Call To Die

Then [Jesus] said to them all, "If anyone wants to come with Me, he must deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of Me will save it. (Luke 9:23-24, HCSB)

My Photo

Follower of Christ, husband of Abby, member of Kosmosdale Baptist Church, and tutor/staff member at Sayers Classical Academy.

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Re: the biblical definition of marriage

This week, due to North Carolina amending their state constitution to include a definition of marriage and due to President Obama's statements in support of homosexual "marriage," there has been a great deal of talk about what the Bible has to say concerning the definition of marriage.

One of my friends posted the above picture on Facebook, which seeks both to demonstrate that the Bible does not exclusively present the monogamous 'one man, one woman' view and to criticize what the Bible does teach about marriage.

My response to this is that bogus exegesis abounds, and is easily refuted, if one actually cares what the text says, as I sought to demonstrate in a previous examination of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Some of the other circumstances outlined in the above chart are similar to the situation in that passage; the woman is not being forced to marry, but the man-- who has acted unjustly-- is placed under legal/financial obligations to the one he has sinned against.

Furthermore, the examples (never commands) concerning polygamy/mistreatment of 'handmaidens'/ sexual misconduct with concubines, etc., are always accompanied with examples of the disastrous effects that come about due to such arrangements.

Finally, though this truth can certainly be distorted, it is definitely the case that the actions and teachings of Jesus bring greater clarity to the rest of Scripture. And Christ's instructions concerning marriage are crystal clear (see Matt 19:4-6).

Labels: ,


Blogger Tommy Jones said...

I definitely agree that the image doesn't tell the whole story, and is stretching it as far as evidence vs evidence is concerned in the context of the bible. I appreciate the post.

If the government does not have a monopoly on its citizens' choice of religion, should one of those religions have a monopoly on the definition of marriage?

1:54 AM  
Blogger Danger Chris said...

Also, it tends to come with a heathy dose of “you’re an idiot if you believe the Bible” whenever I see this posted. Very rarely does anyone ever knock cultures that practiced these forms of “marriage” just that the Bible recorded them. I couldn’t agree more that so many of the ANCIENT practices aren’t fully understood except as a means to puff out the chest a little. Deuteronomy 21 is grossly misrepresented in that chart. That whole passage is not a how-to on enslavement but reeducating a savage people on how to treat women. Again, no one is blasting the Vikings for this stuff because it was the culture, but God steps in and tries to begin righting peoples understandings and somehow it is messed up. I don’t even want to start on how messed up that view of Deuteronomy 22 is. Oh, and Solomon’s failure was in having all those wives, they were his great sin. God was not happy with him. Such an irritating misrepresentation of history and the Bible.

1:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home