Question::: What are your comments on the following newspaper article on marriage?
The article:
A short history of Christian marriage
Gay marriage seems to be increasingly in the news, for example today the Victorian branch of the ALP has voted to send a message to PM Julia Gillard to change the party platform and to support it.
Many conservative Christians would say that it makes no sense (in a church or christian sense) for someone to marry another of their own sex. That it goes against the Biblical view of marriage and the Christian understanding for centuries of this sacred commitment.
So lets review the history of Marriage from Old-Testament times to today to give a background of what exactly Christian marriage was and is.
[For brevity's sake, I have selected at random, some of the article's comments. gw]
In the ancient Israelite societies, marriage was the norm...
There are many different types of marriage described in the Old Testament but they all seem to follow this pattern of ownership of the woman by the man...
Jesus speaks against divorce...
But still there is no concept of marriage being a specifically religious or godly matter...
Gradually however theologians began to interpret a spiritual significance in marriage and eventually the Catholic church made marriage a sacrament...
At the Reformation, Luther and Calvin rejected the notion of marriage being a sacrament...
Polygamy has over time disappeared as an option for Christian marriage...
Conservative Protestants particularly in the 19th and 20th Centuries have asserted a role for the church in marriage, but the control and regulation of marriage has passed from the church to the state. ...
So Christians have had widely varying views on Christian marriage over the centuries ...
Facts of Bible Marriage
My "take" on the article:
The article claims to present a short history of marriages through the centuries along with a cursive observation of the view of the "church" towards it. It doesn't appear to be inflamatory to me but it does suggest a loose conclusion based on inductive reasoning that marriage has been re-defined through the centuries and is not sacred.
I conclude this based on:
1. The article begins with a reference of a vote of the Victorian branch of the ALP condoning and fostering a political agenda for gay marriage. So one might expect that the article is going to support or disclaim such a view. But nothing else is mentioned about gay relationships. In fact the writer never draws a definite conclusion for the reader. If anything, one might suppose that the paragraphs given may suggest by induction that marriage is secular and can be changed, modified, etc.
2. Definition of secular and religion may be in order.
MARRIAGE OF MAN AND WOMAN IS RELIGIOUS (my comments)
The definition of "secular" as "not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters" (Bing Dictionary; Wikipedia; Merriam-Webster;etc.). Secular implies that it has nothing to do with religion or spiritual matters. Is marriage secular?
"Religion" is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (Merriam-Webster).
If marriage is strictly secular then that would mean that God is out of the picture. That definition would mean that service to God or any belief of faith neither authorizes nor condons it. If secular then the Bible (as the Word of God and a belief of faith) would have nothing to say about the practice, either pro or con. Of course, this is not so. God spoke in the very beginning ("He made male and female and for this cause..." (Genesis 1:27, etc.) and in subsequent dispensations in both Laws (Old and New).
3. Jesus is the one that created male and female (Genesis 1:27; John 1:1-4).
He created all things, including the marriage relationship.
a. He would not therefore be expected to contradict Himself as the writer of the article suggests that Jesus and Paul do.
b. God created husband and wife in the beginning; Jesus does have something to do and say on the subject. If "God-spoken" then is it not, religious?
Moses quotes God in Genesis 2:24 as ordaining the marriage relationship. Jesus quotes this as being a statement from the Creator (Matthew 19:4,5,6). "From the beginning..."
Jesus says that God's intention is one man and one woman: one flesh. Two males cannot accomplish this. Neither can two females. All living things were created as male and female. Deity allowed certain things under the Old Covenant because of the "hardness of their hearts" (Matthew 19). Deuteronomy 21:15-17, multiple wives were allowed. Divorce was allowed. Homosexuality, premarital sex, adultery, etc., was not allowed (e.g., Sodom, religious fornication, 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Romans 1; etc.).
c. Jesus blessed a marriage feast with His presence and participation (John 2:1). But He nowhere gives requirements for us to have such customs.
d. Jesus said that people marry in this life but he made no stipulations concerning the marriage ceremony, the feasts, engagement practices, etc. (Luke 20:34). According to Jesus, marriage is limited to this life and will not be in the world to come (Matthew 22:30).
e. God has never regulated marriage ceremonies or social feasts but this does not in any way affect nor cancel-out the religious status of marriage.
1) Marriage customs are social matters and were not regulated by God (Genesis 29:26, Good News Bible; 1 Corinthians 6:12).
2) Vows are sacred (Psalms 50:14; Ecclesiastes 5:4).
4. Paul confirmed the sacredness of marriage and did not contradict Deity, including Jesus the Christ (1 Corinthians 6:2). Paul had the "mind of Christ."
a. The Spirit through Paul made commands of husbands and wives (Ephesians 5:21-33).
b. "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).
c. Paul did not undermine marriage as is popularly taught (and taught in the writer's article). 1 Corinthians 7:2ff gives commands of intimacy and gives a second cause for marriage (first- procreation [Gen.]; second- to enjoy sexual pleasures without immorality). His judgment is don't change your relationship during the "present distress." There is no condemnation of marriage or a preference for celibacy here. The message should be clear here: don't make changes during this time of crisis (distress). If you are married, don't divorce. If single, don't marry. But this is advice under the crisis which probably was persecution.
d. Well and better. Nothing bad about either. "So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better" (1 Corinthians 7:38, during the distress) .
I would have to have the sources of the writer's quotes from the Protestant leaders. His comments on the Catholic Church and leaders of the Protestant Movement concerning marriage as a sacrament may be misunderstood. The Catholic Church believes in progressive revelation and believes it is okay to add to the Bible practices by appointing church sacraments. The protestants protested sacraments in general as I understand.
