First, let's start with the easy stuff ... the stuff that won't surprise you. Despite various sources who are trying to tell us that the Bible isn't clear on the topic, I think most can agree that there are some pretty clear guidelines in the Scriptures. Who, for instance, doesn't know the popular biblical term, "fornication"? And it doesn't even take a Christian to guess what God's view of fornication is. It's bad. Or how about adultery? Yeah, bad. Bestiality? Bad. There are some things that the Bible is not silent on in the realm of sexual relations and there is no ambiguity. Simply put, sexual relations of any kind outside of the sanction of marriage is biblically forbidden. That would include unmarried-unmarried, married-unmarried, human-animal, and, of course, same-sex. These things are explicitly stated as overt sin in the Scriptures. No surprise, right?
"Fine," you say, "but we are married. So, what does the Bible have to say about sex in marriage?"
First, despite false ideas about the Puritans and the ridiculous notions perpetrated by the likes of the Victorian Era, God is in favor of sex in marriage. I wonder how many people find that surprising. There are things in Scripture that God tolerates, like divorce or some forms of slavery. Sex is not in this list of "God tolerates". No, if you read through the Song of Solomon, for instance, you will see that it is not merely tolerated, but indulged exuberantly. It's a good thing. Beyond being a delightful gift that, from all appearances, was only given to God's human creations, it is biblically mandated. Did you get that? The Bible requires it of married people. I would guess that this one might be a bigger shock, so I might need to give you the text to show it.
1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:1-5).It doesn't take a scholar to see that 1) sex outside of marriage is a sin (v 1), that God endorses marriage partly because of the joy of sex (v 2), and that sexual relations between married couples is the duty of husbands and wives (v 3) (since the topic was avoiding immoralities and physical contact between males and females). Plain as day. "Stop depriving one another."
The question, then, becomes, "So ... what can we do?" Some will even cite 1 Corinthians 6:12 -- "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything." "See?" they will finish, "We can do anything we want in the bedroom, right?" (where "in the bedroom" is used as a euphemism to mean "when we engage in sexual relations ... wherever that might be"). Is that true? Can we do anything? I'd be careful about that.
First, there is the obvious. The biblical requirement for moral sexual relations is that it be between a husband and a wife. Therefore, it cannot include anyone else. That should include anyone else in video (for instance). (If you need the rationale for that, ask.) So we are not free to do anything we want. And the Bible says more about it. Paul's statement is "Not all things are profitable." We ought to ask if it's profitable. Paul's statement is "I will not be mastered by anything." We ought to ask, "Will it 'enslave' us in some way?" There are things that can go on "in the bedroom" that are not profitable in any way and that could enslave you. Avoid them. Indeed, the question should not be "What can we do?", but "Why should we do that?" Profitable, you see?
The other passage carries a little more insight that I believe is seriously lost today in the Christian bedroom. Paul states, "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." What does that mean? Well, as we all know, men are pigs. They want their own satisfaction and they expect their wives to give it to them. (I'm overgeneralizing; don't miss the point.) Husbands, your body is not your own. Your purpose in the bedroom is to please your wife with your body, not acquire your own pleasure. That is a mistake. And we're all aware of that to an extent. But notice that Paul didn't start there. "The wife does not have authority over her own body." This is a biblical mandate for wives to use their bodies in ways to bring pleasure to their husbands. So while it is wrong for Christian husbands to approach the bedroom expecting pleasure from their wives, it is wrong for wives to withhold it from their husbands.
So, let's see where we are. God forbids sex outside of marriage. Of course, we all knew that, didn't we? I mean, sure, society finds it acceptable, even recommended, but Scripture says something different. On the other hand, God celebrates sex inside of marriage. It is a gift of God, even commanded. Each is required to give himself or herself to the pleasure of his or her spouse. And, really, when you think about it, isn't that really the best way? See? The Bible isn't as much of a killjoy as you might have thought.
52 comments:
Jesus said about the Great Tribulation, that it will be so cruel and bad as never seen before, and I think one reason is that people will not be prepared for it and will not have the means to handle it properly.
Life is not only of good moments, we need to survive the bad ones too. Marriage as the most fundamental alliance in mankind is a great power. A long standing intimate relationship is a great treasure in times of trouble.
There may be downs in sexual relationship, but there is always a solution to recover within marriage. Really, Jesus is the good shepherd, who came that we have life abundantly, including all natural joys of life, in a good order.
I see a problem with people saying that their spouse is required to give them pleasure, therefore what ever the other wants to be "pleased" by should be okay.
Having followed Driscoll's advice about sex, and read a bit of reviews about his new book, I think there are indeed sexual practices that shouldn't be considered, regardless of what Driscoll says. Case in point - anal sex. While it may be seen to give pleasure, that orifice was not designed for such a practice, which is why there are so many health problems associated with it. Yet Driscoll thinks it is okay just because it brings pleasure.
Knowing that this type of sexual behavior can cause grave medical issues should be enough for the husband to not even suggest it. Just because the Bible doesn't specifically proscribe something, that doesn't mean it is okay.
Just for clarification, when I said I have "followed Driscoll's advice about sex," I meant I have followed the controversy about his advice - I would NEVER follow his advice!
There is a basic problem with "their spouse is required to give them pleasure" because the biblical position is PRECISELY the opposite. I am required to give my spouse pleasure. God's command to my spouse is not my concern. My concern over my spouse's obedience to God's command in this case is the problem.
On the point, though, I think the question I asked is vital. Not "why not?", but "is it profitable?" Not "why not?", but "why?" Not "What can we do?", but "Why should we do that?" We sinful humans have a real tendency to see if we can push the limits rather than considering contentment.
Thanks for the clarification, Glenn. You made me laugh. I assumed when you said you followed it you meant you had been keeping abreast of the conversation. It didn't even occur to me that ... well, I get it. :)
I live in a small town just East of Seattle so I do occasionally attend Mark Driscoll's church. It's a nice change from my little church to see all those 20-somethings attending a worship service. I have not yet read his new book, but I will get to it. Eventually. Good post Stan. As always.
I have an entirely different take on most of the passages you present. First of all, I don't see the Song of Solomon as much more than a story that shows the difference between one who might want to merely jump the bones of a fine example of the female species (the king), and setting aside one's pleasure only for the sake of actual love (the girl and her lover). I've been presented with this story as some proof that sexual pleasure a "wonderful gift from God". I don't believe the story puts forth that idea at all. I think its point is the distinction between love and lust regardless of how the characters speak of the pleasures of sexual contact.
As to sex within a marriage, I believe the mandate is to procreate, not to get lost in the personal pleasure of the act. Paul's words do not speak to this aspect, but to the selfishness of the desire to engage in sex. It is for this reason that he suggests marriage in the first place, because sex is sinful outside of marriage, and why he indicates that one should not refuse one's spouse. It is a common defense for adultery that a person suggests he/she is not getting from his/her spouse what is expected sexually. For one to refuse the other would stoke this desire to go elsewhere. Thus, to say that one's body does not belong to one's self is to acknowledge that one doesn't have the right to withhold one's body from one's spouse.
This is supported by the first verse you offer, which begins in verse 2, "because of immoralities". Paul is suggesting what follows to prevent one from being seduced by one's desires to indulge in immoral behavior, or to provoke one's spouse to do so by withholding one's affections.
So I see no mandate to have sex except for the purpose of procreation, but instead see guidelines for avoiding immoral sexual behavior.
This is not to say that sex for pleasure within a marriage is forbidden. I'm merely saying that it is nowhere presented as the "wonderful gift" it most certainly feels like. WE describe it that way. I don't see where Scripture does.
Interesting. Aren't you the one that argued that sex is only possible if there is lust, and that lust is good if it's in marriage? And if there is an (unavoidable) celebration of sexual pleasure in the Song of Solomon, are you saying that it's not a godly celebration, or are you saying something else?
Yes, procreation is the aim of marriage. Are you saying that the fact that God made it so pleasurable (especially when that does not seem to be the case in the animal kingdom) was not a gift?
Finally, I said that Paul's statement that "The wife does not have authority over her own body" (etc) indicated that spouses were not to seek pleasure for themselves, but to give to their spouses. You disagree. You see that as a command to ... procreate? I'm not understanding.
I think God indeed made sex to be very pleasurable as a way to "cement" the two into one. "The two shall become one" is the intent of marriage before procreation. I've read many, many studies which examine the various aspects of sexual relations and how especially women in orgasm release particular bodily chemicals which cause them to bind more emotionally to the man. It's a whole part of the cementing process which is not present in animals.
By the way, the only "mandate" to procreate were to Adam & Eve and then again to Noah's family, because in both instances they needed to populate the world; no one else has that mandate, and many are unable to procreate and yet still are able to participate in the bonding process.
The mandate was to Adam ... "Man" ... unless, of course, you're willing to admit that the "two shall become one" thing was for Adam only. ;)
"Aren't you the one that argued that sex is only possible if there is lust, and that lust is good if it's in marriage?"
Not entirely accurate. My position is that it is lust that generally accounts for a couple coming together in the first place, or at least accounting for the attraction either or both parties might each have for the other. As to whether sex is possible without the presence of some level of lust, I would say it would be a difficult endeavor for a man, as he would need his ardor to be fired up, arousal being the manifestation of lust. I can't speak for women, but as some say they "fake it", who knows?
As to whether lust is "good" within a marriage, I would have to say that is so on one level. That is, it certainly makes for a more enjoyable arrangement. However, love and lust being to distinctly different things, lust is not as "good" in a marriage as is love, and certainly not as necessary.
To be more accurate, I do not believe that lust is good if it cannot be controlled even within a marriage. If it consumes, then we are basically worshiping ourselves to allow it to rule ourselves.
"And if there is an (unavoidable) celebration of sexual pleasure in the Song of Solomon, are you saying that it's not a godly celebration, or are you saying something else?"
I don't know that the Song depicts any such celebration, but instead celebrates love over lust. The king lusts, but doesn't love. The lovers lust for each other out of love. Their lust is manifestation of their true love for each other and it speaks of their saving such pleasure for the appropriate time---marriage. The celebration is for the love, not the sexual pleasure.
"Are you saying that the fact that God made it so pleasurable (especially when that does not seem to be the case in the animal kingdom) was not a gift?"
I don't know if we can say that animals don't find it pleasurable. I've had the unfortunate experience of witnessing a couple of dogs pleasuring themselves (because they can, as the joke goes) and they were aroused by it. I've also had an equally unfortunate experience of witnessing monkeys in the zoo stroking themselves repeatedly (did I just see that? YES! He did it again!)
But aside from that, though we may regard it as a gift, I believe the intention was that it was to insure that we even procreate at all. I could more see a mandate for sex if it DIDN'T feel good. I see no mandate to either give OR receive the pleasure of it, but only to not deprive our spouse of the pleasure. And again, as a way of reducing the possibility that one might be compelled to seek the pleasure elsewhere.
Paul tells us to marry rather than succumb to the temptations of our carnal desires. If we satisfy those desires within the marital arrangement, we are only becoming one flesh with our spouse. That is proper.
But, with all this in mind, it is not the same to say that as a married couple there is anything sinful in having sex with each other. I'm merely speaking to the concept of sex being a "wonderful gift from God". There's no Scriptural support for this even if I agree that it qualifies as such. My position is that this notion is how we as carnal creatures wish to view it, not a true rendering of God's position.
No, the "two shall become one" describes the union period. Paul even notes that in his discussion with a man and a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:16). However, the command to fill the earth, to "be fruitful and multiply" was given only to Adam and Noah's family. IF you say everyone has that mandate, then you have God commanding people to do what many cannot do! Too often there are those who teach that contraception is sinful because of this mandate.
Yes Glenn I believe so. The primary aim is to enhance the alliance and not to procreate or multiply. By the way, this latter one I do not think as a mandate but a blessing. God blessed them saying... God did not create Eve as a tool of procreation but as a companion. Companionship is the primary aim of marriage, and sexual attraction and relationship is the seal on this alliance, which distinguishes it from any other alliance. Procreation is not the aim of marriage, but marriage gives a framework to raise children in a stable harmonious environment. Abraham had sexual relationship with Sarah in almost all his life without procreation. The case when the aim was procreation (with Hagar) led to trouble...
I'm curious, Glenn, about this distinction of commands given to Adam and Noah and not to others. How do you distinguish? God commanded human government to Noah. Why is it applicable to anyone else? God gave the seal of the rainbow to Noah. Why is it applicable to anyone else? God gave the command against bestiality to Moses. It isn't mentioned anywhere else. Why is that still a command today? Adam was commanded to take dominion over the earth. We aren't? On the other hand, God never commanded Adam (or Cain) not to murder, so why was Cain in trouble for that sin?
Most Christians don't realize it, but this objection to "contraception is sinful" is hugely new. In fact, the Church held universally up until the late 1950's that contraception was sinful -- both the Catholic and the Protestant wings. It really is a new thing in Christendom. It has been believed for nearly 6,000 years (Judaism through Christianity) that the mandate to be fruitful and multiply was a command for all humans, and this new, "enlightened" view that "sex is just for fun" and the like is in its relative infancy. (I mean, seriously, does someone actually think that Adam had the capacity to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth"? Did Adam or Noah have the singular capacity to carry that out by themselves?)
The fact that I have a hard time distinguishing willy-nilly between "That was a command given to X" and "This is a command from God", and the fact that this new view of sex as something other than largely procreative makes it difficult (shall I say impossible?) for me to agree with this idea.
Okay, Marshall, pleasure in sex is not a gift from God, at least not biblically. So how about if you make sense of Paul's statements regarding "The wife does not have authority over her own body" (etc). Since it does not (in your view) mean "give pleasure to your spouse", what does it mean?
I have joked with people about the phrase by taking it literally. "So, I told my wife, 'Your body belongs to me, so get naked and get into this bed.' And she replies, 'And your body belongs to me, so slather jelly on yourself and go lie on an anthill.'" It was a joke to me because I thought it obvious that that can't be what it means. But I would have to guess that you would have to see it that way. It's not about pleasure; it's about actual ownership. It's not about good marital relations; it's about ... what ... avoiding sin?
And, I would guess, that since you hold that Song of Solomon is not a celebration of married sex (as has been the historic view in the Church) but a ripping away of sex from love, then you would argue that the Bible has nothing positive to say about married sex except to affirm that someone ought to do it. The best thing the Bible has to say about married sex is "Well, at least it helps you avoid fornication." I suppose I could have skipped writing this article if that was the best we have. "Don't even think about enjoying it or your responsibility that your spouse enjoy it, folks, because it's not in the Bible."
The distinctions about commands is CONTEXT. Only Adam and Eve were told to increase in number and fill the earth, which would necessarily apply to their children or else population would end with them. No one else has that mandate because after Adam & Eve the earth was pretty full until the Flood and then Noah and his family had to fill the earth all over again. Who else would be told to “fill the earth” - for what reason would God give that command to any family who wasn’t starting a population? How can my having children “fill the earth” which already has its billions of people! And, again, since many people are unable to conceive or never marry, God would be commanding an impossibility.
Noah established government for all who followed after him. Obeying governments and instituting them for the civilization of society is necessary for ALL people, and even Paul and Peter told us to obey the government.
The rainbow was a promise to Noah and his descendants because it was a promise to never flood the earth again - so that has to be applicable to all. The law given to Moses about bestiality is right there with homosexuality and incest as things not just for Israel because the context explains God destroyed nations for those sexual immoralities.
Taking dominion over the earth cannot be relegated to only Adam, because he could not do it by himself, and the earth still is not under the dominion of man.
There are many sins not specifically mentioned in the Bible as commands, yet they are sins nevertheless. And how do we know that Adam and Eve and their children did not received a command against murder? You are arguing from silence, which can be turned right back at you.
And just because people believed contraception was sin, that doesn’t make it so - the Bible never says it is. The idea that sex was not to be enjoyed only came about through the Greek and Gnostic philosophy that it sex was somehow dirty and only a necessary thing, which is what eventually led Rome to say priests can’t marry. As Miklos said, the first reason Eve was given to Adam was as a companion, and then to fill the earth. So the sexual relation is primarily a bonding act and secondarily a procreative act.
It's about submission, Stan, of one spouse to the other, as opposed to thinking of one's self. In this way, regarding one's body as "owned" by one's spouse precludes any "headache" scenarios one might wish to use to deny the other. It's putting the desires of the spouse above one's own.
I don't know why, when speaking on this issue, anyone fears I'm condemning those who take pleasure in sexual relations with one's spouse. Nothing in my position should suggest this or is meant to in the least. I'm merely stating what seems rather clear to me, that there is no indication in Scripture that the pleasure of sex is a "wonderful gift from God" regardless of how we might view it as such. What's so terrible about that?
Equally so, there is nothing in Scripture that denies our enjoying it, except for times of prayer, though I would submit that one could get too wrapped up in sexual matters so as to make it the be all and end all of their lives, usurping the Lord as the proper focus of one's life.
Anyway, back to the point, I indeed see Paul's words as guides for avoiding sin. Indulging in sexual pleasure within a marriage can be done without being sinful, it can never be so outside of marriage. How we relate to each other in marriage also can lead to one or the other seeking other sources for sexual pleasure, and giving up ownership of one's body helps to avoid this.
I don't know that the Song has historically been held as a celebration of marital sex as an example of the proper place for sex and the proper attitude about it. What's more, it has long been held to be an allegorical story of God's relationship with Israel.
Gotta go...
First, I made no argument from silence. I asked a question.
Second, you argue that the command to have dominion was for all mankind since Adam couldn't do it himself, but you argue also that the command to multiply and fill the earth was just to Adam ... even though he couldn't possibly do it himself.
You see sex as a bonding act. I see no such biblical command, but I do see a biblical command to multiply. Clearly, we've come across another place you and I disagree. What is that ... twice? Not bad.
And I have a real hard time believing that it took the Holy Spirit 2,000 years to finally get across to His people that they were wrong all this time about "be fruitful and multiply" ... but no one likes it when I use that argument against them. :)
Marshall Art, as in the case of Glenn here, it appears we have found something on which we disagree. It's too bad when that happens ... especially when you're wrong about it. :)
Those who see SoS as an allegory include Christians who see it as about Christ and the Church. All I can say it, to be an allegory it has to get really, really weird! It is just what it purports to be - a sonnet about marital relations between lovers.
I do not seek out that TV show about the Kardashians. I promise. :-)
Still, I admit I lingered for several minutes last night while changing channels. The slick-hair young man was talking to a rabbi and casually mentioned that he and his “girlfriend” (one of the Kardashian sisters) had a child together. I wondered if the rabbi would lecture the fellow on how sex outside of marriage is wrong. Instead, the rabbi took it in as if it was not a surprise and not a problem. In fact, the rabbi seemed quite pleased. From strictly an Old Testament point of view, is there a problem with sex outside of marriage? And from that point of view is there a problem with erotica and lust?
From a strictly Old Testament view, the most information regarding sexual morality is offered there. You won't find, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" in the New Testament. You merely find the affirmation there. From a strictly Old Testament view, however, there is no doubt that sex outside of marriage is a problem. The penalty for voluntary sex outside of marriage was marriage ... without the possibility of divorce. The Old Testament is abundantly clear that God views sex as intended solely within the bounds of marriage. As such, since erotica includes the concepts of sex outside marriage, it would definitely be problematic. Lust is always problematic.
Sorry, I did not read the 3 articles you wrote but I have a nagging question, “How did a man and a woman get married over the last, say, 10,000 years according to the Bible?”
The question isn't quite connected to "The Bible on Sex", but ...
The marriage practices (as opposed to the definition) have varied over the past 10,000 years. Nor does the Bible offer a definitive description of what a marriage procedure is supposed to look like. The only definitive biblical description is "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Gen 2:24). Leave and cleave. That is the official "marriage ceremony". Generic enough to allow for lots of variations but specific enough to disallow some things we might accept. Biblical marriages were nearly always public and always designed as a lifelong relationship.
Biblical marriages (and, in fact, the norm up until, actually, quite recently) were mostly arranged. A father gave his daughter in marriage. A father found a wife for his son. In the words of Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"
There is an interesting set of Jewish customs that were built around the process. A father would choose a bride for his son. His son would go and pay the price for the bride. Then he would leave and return to his father's house to prepare a place for the bride. When the time was right, he would return for the bride, announced by a shout and a trumpet, and take his bride to be with him for the rest of their lives. Sound familiar? (It should.)
Marriage ceremonies varied over 10,000 years. Marriage was always defined as the union of a man and a woman for the dual purpose of partnership in life's circumstances and for procreation. Always. Biblically, the only moral condition for sexual relations was in that condition of marriage. I don't know if that answers your question, but it's about all I have.
“The question isnt quite connected to The Bible on Sex , but ...”
“ First, sex outside of marriage is forbidden by God. (Part 3)”
If sex only comes after marriage we need to know what marriage is. We have to begin with answering that question so we know how to get married, and then find out what the Bible say about sex.
That begs the important question, “What is marriage? And what is a wedding ceremony?
“(Gen 2:24). Leave and cleave. That is the official "marriage ceremony.”
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"
First of all this commandment is instructions for Adam and Eve who would be the first mother and father. They did not have a mother and father. Secondly it is a commandment for all generations who have a mother and a father.
The only laws that governed were dictated by God to the Hebrew people. There was later Mosaic laws governing all aspects of Hebrew life including marriage. However gentiles were never under the old covenant. Jesus fulfilled and put an end of the law which was only a tutor. No one can keep the law(s) as Adam and Eve could not keep the few law(s). The new covenant was ushered in at Jesus’ death with better promises and it applies to the Church, Jew and Gentile alike.
(Gen 2:24). Leave and cleave. That is the official "marriage ceremony" prevails as the determining factor of marriage.
So that begs another question, if the two of them, male and female leave and cleave why, doesn’t the Church recognize their marriage, or does it?
"if the two of them, male and female leave and cleave why, doesn’t the Church recognize their marriage, or does it?"
Let me start by saying that it would be unwise and impractical for me to say what "the Church" does and does not recognize regarding a proper marriage ceremony. My church, for instance, does not recognize a divorced man as a candidate for office while many other churches aren't concerned about that. So for me to say what "the Church" recognizes as a proper marriage ceremony would be impractical.
I addressed just last week the concept of "not under the law". (I would suggest that your understanding of Jesus as having "put an end" to the law as mistaken. When Paul says He was "the end of the law" that doesn't mean "He terminated it", but "He was the point". We know this because Jesus Himself said it did not end with Him and Paul affirmed that while we were not under the law, we still affirmed it.) The problem I see with this kind of thinking is that if the Old Testament Law is no longer applicable -- applied only to the Jews and not to those under the New Covenant -- then we have 2/3rds of Scripture to discard and, apparently, God changed His mind about what He thought was good and bad. The historic position of Christianity is that the principles have remained, that morality hasn't changed, and that Christ has fulfilled the sacrificial law (and, as such, we still embrace it, even if it is fulfilled) and we still need to fulfill the moral law (not in order to be saved, but in order to be a pleasing sacrifice to God).
Moving on from that, though, the "leave and cleave" concept was carried over from Old to New Testament. It was Christ Himself who affirmed it and Paul agreed. Further, the concept of a public commitment was necessary in both Old and New Testaments beyond the simple "leave and cleave" concept. It is widely accepted, for instance, that Jesus blessed weddings and marriage by His presence at the wedding in Cana (John 2) and God affirms it in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Thus, biblically a marriage is not a private "leave and cleave", a simple private commitment. It is a public commitment with witnesses and officiality.
Whether or not the government has any necessary part to play is doubtful. There isn't one, single, solitary biblical reference to the government in marriage. If the government was out of the marriage business, I don't think the Church would complain that we no longer had official marriages.
But I think it is biblically clear that marriage is to begin with a public declaration and acknowledgement of the commitment and union as the two leave their respective families and cleave to one another. I don't know of any church that would not recognize such an arrangement as "marriage".
“Further, the concept of a public commitment was necessary in both Old and New Testaments beyond the simple "leave and cleave" concept.”
Of course you know that “leave and cleave” is a public commitment in itself. As for myself people knew that I was married or in a committed relationship. It showed by my behavior towards my woman, other women and it was written all over my face. I did not have to carry around a marriage license like my drivers license or wear a ring.
People recognize a married couple especially newly weds often asking them how long they have been married. Then after a time they know we are still married but something happens in our relationship also witnessed. They say, “The honeymoon is over,” with a smile and a fleeting glance. Someone asked me the other day how long we two have been married and my girlfriend was in the car unseen. It was something that I said and my mannerisms. She was shocked when I said we were not married
“It is widely accepted, for instance, that Jesus blessed weddings and marriage by His presence at the wedding in Cana (John 2)”
Everyone blessed the wedding by their presence. The host, her father and the other guests were waiting until the couple returned so the feast would end. Read the Book of Tob in the apocrypha about the feast while Tobias and his wife were occupied only with themselves. Of course that ran into overtime as well.
However Jesus was at that marriage feast supplying wine anonymously. Jesus’ mom told Him to do it under protest. “It’s not my time!” Mom is important. Jesus needed His mom to keep Him out of trouble and to be with Him all the way to the cross.
“God affirms it in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.”
True, but the bride of Christ is made up of both male and female. A buddy of mine did not like being called a bride even by Jesus. (Ha, Ha. But he was serious just the same.)
“ Thus, biblically a marriage is not a private "leave and cleave", a simple private commitment. It is a public commitment with witnesses and officially.”
Yes, as the state of marriage as I stated. Have you ever been married? I love being married. I treat my girlfriends as if we are married. Being married out the house at 19 years of age, at 38 years old 3 months after divorce I had another wife with a ready made family. After that divorce I had girlfriends finally and of course I only knew how to treat them as wives.
I did not divorce my wives but in this day and age marriage is for convenience. The wife can call it quits at any time with many financial incentives. The government offers women forbidden fruit that they find it pleasing to the eye and good for food. Few men seek divorce. So how can you be a Bishop or a Deacon according to Timothy and Titus? They are supposed to be a husband of one wife.
It is quite clear that you do not comprehend the biblical concept of marriage, or you could not say, "In this day and age marriage is for convenience." What society does with marriage is irrelevant. What we're looking for is what is right and true. Biblically, marriage is for life. Treating girlfriends like wives is not the equivalence of marriage.
The Bible recognizes a wedding as a public event where the families gather and husband and wife are publically united in a lifelong commitment to have and to hold 'til death do us part with a primary aim at mutual support and procreation. "Everyone knows" is not the biblical concept. Nor is a government license. And in today's world, cohabitation is the rule of thumb, so "everyone" does not know anymore.
Without a publicly professed, lifelong commitment, it isn't a marriage.
to Chaplain Muldrew
Jesus did NOT need his mother "to keep him out of trouble." That is utter nonsense.
The Bride of Christ is the Church - NOT individual members. Therefore a man should never be called the bride of Christ. A problem exists among many, though, especially in the NAR and IHOP with their bridal paradigm, where they DO say each person is a bride of Christ, and they make the relationships one of the "boyfriend" Jesus.
Please keep this a friendly discussion without condemnation and insulting my intelligence. I did not spend all those years in Bible and secular college to agree with anyone. If I am wrong use 2 Tim 3:16 and prove me wrong by Scripture please. I would really appreciate being corrected but not by personal opinion.
“What society does with marriage is irrelevant.”
I know that is what I pointed out. But never-the-less we have to obey our government. You’re your society’s traditions. The Hebrew traditions were not like anyone else’s. No one else had the book of the law and the prophets. Now we are subject to thee old covenant and the new covenant. However the law is for the unjust. We are Judeao-Christian.
Who gets married today without our government consent? Many people have Church have a ceremony for the couple when any judge will do without the ceremony. You are not less married in God’s eyes
“Treating girlfriends like wives is not the equivalence of marriage.”
Inspite of the evidence of the evicdence of the under the old covenant you probably do not think men and women had multiple wives. What did Jesus reveal about the Samaritan woman at the well? She had several husbands and the one you are with now you are not married to. Plus he saved her and others! She said I thirst.
Hence my original question, what constitutes a marriage? How could she be married to some and not married to the last one?
That is worth discussing because it is leaving and cleaving.
“What we're looking for is what is right and true. Biblically, marriage is for life.”
That is the ideal but can not be practiced because of the law. Man wasn’t meant to be alone. Man and woman are to replenish the earth. And most important there is no divorce. Once you get a legal marriage it is between the male, female, and the government. Isn’t it better to leave and cleave and leave everybody else out of your marriage even the Church buildings who now think that Gays can get married? Read Romans 1.
Treating girlfriends like wives is not the equivalence of marriage.
“The Bible recognizes a wedding as a public event where the families gather and husband and wife are publically united”
You are talking about tradition not Bible.
“Without a publicly professed, lifelong commitment, it isn't a marriage.”
We agree accept for the gathering together of families. The couple makes a public profession every day. It is not like water baptism a little dunk will do you. Water baptism you can’t prove. Marriage you can’t prove. But you can.
You are talking about tradition not Bible.
It wasn’t until about 1,000 years ago the Roman Catholics stood over marriage and we all could have ceremonies. It was only for the rich, no one pronounced their marriage even Jesus.
Adam and Eve did not have family. So when in the 10,000 years did anyone celebrate marriage. In the days in Noah they were marrying and given in marriage. God killed them in their wickedness.
God said only leave, cleave and become one flesh. That is all. Abram and Moses were not born yet. The Church did not begin until the Day of Pentecost. The Church met in homes not mega-temples/Churches like the one Jesus destroyed in 3 days such there were no bricks left unturned. Even in the book of Revelation 1 and 2 God destroyed the 7 Churches you left their first love. They perished for a lack of knowledge and wisdom.
Look, Chaplain, we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here. I know that you have indicated that certain physical conditions prevent you from expressing yourself clearly, so it is important that I clarify here.
It would appear from what you've written in this discussion that you believe that biblical marriage consists solely of "leave and cleave". Further, by that you mean "live together as husband and wife" without any genuine public memorialization (as in a wedding) or even commitment. You consider the "marriage" as "public" by the recognition of others that you appear "married". Thus, the only required "public" in "marriage" is that someone thinks it's so. All you really have to do to be married in biblical terms is to move in with your girlfriend and "treat her as if we are married".
If that is an accurate understanding of your view, please allow me to point out the several problems with that view. First, there is no substantive difference between your understanding of "married" and the world's very popular "shacking up". The current household model that is highly acceptable to our culture is "living together". It is intentionally not "married" because "we're just not ready yet for that kind of commitment". Yet, it carries all the components that your model of "marriage" includes. They "leave and cleave" (without any regard for what "cleave" might mean), "live together", even treat each other as if they're married. They are often and easily mistaken for married couples. You give a similar example from your own experience. "Someone asked me the other day how long we two have been married and my girlfriend was in the car unseen. It was something that I said and my mannerisms. She was shocked when I said we were not married." Note that from your own experience you indicate that you "were not married." So there is are substantive differences between "married" and "shacking up" that the world and even your own experience recognizes.
This isn't a matter of culture or opinion. It is a matter of biblical truth. Weddings are biblical and blessed. Examine, for instance, the parable of the virgins, the wedding of Cana, and the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. All weddings. All biblical. All expected. Conversely we have the example you offered of the woman at the well. The man with whom she was living ("leave and cleave", right?) was not her husband. The Bible (explicitly God in Gen 2, Jesus in Matt 19, Paul in Eph 5, etc.) views marriage as a lifetime relationship that is only terminated at the death of one or both of the spouses. These are key components of biblical marriage. Public commitment and lifelong commitment ("cleave").
Now, if you are not saying that biblical marriage is the same as shacking up, that "leave and cleave" is simply defined as "whomever I happen to be living with and sleeping with", and the world's current "love 'em and leave 'em" mentality is perfectly acceptable for Christians, then we don't have a disagreement. If you're not saying that God killed the people in Noah's day because they were engaging in genuine marriage, then we're not in conflict. Because that's what it looks like you're saying.
“Look, Chaplain, we may have gotten off on the wrong foot here.”
Thank you brother for acknowledging my disabilities which I have to admit are many.
“It would appear”
I formally entered this discussion with the hope that we can understand what marriage has been beginning with Adam and Eve.
We have been given the Bible thousands of years after procreation began. It is written Leave and Cleave beginning at Adam and Eve. That’s all. Marriage ceremonies were developed over the years but were not part of the original contract. Man and woman became one flesh. And that was all too. Imagine this, a male and a female would not reproduce until they received a word from God on how to do it Biblically. I’m sorry. I had to laugh at that. Many Christians believe they have to hear from God personally and won’t study the Bible for themselves that has the answers.
I see 3 ages of marriage. 1) Adam and Eve until the Mosaic Law for thousands of years – 2) The Mosaic Law until it was fulfilled by the death of Jesus Christ for Hebrew/Jews only. The Old Testament ends at the book of John. – 3) The Church age beginning at Acts chapter 2.
So what do these ages have in common as far as marriage is concerned? Simple, a commandment is not needed to procreate. God designed that way. Male and female “Leave and Cleave” and fill the earth all over the world from the beginning without a needing a Bible reference. Some people think that was unbiblical. Huh? The law was written in our hearts from the beginning. Only the Hebrew/Jews were given the book of the law. The Judeo Christian was given the Old Covenant and the New Covenant about 2,000 years ago but only the New Covenant pertains to us. So what does it conclude? Marriage is for life? Multiple wives or husbands are for life? Moses told them unless you by the hardness of you heart put them away. Man can be an unruly crowd, Ask Aaron who allowed them to make a golden image to worship.
Look, think about it, what good is the law for humans? Adam and Eve could not keep it. The Hebrew people could not keep it. Christians can’t keep the law. Church leaders can’t keep the law. If you are guilty of one point in the law you are guilty of all points of the law. The law was not designed to be kept or for salvation but only as a tutor. You are supposed to realize that and turn to Jesus.
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (They call themselves Gay people) , for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 1 Tim 1:9-10 (KJV)
So where is the sin in marriage no matter how you define it? Where is sin found in us? 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:4-6 (KJV)
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.
1 Peter 1:20-21 (KJV)
The King James usage of might does not mean the maybe of common usage (It means will (be in God).
So I am saying, if you think the laws of marriage makes a difference as you interpret them. If you think you have to keep them you are in error. If you try and prevent procreation you are in error. The Bible has so many so many references to marriage and procreation who was then married and what constitutes marriage? Now that is Biblical.
Rather than responding to what you wrote assuming I understood you, I need to see if I understood you. It appears as if you're saying that biblical "marriage" is two people who have sex ... end of definition. It appears that way from what you said and because I've heard that argument from others. Thus, the whole idea that "sex outside of marriage is a sin" would be ridiculous because sex is marriage.
Or, maybe you're saying that marriage exists if reproduction exists. That is, two people who have a baby together are married in biblical terms. That would require that two people who live together, have sex together, commit to each other, but never have a baby (for whatever reason) are not married in biblical terms. And, again, "sex outside marriage" becomes meaningless.
Or it could be saying that there really is no such thing as marriage in God's eyes. We, in the Church Age, are free from law. There are no rules. Trying to say that "sex outside marriage is a sin" because it violates God's rules is a violation of the fact that we are free from the law. Trying to conform to God's law is an error. Marriage means nothing in today's world because we are free from the law and it is no longer relevant to us. Sex outside marriage is pointless because "marriage" is a past product of law that is no longer in effect and "sex outside marriage" is a past product of law that is no longer in effect, so it's all pointless. Enjoy! That could be what you're saying as well. (Obviously I will have to deny the possibility that this is a correct viewpoint based on what Scripture says.)
You use the term "leave and cleave" and I'm not at all sure what you mean by it, but it seems pretty clear that you don't mean what I mean by it or even what the Church has understood it to mean ... for the past 2,000 years. So I'm really not clear, but it appears that you seem to be arguing against the concept of limiting sex to marriage or even defining marriage as anything relevant today.
Rather than responding to what you wrote assuming I understood you, I need to see if I understood you. It appears as if you're saying that biblical "marriage" is two people who have sex ... end of definition. It appears that way from what you said and because I've heard that argument from others. Thus, the whole idea that "sex outside of marriage is a sin" would be ridiculous because sex is marriage.
Or, maybe you're saying that marriage exists if reproduction exists. That is, two people who have a baby together are married in biblical terms. That would require that two people who live together, have sex together, commit to each other, but never have a baby (for whatever reason) are not married in biblical terms. And, again, "sex outside marriage" becomes meaningless.
As you know the purpose of marriage is to replenish and fill the earth.
Jesus did NOT need his mother "to keep him out of trouble." That is utter nonsense.
Jesus did NOT need his mother "to keep him out of trouble." That is utter nonsense.
“Jesus did NOT need his mother "to keep him out of trouble." That is utter nonsense.”
My mother did. He was a momma’s boy. He stayed behind from the caravan to talk to the Elders and she came and got Jesus. What do you think His mom did to Him? I hope you think this is funny but like many moms she could have grabbed Him by the ear, yanked it and shouted, “JESUS!!!” She had no problem after that. He just said, “Momma it’s not my time and turned water into wine anyway. His mom never left His side and followed Jesus to the cross. You can believe his mom could not find a woman good enough for Jesus. In this she aided Him too.
Every child needs a mother. Think about what your Mom did for you that Dad could not.
Stan - I know this is an older post. We have reconciled our differences. Apologetics is the hardest form study. It can break out with ill feelings because everyone thinks they are right. The point is to learn together. You don’t find it in most local Churches. You should listen to the Apolgetions on the radio if you can find anyone left. Many cruel things people over the air say to the host for just having a Bible Study. He wants’ to be corrected but using Scriture exegesis.
“her probably do not think men and women had multiple wives" for instance”
You did not read what I said about that. That is the jist of my argument. My question is at what point are they married and not shacking up. In the U.S. all 50 states had common law marriage. Only a few have common law marriage today. A common law required that the couple stayed together for 7 years then they were married. Of course as usual the local Church went along the government. Suddenly you are shacking. They forgot common law marriage living together as a process of marriage,
Many men had wives, concubines and princes all Bibical. Why do some people think that has changed because of the U.S. and Western Christianity? Christian religion and the Bible is actually Eastern
I feel compelled to make this comment because you opened up the discussion. Why do many Churches mock those with a formal Bible education? It took me 12 years part time. I paid for it myself so no congregation has to pay for it. I have never asked for or received tithes and offerings. People expect me to give to them and can be very angry when I can’t.
Many don’t like teacher out of Eph 4:11 a gift from Jesus to equip the saints. They never desired to be a Bishop who call themselves pastors, or Deacons (Timothy and Titus). Also many of them scorn and mock theologians. Theology is the study of God as God is in the Bible. Israel was a Theocracy but abandoned it for a King (Saul) they could see like other nations.
On the other hand, most people would not seek professional services from anyone who did have a degree(s) in their studies. Why doesn’t the local Church expect the same excellence from Church leaders and of themselves so they can understand the teachers and each correct each other 2 Tim 3:16. The U.S. is 27th in the list of educated people.
I guess I'll drop this discussion here, Chaplain. In all candor, I don't have a clue what you're saying. I don't even have a hint of where you stand on sex, marriage, the Law, or anything that has been discussed here. I cannot even fathom where "Jesus did NOT need his mother" came from as if there was some conversation about Jesus and His mother, let alone what you were trying to express in that line of discussion.
Nor can I figure out why you keep calling attention to your 12 years of education as if I've referenced it or care about it -- positive or negative. I haven't mocked your education nor do I find it compelling, adding any weight to your arguments. I don't know if you think that the Bible is opposed to marriage ceremonies or if you think that sex defines marriage or if you think that children define marriage. (Understand, of course, that the answer to that question would supply your position on the premise that sex is only moral if it is within the bounds of marriage, since the view that sex defines marriage would actually turn that position around.)
Since this rather lengthy discussion has produced no information that I can discern -- no position, definition, understanding at all -- it's probably best that we end it amicably and move on. Since my questions for clarification go unanswered, it's probably best that I quit asking them so you can quit ... not answering them. Be well. Get married. Read your Bible. I'm probably not telling you anything you don't already know.
Jesus did not need his mother to keep him out of trouble because Jesus was never in trouble. If he was in "trouble" it would mean he was sinning.
And, no, there is no need of ceremony to make a marriage. People can go to a judge and have a paper signed with no ceremony. Two people stranded on an island can decide to be married and live as husband and wife with no witness but God. Many states accept a couple living together for a specified period of time as being common-law married.
My question (to Chaplain), Glenn, was whether or not the Bible was opposed to weddings. I think the Bible views weddings as the norm, with that remote, no-witness version being the exception rather than the rule. I don't think you disagree.
(And while I agree with you 100% on that "Jesus didn't need His mother to keep Him in line" thing, I really was lost on what Chaplain was saying at all.)
I don't know Stan, but from my study of history weddings weren't necessarily the norm, especially before Christianity took over the Roman empire. I think cultures from around the world had their own idea as to what constituted a "ceremony" (if you will) but often it was just to people choosing to live together as man and wife.
If the law of the land requires some sort of ceremony or licensing, then we have to obey the law of the land as Christians.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but to say there must be witnesses or a ceremony to make a marriage, then I have to disagree. Two people choosing to live as husband and wife is all that is necessary biblically.
The thing about Jesus being kept in line by his mother was in reference to what the "chaplain" said. I wasn't sure what he meant either, but it certainly appeared that he was saying Mary had to discipline Jesus for wrong-doing.
Actually, what I said was that the Bible favors (not demands) weddings. The biblical version is demonstrated in Jesus's parable of the virgins. It was the standard Jewish marriage operation. (And the standard Jewish wedding predated the Roman Empire.)
1) The father sends the son to purchase the bride.
2) The son goes back home and prepares a place for his bride-to-be.
3) He returns (typically with trumpets) to retrieve and marry his bride.
4) He takes his now wife back to be with him.
(I'm pretty sure that, in that typical Jewish traditional wedding, you see a parallel to something else, something bigger, right?)
Biblical marriages were often solemnized by weddings, by public processes including family. It was, according to Jewish history, the norm. No, not the definition of "marriage", but normal. And Jesus's presence at the wedding in Cana indicated His approval of same. So my point was that the Bible favors weddings and it appeared that Chaplain (and, in fact, others I've seen) were denying that. I don't think you are, but I had to be sure.
Further, in today's climate of "free love" (which is neither free nor love), I would strongly advice a young couple contemplating marriage to make it a public commitment (e.g., wedding) rather than a private "we've decided to live together as man and wife and, so, we are" approach. In this case, the strong appearance of evil is hard to avoid.
Of course - I would ALWAYS say to make the commitment real and get married.
I don' think you can say that the Bible "favors" weddings - it just reports them. There is no hint of any command, etc that there be a ceremony for a wedding.
And that is all I'm getting at.
I think Glenn may have missed the correlation you keep alluding to. The Jewish model of a wedding is exactly the same as the Christian model of Christ and the Church. Thus, by the close association, the Bible (and God) favors this form of wedding.
Glenn, I too have to disagree that "Be fruitful and multiply" was only to Adam and Eve. Your premise is that it can't be a command because not everyone can do it. If that were the case, only married men could be Pastors/Elders. I think the command to "Be fruitful and multiply" is not a command of action, but desire, since NOBODY can purposefully procreate if God doesn't allow them to. It speaks to the desire of the married couple. Desire to be fruitful and multiply, I (God) will or will not do it through you. Obviously, if one or both of the partners are infertile they can't procreate, but they should still have the willingness to. The sin component would not be no having children, but actively not wanting children, in opposition to God.
And finally, about Mary and Jesus, I think we need to remember that there is a difference between sinning and wronging someone. Nobody in all of humanity has sinned against another person. It isn't possible because of what sin is. So, when Jesus wronged His mother while in obedience to God, He wasn't sinning, but at the same time He was wronging His mother. Why Mr. Muldrew (I refuse to call him Chaplain) made the claim that Jesus needed His mother to keep Him out of trouble is beyond me, since it was His mother trying to get Him into trouble at the wedding of Cana.
David,
I cannot buy that "Be fruitful and multiply" was a COMMAND for anyone other Adam and Eve, and again with Noah's family due to the need to repopulate. There are many reasons in today's world where a couple would choose to not have children, and you would say they are sinning against a command of God. There are only two places in scripture where the command was given, and to specific people due to the need to fill the earth. Notice that "fill the earth" is part of the command, and the earth no longer needs "filling."
If it was to be a command for everyone everywhere, you'd think it would be the 11th commandment, or somehow, somewhere in the Bible other than to Adam and Noah, we'd find the command to propagate. This ideology of being a command to all people is the backing for the aberrant "Quiverfull" movement and their ilk.
Sin is rebellion against God. But doing wrong against another person also violates God and is therefore sin. David committed wrongdoing against Bathsheba's husband by his adultery and murder - but those actions were simultaneously sin. You cannot do "wrong" against someone without being simultaneously a sin against God.
Jesus was not wronging His mother. If he was doing something wrong, it would have been sin against God.
I've always wondered on what basis God's commands change. He commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply but apparently not their offspring. He commanded Noah to be fruitful and multiply but apparently not his children. He commanded Jacob (not Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob's 12 sons) to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 35:11), but no one else. How odd! There are those who use this principle all over the place. Indeed, there are those who argue that none of the Old Testament commands pertain to Christians and even those who argue that the only remaining "command" is "love ... end of story".
Hard for me to swallow all this change in God's instructions.
(And I didn't get what David was saying about Jesus was wronging His mother but not sinning either. Nor do I know of any instance in which He wronged ... anyone.)
God told Jacob to be fruitful and multiply because he was the beginning of the chosen nation.
I don't see God changing commands, rather I see it as commands for a specific purpose. The purpose was not for anyone else. Just like many command God gave to Israel which were for no one else.
Yes, Glenn, I know you do. I was just pointing out that it is impossible for me to see it that way. It would require a careful examination of every biblical command with the express understanding that without a definite reason to assume it was intended for me, I would be allowed to ignore it. An obvious example would be the Mosaic commands against homosexual relationships. It was a command given only to Israel. There is no other command in Scripture. So we can ignore it, right? Well, of course not, but if we're going to argue that commands given to one person or group of people does not carry over to anyone else, it's going to be difficult to argue. An obvious example is the 10 commandments, given as part of God's covenant with Israel, and, as such, certainly no longer applicable to anyone else. Ignore the Sabbath. Dishonor parents. By all means covet all you want.
Now, of course, you do not make this argument and I wouldn't think you would. It's just that once you start discarding specific commands given to specific people as not applicable to anyone else, you're going to have a lot of work trying to decide what does and doesn't apply to you.
After all I've read of your comments in the past, I'm surprised you are a command nitpicker. The other difficulty I have of trying to say that it is for specific people is its placement. As far as I recall, when a command is given to a specific people in a specific time it is given as a group of commands. But this command would appear to be singular in that "Be fruitful and multiply" is immediately coupled with "Have dominion over the earth". How can you rationally say that in the same breath God told Adam one command and all humanity a second?
As for the wronging his mother, it could be seen as wronging when he stayed behind while they traveled on. A perfect example of wronging someone and not sinning is disobeying a parent that is contradicting God. Or would you say that is merely sinning to not sin?
Stan,
Well, the command against homosexual behavior in Lev was given to Israel, BUT, the intent was for all people, as demonstrated by the context, as I prove here:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
There is no such example for a command to multiply. There are many, many commands given to Israel which were for no one else, because they were about setting Israel apart for God's service. And there are promises God gives to Israel which were for no one else, yet Christians consistently take the promises for themselves.
It's all about context.
As mankind we all take dominion over the earth because we can all take dominion over our individual parts. This is not the same a procreating to fill the earth. First, Adam, and then Noah, were the only people and if the earth was going to be filled, then they had to start it. The earth has been pretty much "filled" for thousands of years. Whether we as individuals decide to have children will not do much to affect the fact that the earth has people, whereas if Adam or Noah decided to not have children - wow, no one would be here!
The other thing about this "command," is that some people take it to mean we as individuals must have as many children as possible, and condemn those of us who only have 2 or 3, claiming we do so for selfish reasons and rebellion against God. Well, part of the societal problems is that people have more children than they can afford or even properly care for just because they think they need to keep having children.
So the question becomes, how many children should each couple have in order to following this command? "Quiverfull" people say as many as possible and will often give that "holier than thou" line about how they are following God's commands. Well, through the years of being a Christian with only two children, I have had a bellyful of Quiverfull people telling me how ungodly or unholy I am because I didn't obey God's command to fill the earth.
Adam, via his own children and the children coming from him did indeed have to fill the earth. So did Noah. I don't need to fill the earth, nor does anyone else.
And notice that Jacob was not told to "fill the earth" - that his command was only to increase in number, the reason being that he needed to start a nation.
There is no need for any of us to fill the earth or start a nation, ergo the command is not for us.
That comment on Jesus mother was in response to some one else. As far as you are concern (Stan) I was building my case to say this.
1. We are to leave mother and father. That does not say mother and father should have a ceremony but leave your parents out. Beginning with Adam and Eve’s children. Their son’s and daughters’ left them.
2. They became one flesh. The New Testament speaks on the matter of one flesh. They are to submit to each other. A wife is to submit to her husband. Women are to keep silent in Church and discuss matters with their husbands. Women don’t take authority over their husbands. A husband is to love their wives like Jesus loved the Church.
3. The purpose of becoming one flesh is to multiply, replenish, and fill the earth. That can only take place with a male and female becoming one flesh. That happened for all of mankind beginning with Adam and Eve. The Bible was not even written and they became one flesh.
4. You become sexually attractive to one another. A virgin if she burns for a man she must get married. She does not have to have permission by her parents. They just leave and cleave, becoming one flesh by a sexual union that is nobody business but their own. The marriage bed is undefiled. No one can dictate the sex they can enjoy and by the grace of God they have children. Not long ago it was common to have 14 children.
5. The real question is why people spend so much time, money, and effort on a wedding. I and my first wife went before a Judge with one witness. That is a declaration by God for all of mankind.
6. Mankind/Womankind has done quite well so far without and others define marriage. We are now 7 billion people on the earth at the commandment of God that we should fill the earth. You are probably to young to remember when even the local Church said you should graduate from High School, graduate from college, get a job, buy a house then get married. At 30 years old. Boy, Kids enter puberty at 12 years old. Do I have to give you a sex education? Have you ever been married before or are you trying seemingly taking what you call a legal route. So you don’t have to get married. There are plenty of girls and woman that wants to get married but that can’t find a man willing. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
7. Oh, if you find someone that doesn’t want to fill the earth and don’t participate don’t argue with them. Because of them every generation that could have been generated became extinct like the dinosaurs. They can babysit someone else’s kids through adoption.
8. I wrote this to encourage breeders. The U.S. has achieved zero population grow with 250 citizens. China is growing in population with 1.2 billion citizsens.
Chaplain Winston Tobias Muldrew,
I've published your comment, but it will likely be the last. You don't seem to be able to disagree without being unkind and you haven't said anything that has clarified. My question before was whether you believe that having sex constitutes marriage, and it still appears to be your position. It appears that you believe that marriage is loosely enough defined as "sex and kids". I indicated that the Bible (and human history) is full of weddings and you still appear to disagree.
It appears that my disgreement with your position means that I'm "too young" or too stupid ("Do I have to give you a sex education?") or too inexperienced ("Have you ever been married?") or just too hard-hearted ("or are you trying to take what you call a legal route?"). I've offered the biblical and historical reasons for my position (and I know about sex, have been married, and am easily as intelligent and experienced as you are). You reject them. Fine. Please don't bother posting further comments. It will not afford any further light and will likely only produce heat.
I suggest in the future Mr Muldrew, you have someone proofread and edit your comments. How you made it through seminary with writing skills like that is beyond me. This is not an attack on you personally, but on your ability to write a coherent argument. If you cannot be understood, you cannot be debated.
I remember trying to define marriage like you do, "Oh, I love you and want to be with you". Of course, I was a teenager and was thinking with the wrong head. Marriage must include a life-long commitment in front of other people, otherwise it is two people living together and having sex. If there is no public commitment, there is no personal accountability, and you can just leave your "spouse" without any repercussion. The secular world may not like it, but marriage is a union between a man and a woman before God, which is why God says, "What I bring together, let no man separate." Does it have to be an elaborate, expensive ceremony? No, not even Stan was saying that. But if nobody else knows about your "marriage" then there is nothing to hold you accountable to your vows.
Post a Comment