Is Procreation the Purpose of Marriage?

[Apex]

Many assume that children should only be born into heterosexual married households so that they can be adequately provided for - emotionally and physically. And while this might be ideal under optimal circumstances, adequacy is subjective and contextual. Some single parent households have undoubtedly provided a better environment for children than some bi-parental families. Plus, less than ideal circumstances stemming from a death of a spouse to legitimate divorce are often unavoidable. As such, we simply cannot make a moral standard based on ideals.

Looking at Scripture, when children within marriage are in context, the emphasis in the Old Testament is primarily of children carrying on their father's name. Closely related to this concern was the need for the orderly transmission of inheritance, particularly the land, which was normally passed on to sons. Keeping wives in sexually exclusive relationships ensured heir legitimacy and the orderly transmission of the land given by God through the coming generations. This also helps to explain why "virgin" brides held a higher economic value (dowry and bride price) and why adultery is viewed as a great sin.

Yet, we find ourselves living in a vastly different culture where things like heir legitimacy and inheritance no longer require female sexual exclusivity or children in marriage.

This leads to my question: Does marriage require procreation in order for the marriage to be valid or to fulfill its purpose?

What about the command to be fruitful and multiple? The command to "be fruitful and multiply" is not given merely to the man and the woman. It is also given to the animals (Genesis 1:22), and is thus not a directive given uniquely to human marriage. This calls into question whether the essence of marriage is in view here or whether the focus should be more generally on the divine blessing given to the creation. Also, the words "be fruitful and multiply" are more properly understood as a blessing rather than as a command. In fact, every usage of that phrase in Scripture occurs in the context of divine blessing. Plus, hardly any Christian theologian would argue that marriage ceases to exist in the absence of procreation.

What about Genesis 2:24? As I have already mentioned in other threads on "one flesh" unions, this means nothing more than the unitive kinship bond that is created in marriage. Here, if anywhere in Scripture, the essence of marriage is clearly in view and procreation is never explicitly mentioned. This is why many desperately try to make "one flesh" mean more than a kinship bond. Similarly, the most extended meditation on sexual love in the entire Old Testament, the Song of Solomon, makes no mention of issues related to procreation at all, focusing entirely on the delights of physical love. If procreation is the essential purpose of sex and marriage, one is hard-pressed to explain its absence from this entire book of the Bible that is devoted to sex and marriage.

What about the New Testament? Paul’s discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 will help us here. Paul is confronting some in the Corinthian church who are encouraging people to avoid marriage or to avoid sex within marriage. In this extended discussion of marriage in the New Testament, Paul rejects the complete avoidance of marriage by Christians, and he insists that those who cannot exercise self-control in committing pornea should get married. But marriage, in this context, has as its purpose not the bearing of children but the exercise of mutual care and the avoidance of uncontrolled lust. Here one might naturally expect Paul to argue quite differently, insisting that Christians must not avoid sex and marriage but exercise their divine responsibility to produce offspring! Yet we see none of this here. Marriage is still important, but the purpose of procreation plays no role in Paul's discussion of marriage.

Procreation can be an important part of marriage culturally and marriage is an ideal context where procreation can happen, but marriage has something more than procreation as its essential reason for being. When we consider some of the most extensive discussions of marriage in Scripture, procreation is explicitly absent from the discussion, and the focus falls on kinship, sharing, mutual support, self-control, and intimacy instead. And it is worth adding, nowhere in Scripture is the absence of children a justification for dissolving the marriage bond itself.

In conclusion, the unitive purpose of marriage is primary and the procreative aspect is secondary. The unitive purpose is essential, because without it marriage cannot exist. And while the procreative aspect is important, it is not essential because marriage can exist without it.

 

[HoleyHermit]

Procreation is not essential in marriage but it is normative. It didn't need to be stressed because it tends to happen during the natural course of events.

 

[Victory-N-Christ]

Many assume that children should only be born into heterosexual married households so that they can be adequately provided for - emotionally and physically. And while this might be ideal under optimal circumstances, adequacy is subjective and contextual. Some single parent households have undoubtedly provided a better environment for children than some bi-parental families. Plus, less than ideal circumstances stemming from a death of a spouse to legitimate divorce are often unavoidable. As such, we simply cannot make a moral standard based on ideals.

Looking at Scripture, when children within marriage are in context, the emphasis in the Old Testament is primarily of children carrying on their father's name. Closely related to this concern was the need for the orderly transmission of inheritance, particularly the land, which was normally passed on to sons. Keeping wives in sexually exclusive relationships ensured heir legitimacy and the orderly transmission of the land given by God through the coming generations. This also helps to explain why "virgin" brides held a higher economic value (dowry and bride price) and why adultery is viewed as a great sin.

Yet, we find ourselves living in a vastly different culture where things like heir legitimacy and inheritance no longer require female sexual exclusivity or children in marriage.

This leads to my question: Does marriage require procreation in order for the marriage to be valid or to fulfill its purpose?

What about the command to be fruitful and multiple? The command to "be fruitful and multiply" is not given merely to the man and the woman. It is also given to the animals (Genesis 1:22), and is thus not a directive given uniquely to human marriage. This calls into question whether the essence of marriage is in view here or whether the focus should be more generally on the divine blessing given to the creation. Also, the words "be fruitful and multiply" are more properly understood as a blessing rather than as a command. In fact, every usage of that phrase in Scripture occurs in the context of divine blessing. Plus, hardly any Christian theologian would argue that marriage ceases to exist in the absence of procreation.

What about Genesis 2:24? As I have already mentioned in other threads on "one flesh" unions, this means nothing more than the unitive kinship bond that is created in marriage. Here, if anywhere in Scripture, the essence of marriage is clearly in view and procreation is never explicitly mentioned. This is why many desperately try to make "one flesh" mean more than a kinship bond. Similarly, the most extended meditation on sexual love in the entire Old Testament, the Song of Solomon, makes no mention of issues related to procreation at all, focusing entirely on the delights of physical love. If procreation is the essential purpose of sex and marriage, one is hard-pressed to explain its absence from this entire book of the Bible that is devoted to sex and marriage.

What about the New Testament? Paul’s discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 will help us here. Paul is confronting some in the Corinthian church who are encouraging people to avoid marriage or to avoid sex within marriage. In this extended discussion of marriage in the New Testament, Paul rejects the complete avoidance of marriage by Christians, and he insists that those who cannot exercise self-control in committing pornea should get married. But marriage, in this context, has as its purpose not the bearing of children but the exercise of mutual care and the avoidance of uncontrolled lust. Here one might naturally expect Paul to argue quite differently, insisting that Christians must not avoid sex and marriage but exercise their divine responsibility to produce offspring! Yet we see none of this here. Marriage is still important, but the purpose of procreation plays no role in Paul's discussion of marriage.

Procreation can be an important part of marriage culturally and marriage is an ideal context where procreation can happen, but marriage has something more than procreation as its essential reason for being. When we consider some of the most extensive discussions of marriage in Scripture, procreation is explicitly absent from the discussion, and the focus falls on kinship, sharing, mutual support, self-control, and intimacy instead. And it is worth adding, nowhere in Scripture is the absence of children a justification for dissolving the marriage bond itself.

In conclusion, the unitive purpose of marriage is primary and the procreative aspect is secondary. The unitive purpose is essential, because without it marriage cannot exist. And while the procreative aspect is important, it is not essential because marriage can exist without it.

Good thread.

 

[archer75]

But some people are infertile and all Christian groups I know of do not forbid marriage to them or to those who have aged out of fertility. So the implicit assumption seems to be that procreation or its possibility is not required for marriage.

 

[BobRyan]

Many assume that children should only be born into heterosexual married households so that they can be adequately provided for - emotionally and physically. And while this might be ideal under optimal circumstances, adequacy is subjective and contextual. Some single parent households have undoubtedly provided a better environment for children than some bi-parental families. Plus, less than ideal circumstances stemming from a death of a spouse to legitimate divorce are often unavoidable. As such, we simply cannot make a moral standard based on ideals.

Looking at Scripture, when children within marriage are in context, the emphasis in the Old Testament is primarily of children carrying on their father's name. Closely related to this concern was the need for the orderly transmission of inheritance, particularly the land, which was normally passed on to sons. Keeping wives in sexually exclusive relationships ensured heir legitimacy and the orderly transmission of the land given by God through the coming generations. This also helps to explain why "virgin" brides held a higher economic value (dowry and bride price) and why adultery is viewed as a great sin.

Yet, we find ourselves living in a vastly different culture where things like heir legitimacy and inheritance no longer require female sexual exclusivity or children in marriage.

This leads to my question: Does marriage require procreation in order for the marriage to be valid or to fulfill its purpose?

What about the command to be fruitful and multiple? The command to "be fruitful and multiply" is not given merely to the man and the woman. It is also given to the animals (Genesis 1:22), and is thus not a directive given uniquely to human marriage. This calls into question whether the essence of marriage is in view here or whether the focus should be more generally on the divine blessing given to the creation. Also, the words "be fruitful and multiply" are more properly understood as a blessing rather than as a command. In fact, every usage of that phrase in Scripture occurs in the context of divine blessing. Plus, hardly any Christian theologian would argue that marriage ceases to exist in the absence of procreation.

What about Genesis 2:24? As I have already mentioned in other threads on "one flesh" unions, this means nothing more than the unitive kinship bond that is created in marriage. Here, if anywhere in Scripture, the essence of marriage is clearly in view and procreation is never explicitly mentioned. This is why many desperately try to make "one flesh" mean more than a kinship bond. Similarly, the most extended meditation on sexual love in the entire Old Testament, the Song of Solomon, makes no mention of issues related to procreation at all, focusing entirely on the delights of physical love. If procreation is the essential purpose of sex and marriage, one is hard-pressed to explain its absence from this entire book of the Bible that is devoted to sex and marriage.

What about the New Testament? Paul’s discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 will help us here. Paul is confronting some in the Corinthian church who are encouraging people to avoid marriage or to avoid sex within marriage. In this extended discussion of marriage in the New Testament, Paul rejects the complete avoidance of marriage by Christians, and he insists that those who cannot exercise self-control in committing pornea should get married. But marriage, in this context, has as its purpose not the bearing of children but the exercise of mutual care and the avoidance of uncontrolled lust. Here one might naturally expect Paul to argue quite differently, insisting that Christians must not avoid sex and marriage but exercise their divine responsibility to produce offspring! Yet we see none of this here. Marriage is still important, but the purpose of procreation plays no role in Paul's discussion of marriage.

Procreation can be an important part of marriage culturally and marriage is an ideal context where procreation can happen, but marriage has something more than procreation as its essential reason for being. When we consider some of the most extensive discussions of marriage in Scripture, procreation is explicitly absent from the discussion, and the focus falls on kinship, sharing, mutual support, self-control, and intimacy instead. And it is worth adding, nowhere in Scripture is the absence of children a justification for dissolving the marriage bond itself.

In conclusion, the unitive purpose of marriage is primary and the procreative aspect is secondary. The unitive purpose is essential, because without it marriage cannot exist. And while the procreative aspect is important, it is not essential because marriage can exist without it.

Ok - now for some Irrefutable facts.

1. One can conjure up such a horrific family scenario that -- living alone in a desert is "better". This does not mean it is our new "goal" or "ideal" or "just as good-as".

2. Some couples cannot have children because either the husband or wife is sterile or some sort of problem of that sort. It does not make their marriage pointless/worthless. It is still a proper marriage - one man and one woman as we see in Genesis 2.

3. Generalizing into ever more fantastic "abstractions" - could lead to "two telephone poles bound together for strength" then being viewed as a kind of "marriage" with "benefit". I see no point in such abstractions.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Children are not required nor needed if married. Sadly many women (and some men) will twist versus to show marriages only purpose is to have kids because they themselves want lots of kids. Which is a normal christian thing to do, tell others what you do is the right thing, thus what they do is the wrong thing unless you do what they do. Cherry picking, twisting...etc.

I tend to stump people who say marriage is about having kids by saying "So when two 60+ year olds marry and don't have kids.... what does that mean?". They usually are not sure how to answer really or make some up some new on the spot rule about being older and not having. Despite it not being mentioned in the bible.

 

[buzuxi02]

But some people are infertile and all Christian groups I know of do not forbid marriage to them or to those who have aged out of fertility. So the implicit assumption seems to be that procreation or its possibility is not required for marriage.

Not really true. Orthodoxy does not have any marriage rite for people too old to have children. The service is primarily fertility prayers for young people.
In most parts of the world elderly people getting married is a non-existent thing.

 

[buzuxi02]

The word matrimony is Latin for "towards motherhood". Marriage ensured heirs, under roman law the institution of concubines was merely an economic contract usually of a wealthy man to a poor lower social status woman (sugar daddies). Any offspring from such a union were illegitimate. Offspring from Legal Marriage's was the only way to pass on property.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts promoting sex outside of marriage have been removed

This thread is permanently closed for being used as a platform for promoting sex outside of marriage