recently posted on Facebook that I felt I should address. I watched it a couple weeks ago, so I probably missed something he mentioned in the video. If so, please post a comment on it, and I will address what I missed.
Taking examples only from the old testament is a very poor way to research Biblical marriage; there is a reason it is called the 'Old' Testament. It is a book of history, and a lot of the information is there for only that purpose of reference. Biblical scholars, Christians, etc, recognize that this information isn't applicable anymore, as of Christ being crucified for our sins. The reason it was written down is so that we can look back and see that before Jesus, all we had was rules. My church is doing an entire study on Biblical marriage, so we've recently been studying examples like these.
The verses he mentioned, Genesis 2:24, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." is pretty self explanatory. Deuteronomy 22:28 is the laws given to the Israelites in the wilderness, and therefore being taken out of context. These laws were no longer needed upon the death of Jesus. They may seem harsh, but the Israelite were doubting people, and they had to have some sort of stability to keep the group from being in chaos. They had formerly been slaves, and hadn't ever had experience in managing their own lives. Not to mention you need to look at the historical atmosphere. They were just outside of Egypt, who had no problem with rape, adultery, etc. The law he mentioned, discussing a man who raped a woman having to marry her is designed to make it so the rapist doesn't get away with his crime(sex without the commitment of marriage) and assuring that the woman is taken care of for the rest of her life. The rapist would have to serve out the rest of his life, working to pay off the penance for his crime, the woman benefiting from his hard work, essentially child support, but without the child. At this time in history and in any other group of people, the woman would have been exiled for no longer being a virgin, and the man would have gotten away with it entirely. So, taken in historical context, this law is much more civilized than any in that day and age. Exodus 21:4 is another example of this. The Hebrew people, after being freed from Egyptian slavery, made the decision amongst themselves to allow an indentured servitude to pay off debts. If one of the men working for someone decided to get married and have children with one of his employer's servants, who was purchased in the same manner slaves in early America were, that didn't change the fact that the employer had purchased her. That doesn't mean Christians think slavery is okay. Again, the Old Testament is important in a historical context. And you can't take things out of context and decide not to use a brain when thinking about them. In comparison to the surrounding groups of people, this was a great step in civil rights. Had a man taken a servant for a wife, he would have been ridiculed and exiled, never to see the one he loves again. Concerning the multiple places in the Bible where it states that the husband is head of the wife, and she should submit to him, I will clarify why this is a good thing: It states that the husband should be the head of the wife, as Jesus was to the church(body of believers); Jesus wasn't a ruler. He took on a servant role to any and all that believed in him. He washed their feet, not vice versa. A husband who heads a household like Christ was to the church sacrifices himself so that his wife may be taken care of. Anyone who tries to portray it otherwise is ignoring a very important aspect of Biblical marriage. And a submissive wife is one who does not domineer over her husband. What husband wants a berating, loud, obnoxious wife? Submission is not the same thing as slavery. It's saying,"Okay. I know you're making the wrong choice, and I could probably do it better than you, but out of respect for you, I'm letting you decide." It also states that both husband and wife submit to one another, out of reverence for God. Is that scripture ever quoted by those trying to assault Biblical marriage? Nooo. Because they can't use it in a demeaning way. The whole concept of marriage is that male and female personalities and inclinations are on opposing ends of the scale, and that to be married should reconcile these into both parties, making them both more Christ-like in the end. This is something we went over in church, which, while it is largely true for most humans on the face of the earth, there are always exceptions*:
Men Women
- Protect -Nurture
- Task-oriented -Relationship-oriented
- Fear failure - Fear rejection
- Desire respect -Desire love
- Rational - Emotional
- Goal-oriented - Process-oriented
- Analytical -Intuitive
Christians believe in marriage as a man and woman, not because they don't think gay rights are important, but because they believe that the union between a man and woman(and thereby their opposing personalities) is the best way to become more like Christ. My personal opinion concerning the gay rights issue is that Christians put far too much energy and thought into what rights other people should or should not have, when the one thing Christians are called to do over everything else is to love your neighbor as yourself. If you want to get married, it has no effect on me. As a Christian, I am simply supposed to love you, no matter what.
Please feel free to present me with any Bible verses you would like me to go over on my blog, and I will be happy to do so.
*edit.
No comments:
Post a Comment