Defining Marriage

I have contended since the beginning of the debate that marriage has a definition and "man and man" or "woman and woman" are not included in that definition. The primary basis for that argument has not been biblical. It has been entirely historical (and rational). All of mankind for all of history has always defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Practices around that definition have varied. How do you get married? Is government involved? Do you need a license or a church? Can you repeat this (polygamy)? And other variations. But at no time has it ever been understood any different as the fundamental "man and woman."

If you edge into the Bible, you'll also find this same definition. It started with Adam and Eve. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Gen 2:24) So fundamental and universal was this definition that it was repeated verbatim by both Jesus (Matt 19:5) and Paul (Eph 5:31). In other words, "No, it's not simply an Old Testament thing."

I said, though, that you find this by edging into the Bible. If you look at the biblical concept beyond this simple idea, it turns out that God had a deeper notion in mind. When Paul quotes Genesis and Jesus on the definition of marriage, he is making a specific point.

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." (Eph 5:31-32)

We see then that beyond the standard stuff -- companionship, procreation, and such -- God had an idea for marriage that imaged something much, much larger. He intended marriage to be an object lesson on the relationship His Son would have with the Church. Marriage is a God-ordained depiction of Jesus's marriage to His own. As such, it is much more than anything the courts, the government, or public opinion dreams up.

At this point you might begin to realize that marriage is not merely sacred in word. It is regarded as sacred by God. So as you dig further into this notion, you will find that marriage itself is not what we currently think it is.

In that Ephesians passage, Paul indicates differing roles in marriage. Wives submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25-27). That's not normal. That's not what we see today or even typically think of as a good thing. It is countercultural. But Paul's descriptions in 1 Corinthians really turn things on their ear.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 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. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7:3-5)

Maybe you don't see it, but this strikes me as revolutionary in contrast to today's version. (I'm not talking about "same-sex marriage". I'm talking about the genuine article.)

Think about it. What kinds of things do we say about marriage today? "He really fulfills me" or "He doesn't give me what I need." "She's really good to me" or "She doesn't give me what I need." "I think he's the one for me." "She just makes me feel warm inside." You know what I'm talking about. Positive or negative, our idea of marriage is "What does she/he bring to me? What does she/he do for me? How well does she/he meet my needs?" Normal, to be sure, but compare it to the text.

Paul says that husbands must fulfill their duty to their wives. Hmm, odd. Nothing about "Husbands must make sure their wives fulfill their duty to their husbands." Lest we get ahead of ourselves, Paul says the same thing to wives. They, too, need to fulfill their duty to their husbands. But, again, not one thing about, "I should nag him until he does." That is, the attention of each individual of this one-flesh couple is the other, not "me". And that carries into the bedroom. In a world where one of the primary reasons for divorce is "She doesn't give me what I need in the bedroom" or "He makes too many demands in bed", we find the biblical version to be the exact opposite. Husbands, your body is not your body; wives, the same goes for you. And yet, our world, our society, our current culture, and most of us Christians are quite sure that the opposite is true. The whole basic premise of biblical marriage is the exact reverse of the world's version.

It is indefensible to argue that marriage should be between two adults without regard to gender. First, our time would be the only time in history to have ever constructed such nonsense. Beyond that, it can't stand like that for very long. By tossing history and morality, they've made an "only two" position without any support. Why not polygamy? Polyamory? And, for that matter, incest? As long as we're talking about two people who cannot reproduce, on what possible basis would they forbid it? It is indefensible, illogical, non-historical, and clearly an actual slippery slope. But up to this point it is not about biblical marriage. If you, want a biblical marriage, you've got a lot farther to go. It is a God-ordained sacred image of the relationship of His Son to His people. (One aspect of that image is He gets to say what it is.) It is predicated on a love that goes beyond "warm affection." It is aimed outward rather than self. Its goal, along with the basics of the union of a man and wife for the purposes of procreation and mutual support, is to fulfill the needs of your spouse rather than your own, to seek the best for your "other" without regard for yourself. I mean, imagine that. Imagine approaching a potential spouse with the question, "What do I have to offer her/him?" instead of "Is he/she right for me?" Just a start. It would be revolutionary for Christians to make a practice of this version of marriage. I fear such a revolution isn't at hand, but I will start with me.