This, That, and the Other Thing
I will drop by from time to time and jot my thoughts on the topics of the day. Always, or at least, usually, from my Christian perspective. I spend most of my time in Ethics and Morality, the Men's Corner, the Pornography Addiction Support forum, and Parenting Teens. You can pretty much guess what my entries will be like.
Bwuahahahahaha! (that was me laughing maniacally).
I will drop by from time to time and jot my thoughts on the topics of the day. Always, or at least, usually, from my Christian perspective. I spend most of my time in Ethics and Morality, the Men's Corner, the Pornography Addiction Support forum, and Parenting Teens. You can pretty much guess what my entries will be like.
Bwuahahahahaha! (that was me laughing maniacally).What is "Marriage"
One common question that I run across when debating same sex marriage, sexual immorality, and the like, is what exactly is "marriage"? Or more specifically, what does God recognize as a marriage? Can any combination of people count as a marriage in God's eyes, or is there a universal rule, a concrete definition that sets the standard around which the debate must revolve? I believe God does indeed set such a standard. In this post, I would like to discuss that standard and the typical objections to it.
There is little doubt in my mind that this is indeed the definition of marriage from God's perspective. One will note two things about the relationship described - it is monogamous, and it is heterosexual. I believe that every relationship described as a "marriage" in the bible fits this pattern. Conversely, any arrangement that does not fit this pattern is not recognized by God as a marriage. What society wants to call it is irrelevant if we are considering God's stand.
The Objections
I have run across four main objections to this verse as being the "definition of marriage in God's perspective". I would like to tackle each in turn. The first two will be dealt with in this post and the remaining two in a subsequent entry.
1. The verse doesn’t mention marriage, so it is not about marriage.
Of course, the knee-jerk reaction to this protest is simply "if not marriage, then what is it about". Thankfully, God provides us ample confirmation in his word that the verse is indeed about marriage and only marriage.
In Matthew 19 (and the parallel in Mark 10), Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 when discussing divorce. Jesus describes divorce as the rending asunder of that which God, exemplified by the Genesis definition, has joined together. Jesus universally associates Genesis 2:24 with God recognized marriage.
Paul echoes Jesus' use of Genesis 2:24 in even more conclusive terms. Paul repeats the marriage definition in the quintessential marriage passage - Ephesians 5:22-33. Paul is talking about nothing but marriage here, and puts force behind his message by reminding his audience of the initial, and unchanging, definition given to us in Genesis.
2. There are other relationship configurations that the bible calls "marriage".
This is what I call the "polygamy defense". The argument goes - "since polygamous unions are called 'marriages' and violate the 'one man; one woman' rule, Genesis 2:24 is not all inclusive of God's perspective". The extension of the argument, then, is: “if polygamy is also ‘marriage’ in exception to Genesis, there may also be other unions which qualify as marriage.”
This is a flawed argument because it actually incorrectly defines polygamy. Polygamy is not a marriage of a man to a group of women, but a group of simultaneous marriages between one man and individual women. Therefore, the one man; one woman paradigm is in tact.
It should be noted that although polygamy was culturally accepted in ancient times, there is no indication that God actually approved of it. Just like divorce, it seems likely that God merely tolerated the practice due to the hardness of the human heart toward God's "good" design. That being said, polygamy did not violate the definition of marriage, even though it certainly negatively impacted the "one flesh" potential of each individual union.
(go to part II)
Quote:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (NASB)
The Objections
I have run across four main objections to this verse as being the "definition of marriage in God's perspective". I would like to tackle each in turn. The first two will be dealt with in this post and the remaining two in a subsequent entry.
1. The verse doesn’t mention marriage, so it is not about marriage.
Of course, the knee-jerk reaction to this protest is simply "if not marriage, then what is it about". Thankfully, God provides us ample confirmation in his word that the verse is indeed about marriage and only marriage.
In Matthew 19 (and the parallel in Mark 10), Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 when discussing divorce. Jesus describes divorce as the rending asunder of that which God, exemplified by the Genesis definition, has joined together. Jesus universally associates Genesis 2:24 with God recognized marriage.
Paul echoes Jesus' use of Genesis 2:24 in even more conclusive terms. Paul repeats the marriage definition in the quintessential marriage passage - Ephesians 5:22-33. Paul is talking about nothing but marriage here, and puts force behind his message by reminding his audience of the initial, and unchanging, definition given to us in Genesis.
2. There are other relationship configurations that the bible calls "marriage".
This is what I call the "polygamy defense". The argument goes - "since polygamous unions are called 'marriages' and violate the 'one man; one woman' rule, Genesis 2:24 is not all inclusive of God's perspective". The extension of the argument, then, is: “if polygamy is also ‘marriage’ in exception to Genesis, there may also be other unions which qualify as marriage.”
This is a flawed argument because it actually incorrectly defines polygamy. Polygamy is not a marriage of a man to a group of women, but a group of simultaneous marriages between one man and individual women. Therefore, the one man; one woman paradigm is in tact.
It should be noted that although polygamy was culturally accepted in ancient times, there is no indication that God actually approved of it. Just like divorce, it seems likely that God merely tolerated the practice due to the hardness of the human heart toward God's "good" design. That being said, polygamy did not violate the definition of marriage, even though it certainly negatively impacted the "one flesh" potential of each individual union.
(go to part II)
Total Comments 4
Comments
 | I'm a Newbie named Canaan. Taught HIV/AIDS and sex education. Have God's love for gays and lesbians but happily married with two children. My profile shows African-American male with sound file Amazing Grace and I believe we should all love everyone. Read Phillip Yancey's book on "What's SoAmazing About Grace?" and agree with all he wrote. We must have Agape love for everybody whatever sexual preference, color or other issues. I've cried too many times for the African HIV/AIDS pandemic but God is already doing wonderous things as some Ugandans are being healed of HIV/AIDS. Canaan |
  |
| | Toanswer your question of "What is marrage?" God has explained it several times starting IN Genesis. Man should leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife and they both shall be one flesh. God created them male and female to further replentish the earth and praise and honor God. |
| |
| |  Reading the Post...a novel ideaEdMummert - did you actually read my post or are you simply reacting to the title? Your comment seems to presume I am seeking answers to the question instead of proposing them. The title is rhetorical. |
| |
| | Canaan - I agree, although I don't know how your comment applies to the post. Are you suggesting that because everyone deserves love and grace they also deserve to call their relationships God recognized marriage? I have not read Yancey's book but do know his work and I hardly think that was his point. |
| Updated 19th August 2008 at 12:15 PM by gengwall |
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by gengwall
- Equality in the Original Marriage Design - What About Paul? (17th September 2008)
- Parallel Blogging at Blogspot (11th September 2008)
- Equality in the Marriage Relationship - Part III (10th September 2008)
- Score: Hockey-Mom 1; Liberal Elite 0 (5th September 2008)
- Calif. Court: Docs Can't Withhold Fertility Treatment to Gays (2nd September 2008)
