Biblical Marriage (Revisited)

[Gatekeeper]

Marriage ... Such a legalistic act nowadays. I wonder what constitutes a real biblical marriage? A piece of paper? A Priest? A Justice of the Peace? Also, what business does our government have in our "private affairs"? Modern marriage and divorce is more about possessions and dividing the spoils, then about a Spiritual Union between a man and woman.

I have come to accept that a true biblical marriage is simply a spiritual union between a man and a woman, whereby they are joined by their love for one another as help mates. Licenses and certificates of divorcement are all meaningless pieces of paper. Love determines a real marriage. Not like what we see a lot of today, where one desires possession over their spouses, which is actually a mix between "Love" & "Lust".

The most accepted and understood form of adultery would be having intimate relations with another's spouse. Then there is lust, which is an intense longing for something you cannot have, such as the desire to be your spouses 'only' desire, or to demand or desiring ownership rights over another being. Fornication would be having intimate relations with a person you don't love. Divorce would be the act of leaving your spouse because of a lack of love in the marriage itself (As if this is even possible in a true Spiritual union)

For the hardness of mans heart did Moses allow for divorce, in which case a certificate of divorcement, which would amount to a token of release.

Jesus: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication (Immoral sexual relations/sex without love) causeth her to commit adultery (Causing her to lust after the one who put her away) and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (This man would lust after the woman, knowing how she still loves and desires her ex husband).

Jesus knew our nature very well, thus He knows what is in our hearts. Having someone you love to put us away would cause everyone one of us to experience an intense longing to keep our loved ones with us, not to mention an immeasurable amount of hurt. That is the type of lust (Adultery) Jesus was referring to, just as he was referring to desiring ownership rights over another being I think.

Lust:

1. Having intimate relations with another's spouse

2. An intense longing for something/someone you cannot have.

3. To demand desire ownership rights over another being (Modern concept of marriage)

I would also like to point out that if neither in the couple loved the other, then for sake of NOT fornicating, sex being a very basic need, the most appropriate action would be to release one another legally (If legally married by state) and get a divorce.

In the end, a man is meant to have one help mate and vice versa, but in the event that the couples love for one another grows cold, divorce would be the only option in order for both parties to live happily and to avoid transgressing against the statutes of God when it comes to fornication.

Any thoughts on this potentially "hot topic"? I do realize my views are unorthodox to say the least. I'm not a bible believing Christian altogether, so my views are bound to be a bit unorthodox. Even so, I do try to take Jesus words to heart, thus my current stance on marriage and divorce.


Peace,


~GK~

 

[Dream]

The most accepted and understood form of adultery would be having intimate relations with another's spouse.

I agree there. There is something very hurtful about having your loved one reject you. Its a really terrible experience. I have felt that and seen it and wouldn't wish it on anybody unless of course I was very angry at them. Even then the pain is cruel so I'd relent. I wish there were some sort of heart-specific pain killer for that just to help people get past it.

For the hardness of mans heart did Moses allow for divorce, in which case a certificate of divorcement, which would amount to a token of release.

This one leads me to agree with you that Biblical marriage is about love and not just about children, though I think marriage technically in Malachi is for the purpose of the perfection and development of your children. Jesus words seem commentary on Deuteronomy 24. He is saying anybody who suggests they should divorce their wives for just any old reason is a very hard hearted person. His phrase 'hard hearted' drops them to the category of the generation that were left in the wilderness to die, because they were evil. (There seems a connection between 'stiff necked' or 'evil generation' in Deuteronomy and 'hard hearted' in Matthew 19:3) Jesus is affirming the importance of love in marriage over merely its utility in rearing good kids. Notice he hasn't accused anyone of a specific marital sin.

Any thoughts on this potentially "hot topic"? I do realize my views are unorthodox to say the least. I'm not a bible believing Christian altogether, so my views are bound to be a bit unorthodox. Even so, I do try to take Jesus words to heart, thus my current stance on marriage and divorce.

Only that marriage is very intimate and personal. Biblically you have to have two witnesses to convict anyone of a crime, so in principle that should also apply to social no-no's. For instance if I get a divorce you should assume that I did it for good reasons. You also should not gossip about it or tell other people or listen to anyone who does and should not listen to the railings of my ex. This can be extrapolated from Deuteronomy 22:19, Numbers 5, Proverbs 30:10, 2 Cor 12:20, and from many other passages. The idea here is to preserve reputation of the individuals, which takes some of the scary and the performance pressure out of marriage. It allows it to be about love and not about reputation. There are special circumstances if somebody is dangerous. I am not talking about that, but that situation can be discussed.

 

[iBrian]

I have come to accept that a true biblical marriage is simply a spiritual union between a man and a woman, whereby they are joined by their love for one another as help mates. Licenses and certificates of divorcement are all meaningless pieces of paper. Love determines a real marriage. Not like what we see a lot of today, where one desires possession over their spouses, which is actually a mix between "Love" & "Lust".

Absolutely agree. The Roman model of marriage that Christianity tried to emulate was defined simply by two people living with one another.

Sure, they could have a public ceremony, wear a ring, carry over the threshold - but on the most fundamental level, if you were free and decided to live with someone in a sexual relationship, you were effectively married, and therefore subject to basic rights and protections.

If only we could get that part right in modern times...

 

[Gatekeeper]

So ... How do you two feel about polygamy and/or polyandry? If marriage is about love and living with one another as help mates, then would you consider polygamy and polyandry a no no? It would take a pure kinda of love for all involved to pull either of the two off -- To be in love with, caring for, living with and having sexual relations with more than just one person or spouse.


GK

 

[iBrian]

Personally, I have nothing against polygamy or polyandry. The sole important part is responsibility.

A man with two wives who looks after the children, emotionally, mentally, materially, is being more responsible that someone who knocks up two birds in two weeks met at a nightclub.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Personally, I have nothing against polygamy or polyandry. The sole important part is responsibility.

A man with two wives who looks after the children, emotionally, mentally, materially, is being more responsible that someone who knocks up two birds in two weeks at a nightclub.

I'm in agreement with you, Brian .... I think if a man is able to care for more than one spouse in all major areas (Mentally, emotionally, materially) then it is a perfectly acceptable practice. I think the same is true for woman [If] they have taken on the role of provider, which many woman do in today's world. Responsibility and Love being prerequisites for such relationships.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Then again, what if the woman is a non provider -- Could she possibly be a help mate to all her husbands, or would that make her simply a vessel for intimacy for them? Then again, polyandry would be quite beneficial for offspring [If] the husbands were providers themselves.

I just find this to be a fascinating subject Brian, and not nearly as taboo as some believe the practices to be.

 

[iBrian]

Then again, what if the woman is a non provider

"If a woman makes slaves of men to feed her children, then let her rule the house."

- made up proverb


I'm too much a man of the world to dare argue against what any woman may want.