Skip to comments.What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues
Posted on 04/02/2009 5:16:17 PM PDT by ReformationFan
1. Jesus Claim: Jesus had no interest in maintaining a male-female requirement for sexual relations. What the evidence really shows: Jesus believed that a male-female requirement for sexual relations was foundational, a core value of Scripture's sexual ethics on which other sexual standards should be based, including the 'twoness' of a sexual union.
Jesus predicated marital twoness-the restriction of the number of persons in a sexual union to two, whether concurrently (no polygamy) or serially (no cycle of divorce and remarriage) -on the fact that "from the beginning of creation, 'male and female He made them' [Gen 1:27] and 'for this reason a man ... will be joined to his wife and the two will become one flesh' [Gen 2:24]" (Mark 10:2-12; Matt 19:3-9).
In other words, the fact that God had designed two (and only two) primary sexes for complementary sexual pairing was Jesus' basis for a rigorous monogamy position. He reasoned that, since the union of the two sexual halves creates an integrated, self-contained sexual whole, a third sexual partner was neither necessary nor desirable.
We know that this was Jesus' reasoning because the only other first-century Jews that shared Jesus' opposition to more than two persons in a sexual bond were the Essenes, who likewise rejected "taking two wives in their lives" because "the foundation of creation is 'male and female he created them' [Gen 1:27]" and because "those who entered [Noah's] ark went in two by two into the ark [Gen 7:9]" (Damascus Covenant 4.20-5.1).
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
Jesus is in violation of their civil rights.
Jesus also used Sodom and Gomorrah as the example of the worst sinners. That also is ignored.
This implies that Christ taught that widows and widowers could not remarry. This is not true, as shown by Paul's comment that he had every right to marry, despite his apparently being a widower.
The original Law allowed not only for divorce and serial marriages, it permitted polygamy and concubinage.
In fact, the Law of Moses was very similar to today's Islam when it came to marriage.
I am still waiting for a same-sex “marriage” advocate to have the intellectual integrity to concede that Jesus only taught marriage was one man and one woman per Matthew 19:4-6.
You also misrepresent Christ's teaching and the history of the law. What was not allowed since the beginning was divorce and remarriage... because there was no separation of two-becoming-one besides death. Your widow and widower example bears nothing on this.
This is not true, as shown by Paul's comment that he had every right to marry, despite his apparently being a widower.
Yep, it was good.
The comment was with regard to “taking two wives in their lives.” This concept dragged over into Christianity, particularly the Byzantine variety, where remarriage of a widow or widower was viewed askance for many centuries. Caused problems for some of the emperors.
was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Mat 19:4,5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage (Mat 19:5; 1Cr 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen 4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age (Gen 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8,9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record.
It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Exd 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Exd 22:16,17; 1Sa 18:23,25; Rth 4:10; Hsa 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic law made no change.
In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house (Gen 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends were invited (29:22,27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home.
Our Lord corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Mat 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18,19; 1Pe 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Hbr 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1Ti 4:3).
The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa 54:5; Jer 3:1-14; Hsa 2:9,20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev 19:7-9).
Cite This Article: Easton, M. G. "Marriage," Easton's Bible Dictionary. Blue Letter Bible. 1897. 1 Apr 2007. 3 Apr 2009.
Matt 19:8 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
I believe that when one has sex there is a spiritual bond between the two that is why in Gen it says that in marriage the two become one flesh. Where I work we have had some African workers and they still allow multiple wife's, the only catch is they each have their own home. Which to me is very wise.
After almost twenty years of marriage I can not even imagine having more than one wife. I get enough flack from the one I have can't imagine being shot at from multiple camps at one time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.