Results tagged “Marriage”

1 Corinthians 7:1-7 - As a man with the gift of celibacy, he has a remarkable grasp on the power that sexual temptation has over men and women. Perhaps it wasn't so much a gift as a devotion or a commitment, in which case his fighting to remain true to it would have given him insight into the problem. Of course, watching as many a man or woman fell into the sin of adultery would educate one as to the power of these desires.

So, though he would prefer that everyone were able to devote themselves to the Lord as he did, he refuses to allow for abstinence to be treated as some kind of higher position. Just the opposite, actually, he says that, because of the strength of the temptation, men and women should seek to marry and should not deny each other. He goes as far as to give each spouse authority over the other's body. Does that give the partner with the stronger desire free reign over the other? Absolutely not. How does that jive with the rest of Paul's teaching on marriage, namely respect for one another and mutual submission? No, it means that the one who is less interested must submit to more and the one with the stronger desire must temper it with self control. The main idea here, however, is one of neutralizing temptation with fulfillment, so the burden is more on the one with less desire, but one who truly loves their spouse will not force themselves on them.

1 Corinthians 7:10-16 - It's interesting how Paul says verse 10 (a blanket prohibition on divorce) is from God, not him but verse 12 (freedom to divorce the non believer who wants to leave) is from him, not God. Should we take verse 12, then, as optional or discount it somehow, or because it is now in the scriptures (and not simply a letter), is it now from God? Is Paul saying that he disagrees with God here? No, I think he's simply stating his opinion and that he has no instructions from God on the matter. He certainly wouldn't hold the belief if he knew God was against it.

1 Corinthians 7:27-28, 32-35 - After starting this chapter with a strong suggestion that men and women should seek to marry, here in verse 27 he says not to. In verse 28, though, he says it isn't a sin if you do. Why? The answer comes in the next paragraph - the married have divided interests and more worries. It's not just them and the Lord, it's them, the Lord and their spouse. Paul is looking ahead, to the Lord's return. He says that the present form of the world, including marriages evidently, is passing away and he would have us all looking ahead to that day instead of having ties in this present world.

We must begin marriage with a covenantal oath, and then never break our oath. Marriage portrays Christ and the church. As the husband and wife are physically united as one, Christ and the church are spiritually one. The way we live reflects on Christ and the church. We do not have the luxury of being able to say nothing about the church. Our lives always speak. Mental and physical infidelity lies to the world about the spiritual faithfulness of Jesus and his people. Immorality trashes the mystery of Christ and his church. It desecrates the holy.

R. Kent Hughes on sexual conduct in Set Apart, p. 83

Scott posted this on his Facebook page a couple of days ago. It's a pretty thought provoking take on the passing of California's ban on same sex marriages and well worth 6 minutes or so of your time. California isn't the first state to pass this, Ohio did a few years ago (which I voted for) and many other states have as well. For some reason California's passage is getting more attention than I remember other states votes getting. Maybe it's because if any state would vote against it it would be California.

As I said, I voted for the Ohio amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I stand by that assertion, though not necessarily that vote anymore. I'm not entirely sure, frankly.

I am sure of what God says marriage to be in scripture. Man and Woman. Nowhere does God indicate that folks of the same sex should get married. All examples of marriage in scripture are of men and women. God treats that relationship as special and has given married folks something special, sex, that they and only they are to enjoy. God has said that sex is not for unmarried people and it is not for people of the same sex. There's really no way around that in scripture. So the clear implication, if not explicit instruction, is that marriage is a man-woman thing.

It is certainly within the rights of a people, be it a state or nation, to pass laws defining terms and legal entities. We can define marriage to be whatever we want it to be, but whatever we say has no bearing on what God says. Does the state have an interest in defining marriage? I suppose it does, but the extent that its interests align with Gods is mostly coincidence. By promoting placing that authority in the state, what statement is the Christian making? When the state's interest no longer aligns with God's, and in fact interferes and stands in the way of Godly marriages (as opposed to simple allowing marriages that God would not), what then will the Christian do? After all, we've already validated the state's authority in this matter.

Is it wrong to vote for or promote these measures? No, but neither is it wrong to oppose them. God's definitive opinion is not changed or harmed either way.

Were if to come up for vote again, I'm not so sure I'd vote for it now. What are your thoughts?