What is Marriage? - Biblical Basis

So far we have examined the biological basis of marriage. We'll address the Biblical basis next, and then the cultural basis as the Biblical will provide an information base for the cultural aspects.

Is this important for non-Christians to understand? Yes. Because if one does not understand these basic points, one will tend to respond to straw men arguments instead of the true Biblical model. Also, a lack of understanding here will fail to see how well the Biblical basis blends with the biological one discussed last time.

Unfortunately many of the straw men have been promoted by Christians themselves, so one can hardly fault non-Christians for arguing against them. Some of them I would argue against as well. So it is most critical that Christians reexamine what marriage is based upon Biblical principles rather than from pop theology.

To that end, we will look first at God's design, then the theological design, and end with some conclusions.

God's Design for Marriage

The most complete snapshot of God's intentions in creating marriage, and what it is, is from the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

And there came unto him Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mar 10:2-9 ASV)

Jesus takes this opportunity to quote Genesis 2:24. The two shall become one flesh. Note this refers to "flesh." This is a physical union. So much so that Jesus says they are no longer "two, but one flesh." This reflects two main truths about this marital union, that is, the basis for marriage from the Biblical perspective.

Sexual intercourse unites a man and woman into one flesh. This is at the heart of marriage. Jesus makes this clear in the next verses following the above:

And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. (Mar 10:10-12 ASV)

We'll get to the issues of divorce and adultery later. For now, Jesus is clarifying for His disciples about his comments to the people quoted earlier. For He said, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." How is that done? Certainly not by a piece of paper.

Instead, Jesus shows that the way such a union is broken asunder is by committing adultery: to have sexual intercourse with someone other than one's spouse. His whole argument with the Pharisees is based on the fact that when a physical union is sealed through sex, it is "torn asunder" when adultery, having sex with another, is committed.

St. Paul also has this in mind when he said, "Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh." (1Co 6:16 ASV)

Clearly, from a Biblical standpoint, and from God's perspective, sexual intercourse joins two people into one flesh—no matter how serious the two people take it. Not needed is a legal certificate saying you're married. It is not needed that you live together. It is not needed that anyone thinks or believes you are united in marriage, even the couple themselves. Even a marriage ceremony is not needed. By the act of sexual intercourse, from God's perspective, the two are joined into one. Even if it is merely a harlot you pay to have a one-night stand with.

This is why premarital sex is an oxymoron. There is no such animal. When you have sex, you are marrying that person. Sex is a marital forming act. As we noted in the biological basis, one can live together, share expenses, be the most intimate of friends, but without that sexual union, it is simply good friends living together. Sexual union forms the basis of joining the two into one, and therefore the core beginning of a family.

And therefore, according to Jesus, when you have sex with another person after joining to a spouse, you are tearing asunder that bond created with the first, save if the other spouse has committed adultery before you. Standing before a minister, many think they are getting married for the first time. Yet if they have "sown their wild oats" before that ceremony, they are deceived. They've already been married and committed adultery with as many people as they have had sex with.

It is clear from Jesus' words that God's design was for us to join with one person, and not tear that asunder by uniting to another. But due to our fallen condition, our hardness of heart, deviation from the ideal is treated in an attempt to provide healing.

Creating one flesh is fulfilled literally in the offspring of sexual acts. As we noted in the biological basis, it is the potential creation of children inherent in the act of sexual union that provides for the uniting factor. What more literal fulfillment of the two becoming one is there than in the children produced from that sexual union? Both husband and wife's DNA, united into a new person. The child is literally the one flesh of the two.

Without this potential reality, sex would not be uniting. It is the mingling of the two's seed that at the same time provides for the possibility of children, and the two becoming one flesh through the act designed to give birth to new life. Without that fact, sex would only be one more way among many options to have a good time.

Jesus, with these words, links the biological design of God with God's design and purpose. The two are fully synced into one reality. Participating in sexual intercourse with someone is tantamount to saying to them, "I want to have your children and create a family with you." Because that is the purpose of doing that act. The potential is always there each time sexual union happens, no matter the reason the couple is doing it.

I know, there is the pill, and abortion. Since the 1960s, people have had the option to get rid of the purpose of sex: children. If the pill or other modes of contraception don't prevent a pregnancy, there is always the option to kill the child before it can escape the womb. Be that as it may, it doesn't change the nature of the act to make it non-uniting. The fact is, whether a person ever has a child or not, the act unites the two into one flesh simply because that is what the act is designed to do biologically as God created it.

One union, not torn asunder. That is God's design for marriage. Have we violated that ideal? If statistics are anywhere close, a clear majority of the readers of this blog have not followed that prescription, for whatever reason. This does not mean it is the end of the world. There is healing and forgiveness. But it is oh, so easy to take the fallen state and want to make that "normal" because we'd rather not face our guilt than acknowledge it and deal with it openly.

God's Theological Intent for Marriage

St. Paul makes it clear that our marriage is an image of our union with God.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. (Eph 5:31-32 ASV)

Prior to these verses, St. Paul speaks of how husbands and wives should show love for one another, and each one is related to Christ and His bride, the Church, the Body of Christ. St. Paul says, "for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are members of his body." (Eph 5:29-30 ASV)

As one body, we are united to Christ in baptism. (Romans 6:5) And that bride is to be presented to Christ in the next life. (Revelations 19:7) What we have now in human marriage is a shadow of that union. As Jesus prayed, we'd become one with Him. (John 17:21-23) Therefore our union with each other in marriage is an image of our union with God.

As such, it is meant to reflect that ideal. What image does sexual union with more than one person create? Multiple gods? Switching from one god to another? Likewise, what picture does uniting with multiple people for the sole purpose of having a good time paint? Union to God isn't to be taken seriously? Is for our own selfish fulfillment? Everything centers around us and not Him?

This is why St. Paul instructs Timothy and Titus that a bishop and deacon should only be from those who only had one wife. (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, Titus 1:6) Even for the office of widow, among other criteria, they had to be the wife of one husband. (1 Timothy 5:9) Because those ministering as the hands and feet of Christ among the people should reflect a proper theological marriage to God through their earthly marriage. They had to conform to God's design specs in order to represent Him in an official capacity.

Is divorce allowed? Is remarriage allowed after divorce? After the death of a spouse? Yes. According to Christ, due to our hardness of heart, our fallen condition, the ideal design specs that Christ presents is often not achieved and allowance is made.

But it is still the design specs Christ gives as the Christian understanding of marriage. Sexual union unites us into one flesh with another. Sexual union with another causes us to commit adultery with the first, and so on down the line, save when adultery has already been committed by the other spouse. Or by the death of a spouse, in St. Paul's opinion, though he encourages them to not remarry. (1 Corinthians 7:39)

We will examine divorce and adultery in more detail later. Here we note this indicates God's original design spec is "a man and a woman" joined in marriage for life through the action of creating children, whether or not any children are ever brought forth. In this, the biological basis for marriage that syncs with the Biblical basis for marriage. God considers such a union, a marriage, and not to be torn asunder by sexual union with another.

Next time we'll examine the cultural basis for marriage.

What is Marriage? - Biological Basis

Marriage has become a hotly debated topic within the last few years as the issue of recognizing homosexual marriage by the state has come to the forefront. Both in initiatives to outlaw it and to legalize it by various groups on both sides.

But the arguments focus on two main areas: legal definition of marriage and the biblical classification of homosexual sex as a sin. Homosexual groups tend to focus on the inequality of the former, while religious groups focus on the latter. Meanwhile, few seem to be asking what marriage really is. Not purely based upon legal questions, or purely based upon Biblical prohibitions, but on a holistic approach that takes all aspects that define marriage into consideration.

To that end, I am going to do a series of posts about marriage. This will not be a complete historical run down, but will involve the following main topics:

• What is Marriage?


• Alternate Forms of Marriage


• Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery


• Healing Marital Devaluation

Some of these topics will overlap, but I think they can lay the groundwork to a fuller understanding of these controversial issues by all sides, as well as other issues that are often ignored by our culture and the Church. So let's tackle the first topic:

What is Marriage?

Marriage is defined by biology and culture. For the Christian, also by biblical theology. The later will only matter to Christians directly, but if understood in context, syncs nicely with biology and can inform the cultural aspects. Non-Christians may appreciate understanding its basis if they can get past preconceived ideas about the topic.

In this installment, I'll examine:

The Biological Basis for Marriage

Often people will survey the structure of "husband and wife" in the animal kingdom to prove the diversity of marital and familial makeups on display. For sure, there are many. All the way from a mate eating the other directly after sex to lifetime partners. However, what often isn't focused on is the similarities.

Sex. In one form or another, it always involves the sharing of DNA for the purpose of conception. Sure, there may be an off beat example out there, but the basic biological purpose of two entities coming together in a sexual union is for procreation. Without that purpose, there would be no basis for a marriage or family structure, however that might play out in any individual species.

From species to species, the purpose of sex, the purpose of forming a husband/wife relationship, is to ensure the propagation of the species. If an activity cannot potentially create that outcome, whether it does or not, there is no biological marital union.

Look at it this way. There are countless activities that we share with each other, many of them pleasurable. Whether it is eating together, going to a movie, or enjoying a game of tennis, none of those activities are seen as creating a marriage or union.

Meanwhile, our society views sex as just one more enjoyable activity to share with someone you like. No more bonding than sharing a bowl of ice cream. Yet, when one considers the biological foundation of marriage, it boils down to sex. For practically every animal, sex and the creation of offspring is the foundation of that union.

If you think about it logically, it should be obvious. Take a husband and wife. Let's suggest they appear married in every way. They live together. They spend quality time together. They share their intimate lives together. They have a legal paper saying they are married. Even a wedding. Yet, neither has ever had sex with the other. Answer this question. In what way is this living arrangement any different than best of friends sharing living expenses under a mutual contract?

The obvious answer is, it isn't any different. I could easily set up a living arrangement with my best male friend or even a woman who wished to live a celibate life, and duplicate the same scenario. If all marriage involves is mutually shared living arrangements and friendships, then how is that deserving of any special recognition? Anyone can create a contract to set up such an arrangement.

But add sex into the mix, and one has a totally different animal. Then DNA is shared, and potentially merged, creating a union of the two into a new person. Once you have that potential, the marriage of the two species takes on purpose. Because only that act creates a family structure. Without sex creating a union, you have two good friends living together, and sex is just one among many pleasures that are shared but means nothing more than going out to watch a movie.

Mammals. While in the animal kingdom at large, how "marriage" and families are structured varies widely, in the sub-classification of mammals, less so. In fact, one of the characteristics of this class is the care for children within a family structure of a father and mother. Can you find exceptions? Yes. Yet the vast majority of mammals, of which humans are one, have a father and mother living together to care for the offspring produced by having sex. The fact humans for over at least 6000 years of our known history do this, is one reason we are classified as a mammal.

What does this prove? Very simply, this. At its foundation, the basis for a family structure, and therefore the basis for two people to be married, is sexual union in a way that potentially produces offspring. All other marital characteristics flow from this fact. Even Jesus, as we will see, acknowledges this reality.

This physical union turns the "water into wine." Living together is changed into familial bonds. Legal contracts are turned into sacred vows. Pleasure is transformed into loving bonds. Man and woman are united as husband and wife.

What is marriage biologically? It is the sexual union of two people to form the core of a family. I've heard many say, "Oh, we're just living together. We're not married." I say, "Oh yes you are. If you've had sex, you may not be legally married, but in reality, you are." Just have either one of you cheat on the other, and tell me you won't react just as strongly about it as any "married" couple would.

Why? Because sex creates a marital union between two people. It is a biological reality that's been with us since creation.

Next time, the Biblical basis for marriage.

Sex Sells

We all know it. That title alone probably brought you here. It has become common place in many movies to have a sex scene or two. Many books, especially in the general market, have them. Some more descriptive than others.

The Christian market's response appears to be "don't indicate it happens at all." Even in the romance novels, hints that a couple have had sex, even when married, are absent. The buyers of those books read them primarily because they don't have to worry about running into a sex scene, among other "naughty" things.

Somewhere in the middle is a group of writers who want to offer a more "realistic" but not "erotic" set of stories. Show that it happens, but not end up writing erotic porn into their stories. I've seen various views presented, including those in the past on Mike Duran's blog to most recently in a series of articles on the Speculative Faith blog about Vox Day's new book, Throne of Bones, published by an imprint of Marcher Lord Press.

I'd sum them up like this:

No show. Among those willing to go further than nothing, one group doesn't mind indicating it happened or is about to happen, but don't show anything about it. Perhaps the most you're likely to get is kissing and holding hands. Then a statement, if any, that he took her to his bed. The rest you fill in for yourself. Scene break, and you are on the other side of the event. Note: this is what one might refer to as the Biblical model, since this is how the Bible tends to speak of a couple who has had sex.

Stop short. That is, more showing is done to indicate where this is headed. Some heavy petting, maybe touching in more suggestive ways, but the scene cuts away before anything too erotic-like happens. Maybe a telling statement tacked onto the end, but usually not. It is real obvious what happens after that. This is more natural for fiction in that if one is going to show it, then it comes across as more realistic. The "no show" method can appear like someone is purposefully avoiding it and coming across unrealistic. After all, the Bible isn't fiction, and mostly tells rather than shows.

Crack open the door. In this version, the reader follows the characters into the sexual act, but very scant detail is given or more allegorical terms are used. It might be as brief as "he pulled her under the sheets and enjoyed his wife's love." This would use language more like that found in The Song of Solomon. One must keep in mind, however, that the Song of Solomon isn't describing a specific encounter, but is more a teaching on faithfulness to one's spouse, and therefore to God. It isn't going there to tell a story, but to instruct readers.

The primary issues with both the "stop short" and "crack the door open" models is where is the cut off point? At what action in the "stop short" method have we crossed over into a lead up to sex and are getting into the act itself? Once you crack the door open, how far is too far before it becomes erotica?

Some of these can be "gray" areas. For instance, in my novel Reality's Fire, I used the "stop short" method for showing that a married couple who have been apart for a long time were about to have sex. I had them involved in some semi-heavy petting right before cutting away. One of the last actions I had written was him running his hand along her thigh. My editor felt that crossed a line. I was okay cutting it, even though for me, it seemed minor. But that represents that gray area. Some draw the line slightly differently.

That said, it is easier to draw a line with that method than the latter. Certain actions will obviously be crossing that line. If I'd had him groping intimate parts of her body rather than sliding a hand along her thigh, there is no doubt we would have cracked the door open and followed them into a sex act. There is some gray area, but not a lot. Only on the boarder between heavy petting and sexual acts. Most people will know the difference.

But the "cracking the door open" method has its problems in there is no well defined boundary when one has gone too far. Some will find any description of a sex act, no matter how medical, allegorical, or brief, to be too much. Such an intimate act is reserved only for the couple, and to crack open the door on the bedroom is invading their privacy and causing the reader to be voyeuristic.

Some might accept my brief example above as fine, but balk at referring to any body parts, or touching any of them. Others are fine with the body parts or touching, but any descriptive words that convey emotions or feelings would put them into erotica-land. Each person would have different boundaries as to what is too much. So, it is much harder to write with that method and not cross lines.

One also has to consider the unique nature of this act. Unlike a lot of other things: violence, greed, gossiping, eating ice cream, etc., a couple in bed together is an intimate act. Few of us would (or should) feel comfortable sitting in a chair watching their married friends have sex.

Most of us, sitting with the family watching a movie, will feel real uncomfortable when a hot sex scene comes up. "Don't look kids!" But if we are in the room alone, a different feeling arises. Suddenly it is okay, because we're adults and can handle these things. But is it any different, really? When reading about it in a book, are the mental images it creates any less voyeuristic?

The key for me is based upon the following guidelines in my own writing:

Is it gratuitous? That is, does the scene further the plot and/or characters or is it tacked on adding little to the plot? This can be a fuzzy line. What may not be to me could be to an editor or reader.

For instance, the above mentioned sex scene, to me it would have come across as unrealistic to not have that there (more on that in a moment). Removing it and the consequences of that act would have drastically changed what happens. So some case could be made that it furthered the plot. But I could have left that out, even though it would have created a gaping hole. As a sub-plot, it wasn't essential to the main plot. But the initial reason I put it in there is it would have felt extremely unnatural to ignore it based on the circumstances in the scene. Some, however, may conclude the scene was gratuitous. For me, it had a distinct purpose in furthering the story, so it wasn't gratuitous.

Does it promote a sinful lifestyle? When take as a whole story, does a sinful encounter, and this goes for showing all sinful actions, not just immoral sex, give the appearance of endorsing that sin? I've said before: It isn't where a story starts that makes it Christian, but where it ends. I have no problem showing sin, but its negative consequences and moral failure should be shown as well. Otherwise, I'm not being realistic within a Christian world view.

Does it end up drawing the reader into reading pornography? For me, whether an affection can be done in public or not is the key. What happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom. Even for fictional characters. Strictly speaking, when the actions and descriptions move into experiencing a sexual act, it becomes pornographic. Once you've gone there, you've drawn the reader into sin, not just observing it. If it would be sinful to watch in real life, so should it be in fictional life.

Is it realistic? Hold on before you jump on that and let me explain. I'm not one to suggest because people do it, we need to show our characters doing it all the time. That would be violating the gratuitous rule. For the same reason we don't show our characters going to the bathroom very often, or taking a bath, or think all the random and meaningless thoughts that go through our heads everyday. Why? Because we'd have one ultra boring book on our hands, and it would take a mega-volume to write it that way.

No, fictional stories are very unrealistic. Few people are put through what most fictional characters endure. How many times in your life have you saved Earth from annihilation? You would have multiple times if you were the Doctor (Doctor Who). If everything that happened to Sisko, my protag in Reality's Dawn, had happened to me, I'd be in a mental ward. Not riding off into the sunset to my next adventure.

But despite that, we give stories the appearance of realism. What destroys that isn't failing to include every bit of realistic activities possible, but to include any that would destroy the illusion of realism. Big difference there. That's why I said to have a husband and wife who have been apart for months, suddenly be together again for a short time and avoid thinking about sex would have broken that sense of realism. It would be expected in that situation. To not go there would have felt artificial.

So I wouldn't include those things to be realistic, but I would to maintain realism in the story.

The issue for me in moving from "stop short" to "crack the door open" is in necessity. Rare would be the plot, short of writing an erotica book, that would require us to follow a couple into the sex act. It is enough to know that it happened whether through telling or cutting away. Much beyond that is venturing into pornography.

Where are the lines you draw as a reader? As a writer? If you are both, do they differ?