Like Button

Thursday, June 06, 2024

A Defining Moment

In July of 2008 California's Supreme Court ruled not only that marriage between two people of the same sex was okay, but that it was mandated. That is, as part of their ruling, they required the state to start issuing licenses. Mind you, the people had voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The court, instead, admitted that they were knowingly violating, in their own words, the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and establishing a new one. Well, no. Just rejecting the longstanding, traditional one. In response, in November of 2008, the people voted again to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but this time they did so by making it part of the state constitution. Of course, the court struck that down, too, and we know the outcome, but here's the question. How do we define marriage?

I have long said that marriage was the lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and mutual support. Most people will say, "Fine, that's your definition, but it's just opinion." Actually, it's biblical. More to the point, the One who created the world and created male and female also created and defined marriage. I go with His definition. Go ahead. Look it up in the Bible under "M" for "marriage." No, of course not. The Bible isn't a dictionary. But we do have a definition ... from the lips of Jesus. When the Pharisees asked Jesus if there was any lawful reason to divorce (Matt 19:3), Jesus replied,
"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6)
Jesus was not obscure or unclear. Notice what He did there. First, He quoted Scripture to answer them because Scripture is authoritative. "Have you not read ...?" Then He gave the source. "He that created them ... said ..." Keep up now. Jesus is saying that Scripture says that God gave us this institution of marriage. It's not merely a human institution. Then Jesus broke down the definition. First, it is "a man" and "his wife." (In the Greek, that "wife" is gunē -- woman. It is translated "wife" because of the context.) Biblically, according to God, marriage is purely between two heterosexuals, one man and one woman. No other options. Second, they were leaving their own families. Marriage established a new family. Thirdly, they became "one flesh." The sexual aspect of marriage (and marriage alone -- all other sex was defined as sin) was a union (cp 1 Cor 6:16). The sex act unites in more than a merely physical way, which is one of the reasons it was designed for and limited to marriage. Finally, since it is God that joins them, it is a lifelong union. We have no right to sever that tie.

Jesus was not unclear. Marriage, established by and defined by God, is limited to two people, one male and one female, consumated in their sexual union, for purposes of creating a new family (procreation) and mutual support (Gen 2:18). I didn't make that up. It's not a simply traditional or conservative view. It is a biblical view. Those who opt to alter it (and, by the way, I have yet to see anyone who adopts the "same-sex marriage" option offer any other definition with any sort of support at all) do so in opposition to Scripture which claims that it was God who established and defined it. Therefore, to do as that court in 2008 did -- reject the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" -- is a rejection of God and His Word. Do so at your own peril. As for me, I have no room to maneuver. Here I stand. I can do no other.

7 comments:

Lorna said...

As I started reading today’s post, I thought, “Stan really should have titled this ‘A Re-defining Moment’” (thinking of July 2008), but then I realized the “defining moment” you were referencing was Jesus’s explanation of marriage to His listeners, based on the original definition recorded in Gen. 2:24. Having a standard that goes back to the very beginning gives us such clear and trustworthy direction, while moving outside of God’s parameters guarantees disaster; why deliberately eschew God’s blessing on such an important and challenging earthly venture as one’s marriage?

Stan said...

Yes, and having ripped "marriage" loose from its moorings in God's design, our society has arrived at a "marriage" without definition thinking that we've improved it.

David said...

One thing I love about Christianity is how we base everything off the teaching of Scripture and yet also see that natural activity agrees with it. It takes us deadening our consciences to come to the anti-natural conclusions we've ended up in.

Stan said...

I do rather like having a standardized source of truth to use rather than floating on current cultural values that change constantly without any sustainable basis.

Lorna said...

“Moorings” strikes me as the perfect word to use here, Stan; since the word implies securing (i.e. of a boat or aircraft), it points to how God’s design offers stability and protection over an endeavor that we humans--if depending solely upon our own “wisdom” and our own means--would surely run aground, sink, or crash (metaphorically speaking).

Craig said...

I agree that having a standard to judge thing by is preferable to drifting with the currents of society, it seems like the standard is really YHWH and His character revealed in scripture. Or is that too nit picky?

Marshal Art said...

David,

I love that "deadening our consciences" bit. That truly nails what's required to pretend any other arrangement apart from man/woman can be legit. And as Stan suggests that very thing in the failure to see any rational argument for Biblical approval of SSM. Indeed, consciences are willfully deadened to presume that marriage...as referred to anywhere and everywhere in Scripture...refers to any union of two people rather than the union of man and woman. The only question is, do such people even have a conscience to deaden?