![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
groovychkBiblical marriage: a bad source for debate
By Vaughn Roste
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.
So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.
All told, I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen. 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distill those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen. 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron. 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron. 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen. 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron. 3:9, 2 Chron. 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen. 6:2, Deut. 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiance, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron. 2:35, Jer. 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen. 29:14-30).
Interfaith marriages are prohibited (Gen. 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh. 10:30, 2 Cor. 6:14). Divorce is forbidden (Deut. 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor. 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical
- but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."
So the next time your favorite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.
Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?
From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area
of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000 year old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important. Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it
should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.
To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.
By Vaughn Roste
We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.
So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.
All told, I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen. 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distill those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.
Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen. 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron. 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron. 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).
Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen. 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron. 3:9, 2 Chron. 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).
A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen. 6:2, Deut. 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.
If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).
A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiance, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).
If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).
Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron. 2:35, Jer. 29:6, Dan 11:17).
Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).
The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen. 29:14-30).
Interfaith marriages are prohibited (Gen. 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh. 10:30, 2 Cor. 6:14). Divorce is forbidden (Deut. 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 7:39).
Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor. 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).
How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical
- but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."
So the next time your favorite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.
Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?
From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area
of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000 year old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important. Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it
should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.
To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Bible
Date: 2005-12-08 06:24 pm (UTC)Re: Bible
Date: 2005-12-09 02:47 pm (UTC)I agree with this. But Christians deciding to speak out against behavior they disagree with is not. I'm a little tired of the claim that because one says something, and I disagree, this somehow constitutes "oppression". Furthermore, people in general (not just Christians, 70+ percent!) not allowing the public condoning of activities they find morally repugnant is also not oppression. Oppression is suppression of another's God-given rights. There is not a single penstroke in the Constitution conferring the right for gays to marry each other.
THis is your opinion, and something you cannot back up. I respect your opinion, but regard it as nothing more than what it is. And even if it were provable and true, it changes nothing. Whether one *chooses* to be a homosexual or not, that person still engages in sinful behavior in persuing their "interests". Make no mistake, this does not make them any more "evil" or "sinful" than you or I. We all make lifestyle choices taht are likely unbiblical and sinful. It's part of being a human being. However, I have no illusions that what I do is wrong. Certain elements of society are attempting to change this. "It doesn't hurt anybody, so it's not so bad..." "He can't help it, it's just the way he is!" "Everybody does it, so it's no big deal!".
All very cleverly-crafted lies. You seem like a smart person, don't buy into this.
I find the trodding of these individuals on what I feel is a God-created covenant to be repulsive.
Don't think that because the Bible mentions a cultural practice, it means we are compelled as Christians to DO it. Thus my whole point about context. The Bible makes many references to life during Old Testament times, including a lot of practices outdated by millenia. It's mere mention in the Bible does not mean we should practice these things. Much of the BIble is told in story format. Lessons are conveyed using real-life examples, USING THE REAL LIFE AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN! I don't expect to see references to "Political COrrectness", "Gender Neutrality", or "Plastic" in 2000 year-old text. You are expected to read the stories and glean the context. A difficult task at best. It was never the intention of the Bible to be read and applied word-for-word.
Allowing gays to marry is little more than an attempt to further legitimatize a deviant, morally corrupt, and harmful lifestyle. That's really the bottom line. The ultimate agenda of gays and the left involved in this effort is to finally push their lifestyle and choices "out of the closet" and into public, and force everyone to not only acknowledge these things, but require them to accept them. They don't want "tolerance", or at least not ONLY that. They are already tolerated. They wish their lifestyle to lose the stigma that it's sinfulness attaches to it. They want public confirmation that what they are doing is NOT, in fact, wrong.
Those of us who disagree with the gay lifestyle accept that they are, like us, flawed human beings in a battle with sin along with the rest of us. The divergence in our beliefs is that they do not believe their lifestyle choice sinful. We do.
I don't want us to take this step closer to conding this behavior, wrong as it is, because it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. This is how society slips, as it has done for years now.
Ignoring what is right and allowing that which is wrong to happen because it makes us as a society "feel good" about ourselves is a walk down a dark alleyway for us. This, in our minds, may not seem so bad. Just wait another 10 years and see what we will be asked to condone then!
Re: Bible
Date: 2006-01-05 08:00 pm (UTC)Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So there doesn't need to be a single pen-stroke. But just to be sure.. what are these unwritten rights?
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
*Any* right not mentioned in the Constitution is left for the states to regulate. The Constitution doesn't give rights because it doesn't have to... according to its authors, God gives rights. The Bill of Rights was mainly written by James Madison at George Mason's insistence, because he wanted to explicitly guarantee the people certain rights. Others thought that singling out certain ones for special mention would encourage erosion of the others. Their concerns led to amendments 9 and 10. For more on this subject read the debates between the Federalists and Antifederalists. The subject came up occasionally.
"Those of us who disagree with the gay lifestyle accept that they are, like us, flawed human beings in a battle with sin along with the rest of us. The divergence in our beliefs is that they do not believe their lifestyle choice sinful. We do."
That is neither here nor there.
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is the most evil corruption to ever touch our world. That is my right. But good and evil have nothing to do with law. Law is about power - what power we have, what power they have. Since homosexual marriage is a religious issue, Congress is forever forbidden from interfering.
Homosexual marriage is allowed by federal law, but states are allowed to forbid it if they choose. Hopefully the Supreme Court will agree with me, but that does not always happen. :)
Did I miss something? Let me know...
PS: IANAL, just a history geek.
PPS: I liked the story about the warp drive - here's hoping it works.