Which wedding traditions are biblical? Should you take your husband’s name or even wear a ring?

When I got married in 2001, I didn’t think twice about the social convention of taking my husband’s name nor the ring he gave me on our engagement. It is only now, as I pay increasing attention to the patriarchal structures woven into the fabric of our society that I have stopped to think why, and then, to wonder what God thinks about it too.

Recent studies have demonstrated a growing shift in the ways that people observe the traditions associated with engagement and marriage. Where marriage is seen to be a predominantly Christian practice, we assume that the traditions such as the exchange of rings or the taking of the husband’s name must also have their roots in Christianity and therefore, in the Bible.

We assume that the traditions such as the exchange of rings or the taking of the husband’s name must also have their roots in Christianity and therefore, in the Bible.

In turning to the Bible though, it becomes clear that there are no specific scriptures commanding the wife to assume the husband’s name. It is true that within the patriarchal context of both Old and New Testament times, women were characterised as possession, either by their father or their husband. But we see this contradicted in Genesis (2:24) where men were instructed to leave their family and be joined to their wives’. This was meant to serve as an alert to those patriarchal times that women were not possessions.

Interestingly we also see that God was less concerned by the male right of succession than the continuation of the family name itself. We read this in Numbers 26 and 27 when, after the Hebrews have crossed into the promised land, land was allocated to all, though in accordance with a census which only counted all men over twenty years of age.

This presented an immediate problem for the five orphaned daughters of Zelophehad. He had had no sons and through this law the family line would be lost, as the possession of land equated to a family name. When the daughters appealed to Moses, God ruled on the side of the daughters and allowed them to inherit the land and keep the family name alive. 

Given then, that we can find no definitive instruction about the taking of the husband’s name, we cast the net wider and look at what God says about names in general. In Proverbs (22:1) and Ecclesiastes (7:1) we are encouraged to seek a good "name" and called to reflect on how we want to be known. When we become "Christians", that is our new name, or in the Greek; "little anointed ones" and this is the reputation we should want to uphold and the only name we are instructed to take. 

The giving of a ring at betrothal is more accurately credited to the Romans.

A further distraction may also be the preoccupation with earthly symbols of commitment. Having no root in the scriptures, the giving of a ring at betrothal is more accurately credited to the Romans where a valuable gift was given to the bride-to-be by the groom. As time passed, the ring became a symbol of possession by the husband, which as already seen has no relevance to Christian marriage. In modern times however, the rings have become a symbol of mutual commitment and affection and as such symbolise nothing but that.

It would appear then that both the taking of a new family name and the giving of rings is a matter of culture and conscience. The continuation of a family does not appear to be tied to male succession nor written into scriptural law. God is far more concerned with how we continue his own family name, as Christians and that when marriage is considered, that the promises made are not dependent on human-made symbols.