Well here is the WTS explanation from 1952, 1956, 1969, and 1972. There are some hilarious statements made. (Why anniversaries and not birthdays? related question)
*** w52 6/15 361-2 The Marriage Ceremony RINGS
In marriage services performed by and for Jehovahs witnesses, the exchange of rings between the bride and the bridegroom is left entirely optional with those being married. In the selection of the bride for Isaac it is recognized that Rebecca accepted a hand adornment. (Gen. 24:22, 30, 53, Mo;
AT) Similarly in Luke 15:22, a ring was given to the prodigal by his father on his home-coming.
We, of course, recognize that rings are used extensively in many pagan rituals
.
This fact, however, in no wise prohibits their use in any Christian service, particularly when the Bible mentions their use with approval. It is certainly
more reasonable to expect that Satan, the mimic god, copied their use from Jehovah, rather than to accept the untenable position that Jehovah copied their use from demonic heathen practices.
However, if some prefer to dispense with them in their marriage service, it is their right to do so. On this point let each one feel quite free to do that which is proper and
right in his own mind. A bridegroom does not wed his bride by putting a ring on her finger.
*** w56 9/15 571 Marriage Ceremony and Requirements ***
A wedding ring may not be customary or may be beyond ones means. The marriage estate is not everywhere symbolized by a wedding ring
. It is no essential part of a marriage ceremony. Failure to give a wedding ring is not to ones discredit. Even where the wedding ring is recognized as marking a married woman and serves notice upon anyone with passionate desires
, some may conscientiously object to featuring a ring in the ceremony, having in mind the pagan origin of the customary wedding ring in Christendom. In some places the marriage estate of a woman is indicated by the style of dress that she wears or the new piece that she adds to her garments. Locally this is just as effective as a finger ring, in fact more noticeable
. A wedding ring amounts to nothing if there is no real tie or if the marriage tie is not respected. A passionate woman (or a man BTW) will not let a ring keep her from committing adultery. The use of a ring in a marriage ceremony should therefore be
left to each ones decision according to conscience and local custom.
*** w69 1/15 58-9 Christian Weddings Should Reflect Reasonableness ***
Then there is the tradition of the wedding ring.
A study of the subject would likely leave you confused as to the origin and meaning of the wedding ring; the claims are many, the facts muddled. Even if the Bible does not directly mention wedding rings, it is plain that Jehovahs servants could wear rings. (Job 42:11, 12; Luke 15:22) But what if people in ones land believe that a wedding ring symbolizes a couples unbroken faith, love and devotion?
Christians do not attach any symbolic meaning to a wedding ring, even though they cultivate these qualities in marriage, and even if many in the world are hypocritical in claiming to manifest such.
A wedding ring ensures nothing. It merely serves public notice of married estate.
It is not improper for a Christian to give evidence of his or her married status by wearing a wedding ring, be it on the right hand, as in Germany, or on the left. Yet this is
not a necessity where it is not a legal requirement. So
the couple can decide what to do in accord with their financial situation and personal preferences.
*** w72 1/15 63 Questions from Readers ***
Is
it
proper
for
a
Christian
to
wear
a
wedding
ring?Greece.Many sincere Christians have asked this question out of a desire to avoid any custom of which God might disapprove. Some of the questioners know that Catholic prelate John H. Newman wrote: "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, . . . (omitted part: and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields;) sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." (An
Essay
on
the
Development
of
the
Christian
Doctrine, 1878) While the facts prove that many of the current religious practices Newman lists definitely were adopted from pagan worship, is that true of the wedding ring?
Actually there are conflicting ideas as to the origin of the wedding ring
. Let us give a few examples: "Originally . . . the ring was a fetter, used to bind the captive bride." (
For
Richer,
for
Poorer) "The ring is a relatively modern substitute for the gold coin or other article of value with which a man literally purchased his wife from her father." (
The
Jewish
Wedding
Book) "The wedding ring is supposed to be of Roman origin, and to have sprung from the ancient custom of using rings in making agreements." (
American
Cyclopdia) "Various explanations have been given of the connection of the ring with marriage. It would appear that wedding-rings were worn by the Jews prior to Christian times."
The
International
Cyclopaedia.It is thus seen that the precise origin of the wedding ring is uncertain. Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of todays articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christians using these time divisions, for ones doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices.
Of course, our concern is greater as regards the use of wedding rings, since this relates, not to minor secular matters, but to the marriage relationship, which the Christian rightly views as sacred before God. Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were originally used as part of false religious practices and still
retain
such
religioussignificance. As has been shown, the historical evidence does not allow for any definite conclusion on this. What does the Bible say about the use of rings?
The Bible shows that some of Gods servants in the past wore rings, even ones that had special meaning attached to them. Wearing a signet ring could indicate that one had received authority to act in behalf of the ruler who owned it. (Gen. 41:42; Num. 31:50; Esther 8:2, 8; Job 42:11, 12; Luke 15:22) So, while wedding rings are not mentioned, these true worshipers clearly did not scruple against using rings for more than mere adornment.
Some persons say that a wedding ring represents ones unending love and devotion in marriage. The increasing divorce rate in many lands where married persons usually wear a wedding ring proves that this meaning is more imagined than real. Nonetheless, for the majority of persons, including Christians, in lands where wedding rings are common, the ring is an outward indication that the wearer is a married person. In other localities the same point is shown in a different way, such as by a womans wearing a certain style of clothing.
Of course, a wedding ring is by no means a Christian requirement. One Christian might decide not to wear a wedding ring, because of conscience, personal taste, cost, local custom, or some other reason. Yet another Christian might decide to indicate his married status by means of a wedding ring. Hence, in the
final analysis the decision is a personal one, to be made in accord with the conscientious views one holds.
