Issues Facing
Missions Today 29: What is Biblical Marriage?
Introduction:
Reflection on the creation
stories of Genesis 1.1-2.3 and 2.4-25—which are, of course, intended to be read
together—helps us to understand a Biblical view of marriage. Three key aspects of marriage emerge
from the stories. Marriage
is between complementary beings of the same human species that form a permanent
union: male and female. Marriage
is for the purpose of procreation and flourishing within creation. And marriage involves the
responsibility of exercising authority within the order of creation. Each of these points can be explored
with reference to the understanding of being created in God’s image in Gen.
1.26ff. Moreover, in light
of the cultural confusion regarding marriage in Western countries, that
marriage so understood cannot apply to homosexual unions any more than sexual
unions between humans and animals is a clear corollary of what is stated in the
Biblical account of creation. Yet, to claim that marriage is not a social
construction but must be understand in terms of God's purposes in creation has
become in the West an opportunity for the Church to make the missional
proclamation that God is Creator.
The Image of God and Creation:
In Gen. 1.26ff, being
created in the image of God has to do with two things: multiplication for the
flourishing of God’s creation and the stewardship of God’s created order by
those given responsibility. As these two functions involve male and
female working together, a third aspect of being created in the image of God
needs to be appreciated: the necessary unity of male and female. Multiplication is not possible without the
union of male and female. Neither can produce offspring without the other. With this understanding of being created in God's
image, we have three key parts to any understanding of marriage: (1) the 'one
flesh' unity of male and female; (2) multiplication for the flourishing of the
species, and (3) oversight of God’s created order.
The first creation story
(Gen. 1.1-2.3) emphasizes the binary roles of God’s good creation. The
work of the first three days of creation involves separations of the realms for
what will later be created. Only with
these separations will fruitfulness and multiplication be possible and chaos be
avoided. There are the separations of (day 1) the day and night, (day 2) the
waters of the sky and the waters of the earth, and (day 3) the dry land and the
waters. The text of Genesis elaborates at this point to emphasize that
such binary distinctions permitted the vegetation of the earth to flourish
(Gen. 1.11-12). Vegetation needs daylight, rain, and earth. Without such separations, the world is
chaotic and cannot flourish.
The next three days of creation
focus on authority/oversight of certain rulers related to each of the first
three days of creation. Thus, (day 4) lights are made to populate the day
and night separation, and a sun is created to rule the day and a moon to rule
the night on the fourth day of creation. Then (day 5), the creatures that
dwell in and rule the realm of the waters on the earth are created and
commanded to multiply and flourish. Complementing these fish and sea
creatures are the creatures made to rule the realm of the sky--the birds. Finally,
(day 6), land creatures are formed to occupy the land realm of the third day of
creation. Then, to rule over all the occupants of the different realms,
God created humankind. These six days of
creation, moreover, have their complement in the one day of rest, the Sabbath.
Marriage: Union, Procreation, Authority
Being created in God’s
image entails an understanding of the flourishing that derives from
marriage. This flourishing begins with
the union of male and female. It
continues with procreation—the multiplication of the species. And it further entails the right exercise of
authority according to God’s purposes.
Union
First, marriage entails a
unity through complementarity of binary authorities, just as in the rest of
creation. Only such an understanding of
unity makes multiplication possible, and only multiplication of the species
makes dominion of the rest of creation possible. Any other attempt at unity apart from the
coming together of male and female will fail: multiplication is impossible, and
the right rule of God’s ordered creation is impossible. Instead, the species would die out and the
order of creation would turn to chaos.
In the microcosm of the
family, for God's purpose in creation to be accomplished marriage must first be
understood in terms of the complementarity of male and female. They are
both created in God's image. They both have authority. Their
differences allow for their unity. This is a point made especially in the
second creation story, where it is said that the cleaving of male and female
entails becoming one flesh (Gen. 2.24).[1] For Jesus, this fact
argues against divorce (Mt. 19.4-6).[2] For Paul, this
points to the fact that sexual immorality with prostitutes is sin (1 Cor. 6.16.[3] Both Jesus and Paul
insist, on the basis of Gen. 2.24, that marriage is permanent. And, in
Eph. 5.21-33, Paul argues that this passage points to the respect of the wife
for the husband and the love of the husband for the wife within marriage. If a person does not abuse his own body, the
one-flesh union of husband and wife should also produce the same love and
respect seen between Christ and the Church.
Paul makes this point in a larger context in which he is explaining the
reign of Christ’s peace and the unity it brings in various relationships
(between God and humanity, 2.1-11; Jews and Gentiles, 2.12-3.10; within the
church, 4.1-6.9; and in the face of spiritual warfare, 6.10-18). Within the church is the family relationship
of husband and wife, parents and children, and masters and slaves (5.21-6.9),
and these are all places where strife may erupt but where Christ brings
peace. The first two relationships are
not social constructions but part of God’s intention in creation: male and
female in marriage, parents and children as the fruit of marriage. Thus, marriage is a result of God’s intention
to produce unity through complementarity.[4]
Procreation
Secondly, marriage allows
multiplication through procreation to take place--an essential part of
creation. Again, complementarity is required for there to be sexual union
that results in offspring. This understanding of the purpose of marriage
explains why Jesus says that there is to be no marriage in the resurrection
(Mt. 22.30): in the life to come, there is no further mandate to multiply.
This does not reduce sex to having children, but it does explain where
the emphasis lies: marriage is union between a male and a female. Thus, a
Biblical view of sex makes clear that it is not to be pursued with others
outside of marriage. This also explains
why the Old Testament reports sexual union outside of marriage when the wife is
barren for the purpose of procreation (as with a handmaid or a deceased
brother's widow). Sex also has the purpose within marriage of being the
way to address God-given sexual desire (1 Cor. 7.2-5).
Authority
Thirdly, coming together in
the union of male and female and then multiplying by having offspring leads to
consideration of another function of marriage: the exercise of oversight and authority
according to God’s order in creation.
The primary focus of the Genesis story of creation in this regard has to
do with the authority of human beings created in God’s image over the rest of
creation. Yet it is not a stretch in an
essay on marriage to focus on the authority parents exercise over children to
raise them up in the way they should go according to God’s purposes.
Children need to be raised, not just left to find their own way, and the
ability of a couple to raise their children in the right way is an example of
their exercise of right authority in God’s creation. This function—exercising a role of oversight—reflects
being created in the image of God. In fact, Paul says that someone should
not be given the authority or responsibility to exercise oversight in the
church if he lacks control over his own household--that is, if the children are
not submissive and respectful (1 Tim. 3.4). Whether in the family itself
or in the church as a family, proper oversight is a function of being created
in the image of God.
False ‘Marriage’
These three things--(1)
unity of male and female; (2) multiplication; and (3) raising children--explain
why certain other sexual acts are considered sinful in Scripture. Bestiality, homosexuality, premarital sexual
acts, and adultery are all outside of marriage.
Such acts cannot constitute marriage in the Biblical sense. First, they represent precisely the chaos God
overcame in His act of creation.
Homosexual or bestial sexual acts make as much sense as having no
distinction between day and night, sky and water, land and sea.
Homosexual unions make as much sense as having two suns (or two moons)
instead of a sun and a moon or no distinction between the creatures of the sea
and the birds of the air. They are simply wrongly ordered unions. Secondly, homosexual unions cannot result in
the mandate to multiply and flourish upon the earth as a species. Thirdly,
since they reject proper ordering, they cannot result in proper oversight and
authority, they constitute a failed stewardship of creation. They are no context in which to raise
children in the ways of God precisely because they are a rejection of creation
authority itself.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, Jews and Christians have a clear teaching on marriage from the
creation accounts in Genesis 1.1-2.25. I
have, to some extent, explained how such a view is consistently maintained in
the Old Testament, Jewish Scriptures and by the early Church, as reflected in
the New Testament. The Biblical view of
marriage is based on an understanding of creation itself and of being created
in the image of God. Jews and Christians
who follow the teaching of Scripture insist, therefore, that marriage is not
something we can define however we wish but only in terms of what God intended
in his creation. Biblical marriage
entails a permanent union between a male and a female, the multiplication
through procreation of our species that we might flourish, and an authority or
stewardship over the order God established in His creation. This third point leads to an understanding of
marriage that entails an understanding of family that entails the oversight
over children that parents give in their role as God’s image-bearers. For various reasons, others might come under
parental rule in the family—what we might consider an ‘extended family’. Oversight, in fact, extends to all of
creation, not just authority in the home.
Yet it is an authority that entails stewardship according to God’s
purposes in creation; not an authority to exercise over against or
independently from God’s purposes. The
lure of the serpent in Genesis 3 was precisely the lure of exercising divine
authority like a god rather than under God’s authority. The serpent enticed Eve to disobey God’s
command and become like God in the exercise of independent authority. Thus a disordered rule—say, of two men living
as though they were husband and wife—is, first, a rule of chaos in the mixing
of things that should be separated; second, a sexual perversion that cannot result
in offspring; and, third, an abuse of God-given authority by ruling apart from
and against God’s order in this world.
Can this
argument be made outside the community of faith that understands Scripture as
God’s Word? To some extent, the argument
can be put forward without the assumptions of a faith community. Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher in the 1st
c. AD, for example, put forward a similar argument. He was neither Jewish nor Christian but
argued on the grounds of what was ‘according to nature’. However, Paul, in his day, held out little
hope of making such arguments apart from persons first coming to faith. He states that the minds of persons who have
denied God as the creator of this world are sufficiently confused that they
will think things obviously unnatural to be natural (Rom. 1.18-28)—as, indeed,
we hear argued in our day as well. The
redefinition of ‘marriage’ to include same-sex unions in the West in our day
actually goes against the convictions of cultures throughout time.[5] We are faced with a confusion of the created
order that appears to go beyond what the early Christians experienced. Indeed, the West typically lacks those who
might make general arguments such as Epictetus did,[6]
it included Jews and Christians who disregard Scripture or who readily twist
its meanings for their own ends,[7]
and it argues not according to how things are
but according to how they wish things to be.[8] Truth is now thought to be constructed, and
tolerance of diversity has become intolerance of the truth. In such a context, Biblical marriage cannot
be mandated, and the laws of the land will not support it. However, Biblical marriage can now become a
counter-cultural witness, and practicing it can now become a part of the Church’s
mission. By it, Christians proclaim, ‘We
believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.’
[1] Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother
and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.
[2] Matthew 19:4-6 4 He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at
the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and
mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
[3] 1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that whoever
is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The
two shall be one flesh."
[4] Paul—and
his audience—assumes complementarity here.
His point is that Christ establishes the unity that God intends in every
sphere of creation. He does not argue
that egalitarianism will accomplish unity.
In the case of husband and wife, though, he establishes that God created
male and female to be ‘one flesh’ through marriage and that Christ makes this
possible.
[5]
This is not to say that the pre-Christian world of Greece and Rome did not know
of such things. Same-sex marital unions
were, however, unique enough to attract comment. (One example might be the second satire of
Juvenal.)
[6] However, there is an excellent article that explores social
and legal arguments in particular and considers a wide range of issues in the
public debate on marriage that I can recommend. See Sherif Girgis, Robert
George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?", in Harvard Journal of Law and Public
Policy, Vol. 34, No. 1
(Winter, 2010): 247-287. Online: file:///C:/Users/rgrams/Downloads/SSRN-id1722155.pdf.
[7]
[8] In
the case of the current US government, the argument is, predictably, based on
the Modernistic, totalizing argument of liberation and natural rights. Secretary of State, John Kerry, announced on
23 February, 2015 the appointment of Randy Berry as his envoy to promote LGBT ‘rights’. Intellectual colonialism is the imposition of
perspectives by a powerful nation using its resources on weaker nations to force
them to submit and acknowledge its superiority.
How ironic that this is done in the name of ‘liberation’ or ‘human
rights’. See the article by Associated
Press reporter Josh Lederman, ‘Kerry Names Randy Berry as First Global Envoy
for LGBT Rights,’ online: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/23/names-first-envoy-for-lgbt-rights/isqOEsNeUJ1o6NhA4AzTeJ/story.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment