Does God define marriage?

[Tetra]

I often see Christian's state: God defines marriage, you cannot alter the definition of marriage.

I'd like to suggest, yes that's true, but only for Christian couples.

I do not believe God defines marriage for secular unions. So why do Christian's try and impose their definition of marriage on those whom are not Christians. Seems odd to me.

 

[RaymondG]

I happen to think that God doesnt care too much about physical unions......I believe the only marriage He is concerned with is the Marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride...whom we are.

 

[Rajni]

I often see Christian's state: God defines marriage, you cannot alter the definition of marriage.

I'd like to suggest, yes that's true, but only for Christian couples.

I do not believe God defines marriage for secular unions. So why do Christian's try and impose their definition of marriage on those whom are not Christians. Seems odd to me.

What makes it even more confusing is that the Bible presents different
arrangements as marriage. What is now accepted as "one man and one woman"
wasn't always considered "traditional marriage" from a biblical standpoint.

 

[Tetra]

What makes it even more confusing is that the Bible presents different
arrangements as marriage. What is now accepted as "one man and one woman"
wasn't always considered "traditional marriage" from a biblical standpoint.

Yeah, I kinda don't think monogamy was rampant 2000 years ago in the middle east. Haha.

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah, I kinda don't think monogamy was rampant 2000 years ago in the middle east. Haha.

Actually, it was. At least in Jewish culture. Rome and Greece had all kinds of other things going on with slaves, temple prostitutes and house boys.

While polygny was not unheard of in first century Judea, it was rather rare. Rabbinical rule made it only available for the incredibly wealthy.

Now if you want to go back another thousand years (days of Samuel and King David) it was a very different story.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Actually, it was. At least in Jewish culture. Rome and Greece had all kinds of other things going on with slaves, temple prostitutes and house boys.

While polygny was not unheard of in first century Judea, it was rather rare. Rabbinical rule made it only available for the incredibly wealthy.

Now if you want to go back another thousand years (days of Samuel and King David) it was a very different story.

I've often wondered about concubines, and why they were permissible. Seems to me concubines is out and out adultery.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Legally people should be able to have personal relationships involving consenting adults. What concern the government has should be about whether there's a need to recognize relationships. If yes, it's about recognizing what was accepted by the people themselves. Not an excuse for the government to involve itself further, except what is legally needed (rights, privileges, immunities). That's for debate, being done equally and fairly under the law.

As for Christianity, it does seem to favor the idea of one God, one man, one woman (God, Adam, Eve; God, Jesus, Mary; even God, Joseph, Mary (of God in union for Christ)). But I'm not sure how literally, I guess a better word would be 'strictly' expect or accept as a requirement when considering complicated circumstances. What of God's word are parables, being symbolic to teach lessons beyond the surface? If two people of the same-sex loved each other, is the intention of sex extended to them as it would be opposite-sex couple? Are all of us expected to love in marriage, waiting to have sex? Is sex limited to having children?

Many circumstances and questions, personally I don't have all the answers. But at least, I think this is a reason why government should either recognize relationships understanding it's complicated, or not at all. Just leave much of it to the people themselves.

 

[Dave-W]

I've often wondered about concubines, and why they were permissible. Seems to me concubines is out and out adultery.

Not really as they had a covenant relationship to the man, but usually as a slave wife. Think of Leah and Rachel's slaves Bilhah and Zilpah. They were concubines. they became wives but were still slaves of the primary wives.

Adultery is sex when the woman (or the man) is in a marriage (or marriage-like) covenant with someone other than the sex partner.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Not really as they had a covenant relationship to the man, but usually as a slave wife. Think of Leah and Rachel's slaves Bilhah and Zilpah. They were concubines. they became wives but were still slaves of the primary wives.

Adultery is sex when the woman (or the man) is in a marriage (or marriage-like) covenant with someone other than the sex partner.

Which brings up another point. Why did God permit more than one wife, when that wasn't His original order.

 

[Tetra]

Which brings up another point. Why did God permit more than one wife, when that wasn't His original order.

Lots of things were not in His original plan that later became permissible after the fall. Why He allows that, dunno.

 

[Dave-W]

Which brings up another point. Why did God permit more than one wife, when that wasn't His original order.

Not only "allow" - but in certain (probably rare) cases COMMANDED it.

Deuteronomy 25:5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

No mention or exception was made if the surviving brother was already married.

Most of what is written it the bible was to deal with the effects of sin - living in a fallen world. I think this is one of those provisions.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Not only "allow" - but in certain (probably rare) cases COMMANDED it.

Deuteronomy 25:5 When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.

No mention or exception was made if the surviving brother was already married.

Most of what is written it the bible was to deal with the effects of sin - living in a fallen world. I think this is one of those provisions.

It is also curious when that all stopped and why?

 

[Rajni]

I can even see the wisdom in something like polygamy, as it could, at least
theoretically, reduce the likelihood of adultery. When one has only one spouse,
the chances are greater that they'll stray if they come across someone else they
like. But if one has at least a dozen or more spouses, there's more room for
variety within the marriage, reducing the (perceived) need to go outside of it
in order to mix things up a bit. And if they do find someone outside of the
marriage that they are also attracted to, they can simply marry them too!

-

 

[Greg J.]

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24, 1984 NIV)

This applies to all humans, in fact, you could make the case that it especially applies to descendants of Adam. Btw, one flesh is not a reference to sexual intercourse.

 

[Greg J.]

It is also curious when that all stopped and why?

This was important when Israel was divided up for each of the tribes of Jews. The land was an inheritance from God. For a family's name to be rubbed out meant the loss of land to a family and their descendants that God had given them. This was not really an acceptable result for a gift from God. The land was the source of life in such an extremely agrarian society.

I presume it all stopped when the connection between the Jewish families and their land was destroyed—however, that stopped the practices (to continue a man's name); it didn't mean it stopped the fact that the land was an inheritance for those family's descendants.

 

[Tetra]

Actually, it was.

If it was, there would have been no need for the stipulation in 1 Timothy 3:2

 

[RaymondG]

I can even see the wisdom in something like polygamy, as it could, at least
theoretically, reduce the likelihood of adultery. When one has only one spouse,
the chances are greater that they'll stray if they come across someone else they
like. But if one has at least a dozen or more spouses, there's more room for
variety within the marriage, reducing the (perceived) need to go outside of it
in order to mix things up a bit. And if they do find someone outside of the
marriage that they are also attracted to, they can simply marry them too!

-

I have a hard enough time with one wife.....you can keep your 12 or more. If God starts commanding this....I may have to move to the desert to prepare for the Heat I'll experience in the afterlife......

 

[Dave-W]

If it was, there would have been no need for the stipulation in 1 Timothy 3:2

"Husband of one wife" for congregational leadership both in Tim and Titus.

Like I said, one had to be wealthy to be allowed more than one wife. Wealthy men like to put themselves in leadership positions.

Paul was warding that off. That and Jewish records show there not very many men with more than one wife.

But I also take that to eliminate single men from leading a congregation.

 

[ken777]

I often see Christian's state: God defines marriage, you cannot alter the definition of marriage.

I'd like to suggest, yes that's true, but only for Christian couples.

I do not believe God defines marriage for secular unions. So why do Christian's try and impose their definition of marriage on those whom are not Christians. Seems odd to me.

If the New Testament defines marriage - and it does - then that is the only form of marriage that is right. There are many reasons it is the right, as well as the best way, so Christians ought to lend their support to promoting what is best for the society in which our children & grandchildren will grow up.

 

[Tetra]

If the New Testament defines marriage - and it does - then that is the only form of marriage that is right. There are many reasons it is the right, as well as the best way, so Christians ought to lend their support to promoting what is best for the society in which our children & grandchildren will grow up.

I'm sorry, I don't think we should be forcing non-believers to live in Christian marriages. I honestly dont recall seeing that in the Bible. Can you direct me to where the Bible suggests that?