5, no. 2 (1985): 125–147.