Like Button

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Marriage Epiphany

I know. This is a religious viewpoint I'm going to offer. But, hey, I'm a religious guy. My beliefs about God will necessarily inform my worldview. It's just the way it works. So, of course, this isn't intended to be convincing to those who don't share my worldview. However, for those who do ... I had an epiphany I thought I'd share.

Anyone who has read my blog much knows that I have a deep concern about marriage. I think it is important. I think it is in danger. The problem, though, is that it tends to be so ... vague. If you're too vague in what you're trying to say, it leaves room for confusion and misrepresentation. A vague definition of "marriage," for instance, leaves you hard pressed to defend a vote to restrict marriage to a man and a woman without being hateful.

Part of the problem with marriage -- part of the debate -- has swirled around the term "traditional." I've used the language of the California Supreme Court to say that the "longstanding and traditional definition" is ... and there it's between a man and a woman (as even the court recognized). But what is the value of "traditional"? And what about all the changes that marriage has endured over time? The questions are valid. However, I think they should be dismissed. By that I mean that we shouldn't be defining marriage by its trappings and variations. Instead, what is it about marriage that has always been the same? That should serve as the basis for a definition.

Well, at the start, of course, it was defined as the union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24). It was intended for companionship (Gen 2:18). A husband and a wife were to be faithful to each other, and they were to raise godly offspring (Malachi 2:15). Okay, there we have the primary components. Things change. Things vary. Marriage has had many faces. Still, the bottom line of marriage has been the union (not a small term) of a man and a woman for the purpose of companionship, faithfulness, and offspring. Sometimes that included multiple wives. Sometimes it didn't. For most of history being childless was disgraceful and sad. Childlessness has only recently become vogue. Sometimes there was a racial component or a religious component ... or not. Sometimes women were treated worse than others. All of these are variables, but the bottom line has always remained the same -- the union of a man and a woman. Only recently has "because we love each other" become the primary definition. For most of history marriage was understood to be about companionship, but not necessarily romance.

The most basic component, then, of marriage is "union." It is a unique concept. You don't get it in other types of relationships. Friendships are not the same union. Bloodlines are not even the same union. This concept takes two unrelated people and makes them one. It makes a family where there was none.

Here's the thing. This has always been the case. Before governments, before churches, before Christianity, before even Judaism, it was the case. That means one thing. This fundamental event of making a family out of two unrelated people occurs outside of governments or churches. According to Paul, it is a great mystery (Eph 5:31-32). According to Malachi 2:15, God does it. And that is my epiphany.

The world may do what it wants. They can try to define marriage as something else. They can try to say it's about being happy or sharing love or being recognized. They can try to say it should include same-sex couples. Regardless of what they do, they don't get to define marriage because they don't actually get to make what is totally unique about marriage. God does it. Therefore, God defines it. Tradition doesn't define it. Churches don't define it. Government doesn't define it. God defines it because God makes the union happen. And what was Jesus's warning? "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6).

Update: I think you will be hard pressed to find a more clear, concise, or complete statement on the topic than here.

31 comments:

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Good post. I would quibble a tiny, tiny bit with the 'companionship' bit... but hey, just a quibble.

I defined it as:

Marriage is a permanent commitment to physical union between a man and a woman with a goal of producing Godly children.

Good post.

Stan said...

I know ... not nearly as comprehensive as your work on the subject. (Yes, I read all that.) Still, I'm going to have to quibble with your quibble. Since God explicitly made Eve because "it is not good for Man to be alone," I would have to include companionship in the mix ... you know ... based on Scripture.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Oh, I wasn’t quibbling in that sense. It is written:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. …Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth
And then:

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

The question is what is the meaning of ‘not good to be alone’. In light of the various verses that came before it, it might just be that the meaning is something on the order of ‘in order to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, subdue it, and have dominion that it was *not good* for Adam to be alone, that he needed a *help meet* to help him meet these responsibilities. Just a thought.

Stan said...

Since every creature had a counterpart, a "help meet," it would seem to me that Adam's "help meet" would indeed include all of that ... and every other aspect of life. The point that I get, in fact, from reading the account in Genesis is that Adam didn't find a companion, anyone like himself, anyone to help him with his responsibilities or to be there for his musings or ... you know ... companionship. I assume it means all of the above.

Jim Jordan said...

Some have said that the words used for "help meet" in Gen 2:20 are closer to describing the meaning "rescuer". When I see those acquaintances in which a long-term intimate relationship with a woman (and are not gay) has been elusive, they share the same traits: teeth-picking, public belching and flatulence and crotch scratching, excessive spitting, and - well, you know, they're GROSS. Wives rescue their men indeed.

Von wrote: Marriage is a permanent commitment to physical union between a man and a woman with a goal of producing Godly children.

That is, in fact, the original definition of marriage. The secular liberal who wants to take marriage where no human has gone before needs to be challenged by the idea that marriage should be taken back to where it belongs; the original definition.

Great post.

Anonymous said...

Very good post, and I agree. Completely, I think. :)

This whole debate has been bothering me recently, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I just need to find more sane people to talk to rather than people who shout and scream and call everyone who disagrees with them names.

I keep struggling with how the church is supposed to deal with issues like this in the public sphere. We don't share the same foundations with the rest of the society we live in, and how fervently do we try to pursue an outward showing of our foundations amongst those who do not share that foundation?

I may not be making any sense. Perhaps I should ponder more what it is I'm trying to say. :)

Stan said...

Jim, I once read a book that described men as "barbarians" and described the relationship of wives to husbands as "taming the barbarian." (The idea was intended to be a positive one.) May have some merit.

Dana, I understand the dilemma of "We don't operate from the same basis, so what do we do?" I also wonder what will happen if we do nothing because "They don't have the same basis, so we shouldn't try to do anything." I mean, it's already problematic to Christians to explain what was originally intended by "marriage" -- to pass that on accurately to our kids. Now, remove it more from its original moorings, and we're in worse trouble. We would need to pick up a new term that meant the old intent. Oh, that's too confusing. Why not let us have our word and you guys use something different? Sigh. So confusing.

Anonymous said...

I agree. And what I'm about to say applies predominantly to a narrow group of people I may be giving too much attention to.

But when you are engaging in the discussion, should the emphasis be on the foundation or the outward sign? Should we be talking about Christ and setting the foundation, or arguing about marriage definitions?

Someone posted the feed of the demonstrations in California after Prop 8 passed. That there were demonstrations did not surprise me, but a group supporting Prop 8 showed up at the capitol that night to shout and wave their signs back at the homosexual activists. What was the point? Was Christ being honored?

I'm not for loosing the terms from their moorings and in my comment did not intend to imply that we should not have the discussion or should change our language to suit.

We should clearly articulate what we believe and why we believe it. And we should appeal directly to the foundations you are mentioning. But it reminds me of something we just discussed in Sunday School and sort of went along the same lines of giving milk to babies and meat to the mature.

Those outside of the church aren't even ready for the milk of the Word and I fear some (not you in anyway) are trying to shove the meat down their throats and wonder why they are choking.

That is more what I'm talking about. And I'm probably making less sense.

Stan said...

I understand entirely. I have tried (repeatedly) to make the argument without injecting Christianity. I think it still holds. I think that everyone actually understands the definition of marriage ... they just want to change it. (Seriously, try quoting "I now pronounce you ..." and see if it is possible not to automatically say, "man and wife" or "husband and wife." We all know what goes there ... and it isn't "husband and husband" or some such.) I've tried to say it in as many ways as I can. Marriage has a definition. "Same-sex couples" cannot fall within the parameters of that definition. It's not a matter of religion or morality. It's a matter of definition.

I will continue to hold that position. I don't doubt that a lot of others who oppose changing the definition of marriage to include "same-sex couples" do so out of other reasons. I'm not using it to preach the gospel. I'm not protesting in the streets. I'm with you. I don't see the point. So I will continue to argue the point apart from my religious beliefs when there are those who don't share my religious beliefs. (This post was for those who do.) Still, if we "keep government out of marriage" as so many anti-Prop 8 are saying and we obviously keep God out of marriage, by what mechanism does marriage (whatever definition they may prefer) result in two becoming one family? You see, I don't think they can answer that -- with or without religion.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

So I will continue to argue the point apart from my religious beliefs when there are those who don't share my religious beliefs.

How does one argue 'apart from ones religious beliefs'? If your beliefs were different, you would agree with Sodomy (if they were different in that direction).

The Schaubing Blogk said...

My quibble with the word 'companion' is that at least the modern definition stresses the idea of mere 'not loneliness'. Ex:

companion (plural companions)
A friend, acquaintance, or partner; someone with whom one spends time or keeps company
His dog has been his trusted companion for the last five years.

Vs the Biblical idea of:
help5828 meet for him.5048
H5828
עזר
‛êzer
ay'-zer
From H5826; aid: - help.

H5048
נגד
neged
neh'-ghed
From H5046; a front, that is, part opposite; specifically a counterpart, or mate; usually (adverbially, especially with preposition) over against or before: - about, (over) against, X aloof, X far (off), X from, over, presence, X other side, sight, X to view.

.... ie an opposite who is a helper. Just try, in many circles, stating that woman was created to 'help man'... vs trying 'woman was created as a companion for man'...


or the NT statement of:
1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

I think that you will find that 'companion' gives a much more politically correct feel than the other, Biblical, statements.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Since every creature had a counterpart, a "help meet,

Actually, Scripture never mentions a help meet for any creature except Adam. It says that *none* of the creatures were Adams help meet... not that they each had one except for him.

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Stan said...

von: "How does one argue 'apart from ones religious beliefs'?"

Seriously? Do I have to explain it? My world view is clearly based in my "religious beliefs", but the arguments I have offered on the subject don't include religious components. Further, it is not my belief that sodomy is sin that makes this argument. It is my belief that marriage has a definition and "same-sex couples" fall outside that definition. It isn't a moral argument; it is a logical argument.

von: "My quibble with the word 'companion' is that at least the modern definition stresses the idea of mere 'not loneliness'."

So ... a postmodern type, eh? (Kidding, Von.) The word I used had a meaning. In fact, the meaning of "companionship" that I found in every dictionary in which I looked was "fellowship." And, indeed, fellowship has a definite meaning to believers. And since the post was to believers, that was what I had in mind.


von: "Actually, Scripture never mentions a help meet for any creature except Adam."

No, it doesn't. Neither does it mention the Trinity. :) My point was that it was implied that every other creature had a counterpart, a coworker, a companion. (Funny ... I just thought ... it never says "It's not good for goats to be alone", does it? Hmm.) An assistant. (I never looked at the Hebrew before. Interesting. In the Young's Literal Translation for Gen 2:18 it says, "I do make to him an helper--as his counterpart." (Same in Gen 2:20.) "Helper" and "counterpart" are two separate words. This new being that God was going to make had two aspects. 1) Help. 2) Counterpart.

But, listen, it's fine if you wish to quibble ever so slightly over "companionship." I know what I mean and I think you agree with what I mean, even if you don't like the word I chose. ;)

One side point here, Von. I know it may look like and maybe even feel like we're "fighting", but I wanted you to know that most of the time when we are disagreeing on this point or that, I am smiling. I don't intend a "fight" even when I don't agree with you. Just wanted you to know. I intend no malice ... even when you're wrong. :)

The Schaubing Blogk said...

And I hope that, in some dim recess of your mind, you see why I work so strongly to cling to definitions of words that have a Godly (instead of a worldly) meaning.

On companion: I was actually trying to point out that goats and penguins *don't* have co-laborers. That it is not their role to take dominion.

They have mates... good for sexual congress and reproduction. They have herd members... good for mutual protection etc. They even have playmate/companion types... witness dogs playing together etc.

But they don't have 'helpers' as they were given no dominion role. Only human females can 'help' in that sense.

Stan said...

Do goats and penguins have no God-ordained role in life? Do their mates not assist them in their God-ordained roles? Of course, only human females can help human males in their God-ordained role, since only humans have the role ordained for humans. ;)

The Schaubing Blogk said...

von: "My quibble with the word 'companion' is that at least the modern definition stresses the idea of mere 'not loneliness'."

Stan:So ... a postmodern type, eh? (Kidding, Von.) The word I used had a meaning. In fact, the meaning of "companionship" that I found in every dictionary in which I looked was "fellowship." And, indeed, fellowship has a definite meaning to believers. And since the post was to believers, that was what I had in mind.

Well, my question would be whether most Christians, on hearing the word 'companionship' or 'fellowship' understand by this: someone needed to help with the goals of dominion and replenishment.

As a 'pre-modern'... I doubt it. I have a feeling that they have more of the idea 'someone nice to be around', 'someone without whom you would be lonely'.

Do most women come into their marriages with the idea that they are to dedicate themselves to helping their husband fulfill his dominion role? That they are called to help him be fruitful, mulitiply, and replenish the earth?

Or do they see themselves come into marriage seeing themselves as having their own goals, their own ambitions?

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Do goats and penguins have no God-ordained role in life?

Goats (I'm not sure about penguins) don't even have 'mates'. They just have females they happened to have mounted and produced a child by. Kind of like modern culture.

Stan said...

Since you have accused me on occasion of being "almost postmodern", I have to ask ... what do you mean by "postmodern." The primary meaning that I have (that expands to a much broader set of conclusions) starts with "words have no intrinsic meaning." I keep arguing for the meaning of words, and you seem to keep arguing on one hand that I need to ignore what everyone else might think they mean and just stick with the biblical meaning and, on the other hand, "what will everyone else think?" So maybe we're using that term (postmodern) in different senses.

So ... what, in your definition (above) states the role of Man and Wife as meeting the goals of dominion and replenishment? I got the replenishment part. Where's the dominion?

And do you object to the idea that a wife can and should be her husband's companion (and vice versa)?

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Much in that. Perhaps even enough for a full post. For this second I will start with this:

And do you object to the idea that a wife can and should be her husband's companion (and vice versa)?

What I object to... or as I said in the beginning I 'quibble' with... is the limitation and confusion involved in the use of the term. Indeed your very question implies part of the confusion.

I believe that while ‘companionship’ itself is a good term, it has no place in a description of the marriage relationship. It is too shallow to adequately describe it, it is bi-directional whereas marriage isn’t, and it is non-exclusive.

Companionship (as the word is usually used in English) is a two-way term. Help meet isn't. By substituting the one for the other we obfusticate the meaning. Consider the following examples:

1) Oh, we don't have sex anymore. I decided a while ago that I prefered sex with someone else. But we are still great companions.

2) Oh, I don't like his job. In fact much of what I do is in direct competition to what he does. But we are still great companions.

3) Oh, we disagree religously. It has gotten to the point where we go to different churches. But we are still great companions.

4) Oh, I don't need a wife. My dog is my companion.

Each of these sentences are meaningful in English. However each of them violates one of the important aspects of a Biblical marriage.

What I see as having happened (perhaps not with you but generally is this): People read 'it is not good for man to be alone'. Instead of looking to the context to see what was bad about it they pictured the poor man as 'lonely'... as having no one to talk to or keep him company. This man who walked with God directly!

Thus they said marriage is for 'companionship'… meaning by that a bi-directional ‘not feeling alone’ ness. But the ‘alone’ mentioned in Scripture has a context. A context not of feelings but of responsibilities. The responsibility of dominion, of replenishment. It is ‘not good’ for a man not to have the helper that he requires to carry out the responsibilities he was given. As it is written,

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Man was made to serve and glorify God, woman to serve and glorify man.

Companion is a good word… for companions. Friends, buddies, amigos; two guys walking down a path and talking to each other. I don’t believe it adequatly or appropriately describes even a part of the marriage relationship. It is far to shallow a term, and allows for a bidirectionality and non-exclusivity that is false to the marriage relationship. Far better to use the terms that Scripture does provide us. ‘Head’, ‘helpmeet’, ‘lovers’, etc.

Stan said...

I would like to point out that the statement I made about marriage ("the purpose of companionship, faithfulness, and offspring") was an "and" statement. In logic (I am a programmer), an "and" statement means "all of these are true or the statement is false." Thus, someone who says, "Oh, we don't have sex anymore. I decided a while ago that I preferred sex with someone else. But we are still great companions" (or any of those other statements) has violated the "and" concept.

But ... fine ... you don't want your wife to be your companion along with all the other stuff ... that's fine with me. I dearly appreciate the companionship of my wife.

I do have to quibble, though. "Man was made to serve and glorify God, woman to serve and glorify man." With all the passages of Scripture about all glory going to God and "I will not share My glory with another" and all, I'm a little surprised at this. And I thought that all human beings were designed to glorify God. You disagree? (Hey, it's off topic and it's a quibble and I'm only poking fun, so don't worry about actually defending yourself.)

(On a little more serious note, it doesn't say woman was made to glorify man; it says she "is the glory of the man.")

Stan said...

I am wondering, though, von. How do you avoid the accusation of "sexist," "chauvinist," and the like that would obviously come in response to some of your views? It almost sounds like you view women as second-class citizens, more like property (of the father or the husband), "best of they're barefoot and pregnant," that kind of stuff. I fight that off in me when I see it, but I'm wondering.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

You are quite correct, I mistyped. Woman was made to "help and be the glory of man" would have been more accurate.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

I am wondering, though, von. How do you avoid the accusation of "sexist," "chauvinist," and the like that would obviously come in response to some of your views? It almost sounds like you view women as second-class citizens, more like property (of the father or the husband), "best of they're barefoot and pregnant," that kind of stuff. I fight that off in me when I see it, but I'm wondering.



What’s to fend off? Do you find these sins listed in Scripture?

These various 'sins' usually consist of two things:
1) Wild exagerations or missrepresentations and
2) Actual Biblically correct facts that the world doesn't like.

And so for example:
1) Do patriarchs actually wish their wives to be any more ‘barefoot’ then other men? I like my wife barefoot… especially as part of an overall dresscode that reveals not only her feet. I also like her in cowboy boots, tennis shoes… etc.
2) However Scripture speaks, with approval, of Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him ‘Lord’. It speaks of women being keepers at home. It speaks of each of our bodies belonging to our spouse and not ourselves. It speaks of bride price.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

But ... fine ... you don't want your wife to be your companion along with all the other stuff ... that's fine with me. I dearly appreciate the companionship of my wife.

I do not wish my wife to stoop so low as to be a 'mere' companion.

Stan said...

It seems as if you're saying, "Yes, it is good to demean women, minimize their value, treat them as possession." You're on your own their, chief.

Fascinating. So my wife can either be only my "companion" (meaningless relationship, apparently) or all that God wants her to be. Sad.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Fascinating. So my wife can either be only my "companion" (meaningless relationship, apparently) or all that God wants her to be. Sad.


Not meaningless... just not up to the high calling of 'wife'. Tis like calling chocolate mousse 'nice'. Nice is a good word, in its place. But it doesn't apply to something as deliciously wonderful as chocolate mousse.

'Companion' is a good word... it just falls well short of describing anything at all about the relationship called 'marriage'.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

It seems as if you're saying, "Yes, it is good to demean women, minimize their value, treat them as possession."

Your seeming has an interesting feature of being detatched from any of my words... and even of being contradictory.

Something being 'a possesion' does not mean it is without value. We are all possesions. Specifically concerning the wife/husband:

Son 6:3 I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies.
and
1Co 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
as well as the verse already quoted:
1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

More generally:
Mar 9:41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.


As for demeaning/minimizing Scripture says:

Pro 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
and
Pro 12:4 A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.

Stan said...

"'Companion' is a good word... it just falls well short of describing anything at all about the relationship called 'marriage'."

So much for "quibble", eh? Since "companion" was a single component in a string of components (remember, my "and" concept), I can't imagine why you would think I was limiting "marriage" to "companion."

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Well, the whole 'definition of companion' thing is a 'quibble' in the light of my agreement with you on going to Scripture for a defintion of marraige, that no matter what the Sodomites say they aren't married, etc. etc... the meat of your post.

I am not saying that you are limiting marriage to companionship. I am saying that the word 'companionship' is a limiting word, like the word 'nice'.

Some words can sucessfully be added to other words. A 'big' truck can be a 'big red' truck, for example.

However other adjectvies don't add up so successfully. A 'mediocre' athlete has a hard time being a 'mediocre excellent' athelete, or a 'feminine patriarch'.

In my opinion the connotations of 'companionship' are antithetical to the definition of wife. The word 'companion' has several bits to its meaning that act in opposition to important parts of the definition of wife.

And that the modern world, including the church, have so seized onto the 'companion' bits, that they have jettisoned the core meanings of 'wife' in favor of the core of 'companion'.

Indeed, one of the arguements of the Sodomites does focus on the 'companion' nature of their relationships and makes the inevitable, and blasphemous, comparison with actual marriage.

Stan said...

Interesting. So ... a wife cannot be a "friend, acquaintance, or partner; someone with whom one spends time or keeps company" (your definition) as well as a help meet, a subordinate, and a fine possession. It is as antithetical to "wife" as "mediocre" is to "excellent" or "feminine" is to "patriarch." I don't suppose I'll ever quite understand your perspective. But, this is a bullet-type media. What should I expect?

Note: When people focus on a particular component of something good and use it to make it into something bad, it is neither grounds for nullifying the good thing or its particular component. Love, for instance, has an emotional component that the world has used to subvert the meaning. That doesn't mean that love doesn't have the emotional component. It means that the world is wrong in subverting the meaning. Just because sodomites use the "companion" component of marriage as grounds to subvert it is not, in itself, reason to change the definition of marriage (as I have argued all along) or reason to deny that component.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Response posted to my blog:

http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2008/12/companionship-part-i.html