1. How was mankind created?
We were created by God in the image of God, male and female together (Gen. 1:27).
2. Who is the author of marriage?
When God presented the first bride, our mother Eve, to Adam, He was establishing the first marriage (Gen. 2:22).
3. After the first marriage, how are marriages to be formed?
A man should leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife, so that they might become one flesh (Gen. 2:24).
4. What is the biblical standard for marriage?
One man devoted to one woman for life.
5. How do we know that such monogamy is the normal biblical standard?
We know this because God created one man and one woman for each other as a pattern (Gen. 2:24), because Christ is the ultimate bridegroom and He has only one bride (Eph. 5:23), and because Christian leaders are required to set the example of devotion to one woman only (1 Tim. 3:2).
6. What elements are necessary to bring a marriage into existence?
The three elements that are necessary are: eligible participants (cf. Gen 12:10-20; Mat 19:5; Eph 5:22-33), a public covenant of marriage (Gen. 2:22), and sexual consummation (Gen. 2:24).
7. What is it called if there is sexual consummation but no covenant?
It is called fornication or adultery (1 Cor. 6:16-18).
8. What is it called if there is a covenant but no consummation?
Conjugal union is an essential part of the marriage covenant (1 Cor 7:1-5). This is part of the explicit meaning of what it means to become ‘one flesh.’ The covenant is therefore consummated by the kind of sexual union that could, by God’s providential design, result in pregnancy (Mat 19:9). Those who have not consummated a one-flesh union in this way may be roommates, or friends, or life partners, but they are not married by the biblical definition.
9. What is the relationship of being “one flesh” to the existence of a marriage?
There can be no marriage without it, but the mere fact of a one flesh union does not automatically create a marriage. Other uses of sexual union are shameful (1 Cor 6:15-16; Mat 19:9) and violate the nature of this covenant. Such parodies of marriage are not themselves marriage.
10. Can genuine marriages be formed in disobedience?
Yes. One example would be remarriage after unjustified divorce (Deut. 24:1-4). Another example would be found in societies where polygamy is legal.
11. Can the disobedience become profound enough that the end result is not marriage at all?
Yes. Homosexual “marriages” would be an example of this. Such unions are simply unnatural (Rom 1:24-28) and display a disobedience which God plainly presents as condemnation, not a covenant and a blessing.
12. Why are these marriages not marriages?
Because they are physically incapable of resulting in one flesh, which requires a male and a female. In Scripture, marriage is tied explicitly to the creation of mankind as man and woman (Mat 19:5; Gen 2:22-24). The union of one flesh is explicitly connected to the possibility of procreation (Gen 1:27-28; Gen 2:22-24). Other arrangements violate this order and cannot, therefore, be marriages under God’s design.
13. Why is heterosexual intercourse an essential part of the marriage covenant, while other sexual activity (for example: homosexual sexual activity) is not?
Such sexual activity is not the kind of thing that can ever culminate in a one flesh union. Inside the covenant, and between eligible participants, human sexuality is an expression of God’s creation design (Gen 2:22-24). Expressions of sexuality intended for mere pleasure or self-gratification reject God’s design and replace the Creator with the creation (Rom 1:21-25). These other expressions are therefore denials of God’s authority as the Creator of marriage.
14. Can the State create any other forms of marriage, or change Creator’s definition of marriage?
No. Foundational laws concerning marriage in any society must reflect God’s justice and attributes (Rom 13:1-10). Disobedient rulers may sometimes seek to overturn God’s order, which is neither new nor surprising, but it does not change God’s pattern.
15. What shall a Christian do when commanded by the State to accept another definition of marriage?
We should behave as the apostles did when commanded to disobey God by the rulers of Jerusalem, and choose to serve God rather than men (Acts 4:18-22).
16. How should we treat those who believe themselves to be in homosexual “marriages?”
We should treat everyone we know with love and respect, speaking the truth to them in love. But because they are demanding our approval above all, we must take care that our compassion and care never be confused with such approval.
Pastor Wilson, I’m not sure if you take requests but could you comment on the Rod Dreher concept of the Benedict Option and the more aggressive concept of the parallel society? http://citadelfoundations.blogspot.com/2015/07/parallel-blueprint-to-victory.html
Bravo.
Yes, bravo, thank you.
Regarding #8 and #12, how does this relate to heterosexual couples who intentionally, permanently, and from the very beginning sterilize their sexual relationship via surgical or other means? In other words, those who– as a matter of principle, not merely circumstance or hard providence– refuse to ever allow the possibility of fruitful lovemaking.
Is that a consumated relationship? Is it marriage?
Thanks,
Keith
The Bible gives us no guidance on how old a person must be for a marriage to be valid?
Not directly. While Scripture lays the boundaries for fornication, rape, incest, bestiality, and sodomy–and names them all sin–it does not specifically define age, quantity, or race of spouse. And so people have many disparate notions about what is allowable.
I think we can glean the necessary inferences from the whole of Scripture and come to the respective answers of post-puberty, one, and any to the above topics, but some will certainly not care one whit about my (or anyone else’s) thoughts.
I would think the repetitive emphasis on “one man one woman” in the NT should carry very valid weight. Serious weight as to quantity. And in light of that the polygamy stuff is really bothering me. You have your one wife, biblically married after the pattern reiterated in the NT. Nowhere in the NT are the “polygamy” exceptions EVER given. Whereas divorce at least has one excuse. So in my book, under the NT, polygamy is NOT valid. That “consummation” with the other “wife” is nothing more than fornication/adultery. We’re treading on very dangerous ground (in both the religious circle… Read more »
Now I realize why I was getting so upset about the polygamy legal stuff from Kelly. We’ve made it into an “oh, no! polygamy next” but we are fighting it less hard biblically and legally than divorce…why is it worse than SSM on one count and then put on the same level as disobedient divorce. Pretty scary and inconsistent to me. Divorce: One man one woman for life, all excuses from the OT done away with save for the adultery and “if she /he depart let them depart” stuff reasoning. Yet Polygamy: one man or woman with many men or… Read more »
It’s helpful to admit that God gave plenteous laws regarding marriage and sex, many of which would not seem necessary given the Creation pattern (e.g.; bestiality, polygamy)…yet, in His Law, He specifically condemned lying with animals and said nothing regarding taking a second wife. I don’t take issue with concluding that the Bible elsewhere teaches that marriage is 1M:1F. But we have to be honest with the accusers and admit that a specific prohibition against polygamy is NOT there; in the meantime, there ARE numerous examples of God-fearing, commended Fathers of the Faith taking multiple wives and nary a disparaging… Read more »
Come on. Don’t give up on it that easily. And I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is too important to not think through more, to look at it from every defense angle too. If one man and one female repeated over and over in the New Testament, and there are NO examples in the NT of those folks doing otherwise in the NT church. We’ve got better arguments than to just give it this “to be honest…a specific prohibition is not there”…there’s more argument for it than even the slavery stuff. God was clear that polygamy caused serious strife… Read more »
Andrew, Please don’t mistake my comments as waffling on the matter. As I said, I don’t take issue with concluding that the Bible elsewhere teaches that marriage is 1M:1F. We just don’t get the plain “thou shalt not” from the OT Law, which is where we get practically every other definition of sexual sins. I don’t disagree with monogamy; I only think that we have used a much more “traditional” argument for the past few centuries and never really thought (or preached) that much about it. However, God HAS so very explicitly condemned sodomy, repeatedly and throughout Scripture that it… Read more »
I’m trying my very best to not “mistake your comments as waffling on the matter”. If we can drag on and on about “slavery being okay in the NT” then we most certainly can drag on and on and on and on and on about “polygamy NOT being okay in the NT”. Hmph. Where was the option in all of the fornicating and adultering to say “go ahead and marry this person”…Hmph. I don’t see any puzzle pieces in polygamy. One man one woman from the beginning and reiterated and affirmed in the NT, no addendums or excuses, any other… Read more »
For #16: Are we to go out of our way to tell homosexuals that we do not approve? If so, wouldn’t they just say they don’t care if we approve?
I think the implication is that the methods by which we show compassion, love and respect cannot be confused with or redefined as approval in their eyes. In other words, with compassion, in love, and with the same general respect we would afford any other human we speak the truth to them. That is not passive, hoping they don’t accidentally get the wrong message; it’s active, directly verbalizing what is Truth, and there’s no mistaking it.
Oh, they care alright, and would probably delight in knowing you don’t. Go “out of our way”…wonder what “going out of our way” would mean. You mean apart from a responsibility to those you are naturally around? You mean protesting with large signs and such? I wouldn’t think so. “Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.” “Another example would be found in societies where polygamy is legal.” Guess we don’t have to worry about baking a cake for polygamists if it’s in the same category as disobediently divorced people. That’s a relief… Is consummation required for adultery…and adultery can be committed… Read more »
I would like to hear more discussion on the relationship between the State/legal end of marriage and the theological/biblical end of marriage. How do we best navigate that?
This is quite good. #8 still tripping some people up. The covenant is therefore consummated by the kind of sexual union that could, by God’s providential design, result in pregnancy I guess the struggle is between seeing procreative sexual union as a generic thing applying to men and women (your intention) as opposed to a specific thing between a man and a woman (the misread). All that matters is that the sexual act is that act that often causes babies. Not certain how to reword it. What about the following with or without the brackets? The covenant is consummated by… Read more »
As long as the two people are constituently able to reproduce. Two men or two women are not, whereas the ‘normal’ man/woman couple is–they may not be able to do so due to extenuating circ’s, but their union would still be formed from the bare constituent elements.
Just saying the same thing, really.
And ya gotta love Kenya–they’re providing our president with an object lesson of sorts.
http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/more-news/186649-kenya-gears-for-mass-nude-protest-against-obamas-aggressive-gay-stance.html
Object lesson indeed. To confront wrong, we commit wrong. Yeah, gotta love it.
This gets close, bethyada — and I appreciate the attempt.
Are you sold on the idea that coitus needs to occur for it to be determined a marriage?
But let’s stipulate that for the moment.
What about moving “type” into your primary definition?
So maybe a tweak might result in:
The covenant is consummated by procreative type coitus, [that is the kind of sexual union that might, given God’s blessing, result in pregnancy] regardless of whether such an act does or could result in a pregnancy.
Are you sold on the idea that coitus needs to occur for it to be determined a marriage?
I don’t know, I have not thought about it in enough detail. But I think Doug has this view and I am rewriting with his position in mind.
Your solution may be an improvement? I am writing with the goal of preventing the confusion that others have made. I find his original fine.
I have encountered the following argument for the Biblical sanction of polygyny* 1. Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Is the grant of authority for the man (not the woman) to initiate marriage. It is not restrictive to any specific number of wives. 2. Law of the Levirate Deuteronomy 25:5-10 commands polygyny when a brother dies. 3. 2nd Samuel 12:7-8 is God describing good things that God has done for David. Since God cannot do evil, polygyny must be good. 4. Isaiah… Read more »
This is not an argument for it being excellent, it is an argument for it being acceptable in a fallen world in certain situations. I would agree that it is sometimes acceptable, but cultural improvements can make it less and less necessary. That is, as we ameliorate the Fall the necessity of it decreases. As monogamy is preferable as it represents a pre-Fall situation, and the reasons for polygamy are much less in the West, he needs to prove not just that polygamy may be acceptable, but that it is appropriate. He is wrong about the eldership issue. As elders… Read more »
bethyada, Thank you very much for your reply. My view, as undeveloped as it is, is very similar to yours. Creation Ideal->Fall->Polygyny->First covenant->the law and restrictions on existing cultural norms ->Calvary->New Adam->Restoration. Unfortunately, polygyny is just the foundation of my opponents argument. There are two edifices build on top of that base that it is important to be aware of. One is the utility of the church for adopting polygyny as a corrective to rampant divorce and fatherless children. If polygyny is a good, then his policy is a good. His motives here are good. His proscription will be coming… Read more »
The other is his “selling point” for that solution and it is wife-wife sex within a polygynous marriage under the headship of the husband. His depraved sexuality reveals that he exegesis is based on his testicles and not Scripture. The covenants in polygamy are between the husband and each wife separately. And a wife cannot sin with the other wife because she is under her husband. She is to disobey him when he requests that she sin. I don’t see how it solves the divorce problem. One can normally support a divorced woman and her children without taking her into… Read more »
bethyada, thank you again. The covenants in polygamy are between the husband and each wife separately. And a wife cannot sin with the other wife because she is under her husband. She is to disobey him when he requests that she sin. The nature of covenant is one of my attack vectors; this is one fact that I have identified as definitive along that vector. You have already done me good by giving me confidence in this line of attack. Where I will need mentoring and help is taking my ill-formed thesis and translating them into scripturally based, positivelly stated… Read more »