What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Marriage=

There are a couple of repetitions in that picture. In the second row from the top on the left side, you have "man + wives", and in the bottom row on the left you have "man + woman + woman + woman". As far as I can see, a man married to multiple women and a man married to multiple wives is the same thing. Also, the "male slave + female slave" is no different than "man + woman" A mans and woman's social status doesn't change the nature of their marriage, but only whom the man has to ask for the woman's hand. The same applies to "man + woman + woman's property".

The TOG​
 
TOG said:
There are a couple of repetitions in that picture. In the second row from the top on the left side, you have "man + wives", and in the bottom row on the left you have "man + woman + woman + woman". As far as I can see, a man married to multiple women and a man married to multiple wives is the same thing. Also, the "male slave + female slave" is no different than "man + woman" A mans and woman's social status doesn't change the nature of their marriage, but only whom the man has to ask for the woman's hand. The same applies to "man + woman + woman's property".

The TOG​
Click to expand...

I think the point of that image is too show that our christian idea of marriage isn't as biblical as we may think. Also, marriage in the Bible (at least the OT) isn't a clearly defined concept, but includes a variety of possibilities.
 
The Christian view of marriage i (hope) see is not looking at what mankind has done but looking at Christ and the church...
 
Claudya said:
I think the point of that image is too show that our christian idea of marriage isn't as biblical as we may think. Also, marriage in the Bible (at least the OT) isn't a clearly defined concept, but includes a variety of possibilities.
Click to expand...

After looking at the picture closer and thinking about it for a while, I see that the "variety of possibilities" you mention are exactly 2. "Man + woman", "man + brother's wife", "rapist and his victim", "male soldier + prisoner of war" and "male slave + female slave" are all the same - one man + one woman. "Man + wives + concubines", "man + woman + woman's property" and "man + woman + woman + woman" are all the same - one man and many women. The differences between these situations is in things like how the couple met, how the marriage was arranged and who arranged it, but not in the nature of the marriage itself. What the picture really shows is that the western ideas of how to get a wife (romance / courtship / dating) are not biblical.

Even though the Bible mentions that polygamy existed and it does have rules about such relationships, there is not one verse in the Bible that actually condones a man having more than one wife. In fact, there are a number of places where people are specifically told to have only one wife, such as Deu. 17:17 and 1 Tim. 3:12. There are also many places were it is not specifically stated, but is strongly implied that men should have only one wife. For example, when the law states whom the Levites and priests were allowed to marry, the word "wife" is always singular, as if it is assumed that they will only take one wife. With that in mind, I think the only form of marriage that can really be supported using the Bible is one man and one woman.

The TOG​
 
Claudya said:
I think the point of that image is too show that our christian idea of marriage isn't as biblical as we may think. Also, marriage in the Bible (at least the OT) isn't a clearly defined concept, but includes a variety of possibilities.
Click to expand...

I am curious to learn about what things you believe the modern church has incorrect about marriage?
 
Marriage as a whole has evolved over the past several thousand years, as have gender roles. As best I understand Christianity, it seems that monogamy was encouraged. Men could only divorce their wives on grounds of adultery, for instance. Women are to respect their husbands and men are to love their wives. A man leaves his parents' house and becomes one with his wife (singular).

The Christian concept of marriage did a tremendous amount of good for women in many cultures. Many women in Greco-Roman cultures were expendable and had few, if any, rights.
 
Christ_empowered said:
Marriage as a whole has evolved over the past several thousand years, as have gender roles. As best I understand Christianity, it seems that monogamy was encouraged. Men could only divorce their wives on grounds of adultery, for instance. Women are to respect their husbands and men are to love their wives. A man leaves his parents' house and becomes one with his wife (singular).

The Christian concept of marriage did a tremendous amount of good for women in many cultures. Many women in Greco-Roman cultures were expendable and had few, if any, rights.
Click to expand...
Actually women had very little rights ( with a few historical exceptions) until the modern era after Women's Suffrage in Europe and the Americas. However this mostly came out of how cultural functionality. Women are highly valuable to society since they give birth, but due to the long period of pregnancy, and the possible complications from giving birth, women were highly susceptible to being vulnerable. This is why Men who didn't have this trait were more likely to take up riskier professions such as smiting, hunting, engineering, leadership, etc. Christianity didn't change this at all. What changed this is the advances in medicine and social stability in first world nations. Not to mention birth control. Women aren't as susceptible to as many dangers anymore. A lot of leadership in economics allow for women to work.

Marriage didn't change this, society stabilizing changed this. The more you know. ;)
 
Christ_empowered said:
Marriage as a whole has evolved over the past several thousand years, as have gender roles. As best I understand Christianity, it seems that monogamy was encouraged. Men could only divorce their wives on grounds of adultery, for instance. Women are to respect their husbands and men are to love their wives. A man leaves his parents' house and becomes one with his wife (singular).

The Christian concept of marriage did a tremendous amount of good for women in many cultures. Many women in Greco-Roman cultures were expendable and had few, if any, rights.
Click to expand...
I think Our Lord started the liberation for Women.
 
Blazin Bones said:
I am curious to learn about what things you believe the modern church has incorrect about marriage?
Click to expand...

I don't think we have anything incorrect. But marriage is a concept that changes with cultural evolution, and thus it's just not something "universal".
I can see how proponents of same sex marriage or polygamy would use this as an argumentation against conservative Christians who consider their own ideal of marriage as some sort of universal truth. Basically they are right, the Bible accepts a variety of things as marriage, some of which sound insane for modern days western people (e.g. "marrying" female prisoner of war who are most likely not consenting).
 
Milk-Drops said:
Actually women had very little rights ( with a few historical exceptions) until the modern era after Women's Suffrage in Europe and the Americas. However this mostly came out of how cultural functionality. Women are highly valuable to society since they give birth, but due to the long period of pregnancy, and the possible complications from giving birth, women were highly susceptible to being vulnerable. This is why Men who didn't have this trait were more likely to take up riskier professions such as smiting, hunting, engineering, leadership, etc. Christianity didn't change this at all. What changed this is the advances in medicine and social stability in first world nations. Not to mention birth control. Women aren't as susceptible to as many dangers anymore. A lot of leadership in economics allow for women to work.

Marriage didn't change this, society stabilizing changed this. The more you know. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes,women had very few right in early America.
 
TOG said:
After looking at the picture closer and thinking about it for a while, I see that the "variety of possibilities" you mention are exactly 2. "Man + woman", "man + brother's wife", "rapist and his victim", "male soldier + prisoner of war" and "male slave + female slave" are all the same - one man + one woman. "Man + wives + concubines", "man + woman + woman's property" and "man + woman + woman + woman" are all the same - one man and many women. The differences between these situations is in things like how the couple met, how the marriage was arranged and who arranged it, but not in the nature of the marriage itself. What the picture really shows is that the western ideas of how to get a wife (romance / courtship / dating) are not biblical.
Click to expand...
I sense some more criticism of the Old Testament world view in that image. Depicting several forms of marriage in which the woman (or maybe even the man) are not consenting and basically getting raped is something that's hard for us to stomach (even though they all may boil down to 1 man + 1 woman). So that image speaks against a false and oversimplified glorification of "Biblical values" or "Christian family values".

Even though the Bible mentions that polygamy existed and it does have rules about such relationships, there is not one verse in the Bible that actually condones a man having more than one wife. In fact, there are a number of places where people are specifically told to have only one wife, such as Deu. 17:17 and 1 Tim. 3:12. There are also many places were it is not specifically stated, but is strongly implied that men should have only one wife. For example, when the law states whom the Levites and priests were allowed to marry, the word "wife" is always singular, as if it is assumed that they will only take one wife. With that in mind, I think the only form of marriage that can really be supported using the Bible is one man and one woman.

The TOG​
Click to expand...
As far as I know in many cultures that allow for polygamy having multiple wives is still not common. Usually it's a sign of power and wealth. You have to pay for all the women and children after all. So even in those days when Biblical polygamy existed many people probably still had only one wife.
Anyway, doesn't the Bible tell us that King Salomo's three digit number of wives was a sign of how blessed he was?
 
Let's start from the very beginning... (because the sound of music says that's a good place to start.) :yes

Marriage example number 1 - Man and Wife

Consider the account from Genesis 2 regarding the creation of woman. Genesis 2 :24-25 gives us the first blueprint between a mad and a woman, the union that God permitted before the fall of mankind. Man is supposed to leave his father and mother and embrace his wife (CEB) So the pre-sin picture of marriage, a man leaves his family, notice how the family context of father and mother is already stated before more details are proved, and becomes on flesh with his wife.
Also notice the lack of shame or guilt in their nakedness together, because of the union that they shared. Before the Fall, nothing else is mentioned for marriage.
If there was something wrong with this picture, we would not have Genesis three describing the first sin occurring with the fruit.

So if this is the picture of marriage before the fall, and every other scenario of marriage comes after sin has tainted everything, then why would it be wrong to consider this picture as the correct, God intended idea of marriage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top