The distain for romance, family, and the demonization of sexualality and women in Christianity

[Grailhunter]

There were such forbidding marriage, in churches more recently, I think Shakers were like that, in Bible times there were gnostics like that. Now vegans get accused of that, but it is totally untrue. Though divorce may be easy today there is divorce that could be completely justified. There are headstrong ones totally ruining it for the other who married them, and they can no longer be trusted. One not trusted is cheating. More marriages are not that way and there can be resolution, especially with counseling that will be more or less easily available. If justified it suggests marriage to another after that is possible.

There is a lot of speculation why Christianity developed such a negative view regarding sex and nudity. The Jews did not have these negative views, in fact the more wives and children you had the more it was seen as God's favor. And sex in tents were not all that private. In the New Testament there is no focus on the family and marriage is given as a concession, indorsed but not recommended.

The Gentiles brought the custom of Wedding Ceremonies into Christianity, but it remained voluntary. The Catholic Church had little use for familes and would not allow Wedding Ceremonies in their church buildings. They made abstaining from sex the highest virtue and service to God.....which meant no families for clergy.
The Protestants made church weddings mandatory to be married in the 16th century. The Catholics soon followed suite and required wedding ceremonies.

But unlike the Protestants the Catholics still held negative views towards sex and woman. Not that the Protestants had resolved all the issues......To this day many Protestants believe women should know their place. And for many sex is still dirty, nasty, and sinful.....kind of like pooping. And at one time unmarried women that were not virgins were considered whores. And so "good men" seeked to marry virgins. Cultural fixation on virginity was such that daughters were guarded, not allowed to be alone with men. Dating did not become a custom until around 1950.
There is no good reason explained in the Bible or history to account for this line of thinking. And it will probably be a while before females are seen and treated as equals in Christianity.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The scriptures never say it is a requirement to have a wedding ceremony to be married but, the Protestants decided it should be required. One of the most significant things that God taught us.


Continued...

Read that again.

Scripture does not teach it; men invented it.

Then those same men credited God with their own invention.

If you cannot see what is deeply wrong with that reasoning, you are already living under the veil of tradition.

They ignored the blasphemy of adding to God’s Word, invented the doctrine themselves, enforced it upon others, and then—without trembling—placed God’s holy name upon the work of their own hands. It is difficult to imagine a more idolatrous act than creating a doctrine and then commanding others to worship it as revelation.

This is precisely how cults are created and how religious error enters the fold:

First, men admit that God never said it.
Then they decide it should be required.
Then they announce that God taught it to them.
Finally, they condemn anyone who refuses to treat their invention as revelation.

That is not Christianity learning.
That is men adding to Christianity.
That is human tradition impersonating the voice of Almighty God.

At this point, hell must be groaning beneath the weight of men who placed God’s name upon their own inventions.

 

[Grailhunter]

Read that again.

Scripture does not teach it; men invented it.

Then those same men credited God with their own invention.

If you cannot see what is deeply wrong with that reasoning, you are already living under the veil of tradition.

They ignored the blasphemy of adding to God’s Word, invented the doctrine themselves, enforced it upon others, and then—without trembling—placed God’s holy name upon the work of their own hands. It is difficult to imagine a more idolatrous act than creating a doctrine and then commanding others to worship it as revelation.

This is precisely how cults are created and how religious error enters the fold:

First, men admit that God never said it.
Then they decide it should be required.
Then they announce that God taught it to them.
Finally, they condemn anyone who refuses to treat their invention as revelation.

That is not Christianity learning.
That is men adding to Christianity.
That is human tradition impersonating the voice of Almighty God.

At this point, hell must be groaning beneath the weight of men who placed God’s name upon their own inventions.

I understand the Bible only concept.....And I do believe we need to be careful about adding things and taking things away.
The false doctrines of the three in one God and Original Sin are good examples.
Then again the scriptures never put a moratorium on polygamy and concubinage....taking a concubine or fathers selling their daughters as sex slaves. And slaves.....no biblical moratorium on slavery. But I think it is good that we stopped that.
And I think that church weddings are a good idea, but as far as God is concerned when you lay with a woman, you are married. Which makes casual sex a very bad thing.
And although we all believe Yeshua offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice.....the Lamb of God. The scriptures do not specifically say to stop animal sacrifices and the Apostles and the Jewish-Christians....still worshipped in the Temple and made animal sacrifices.....You would not fair well if you were in the Jewish Temple and refused to sacrifice to Yahweh.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

I understand the Bible only concept.....And I do believe we need to be careful about adding things and taking things away.
The false doctrines of the three in one God and Original Sin are good examples.
Then again the scriptures never put a moratorium on polygamy and concubinage....taking a concubine or fathers selling their daughters as sex slaves. And slaves.....no biblical moratorium on slavery. But I think it is good that we stopped that.
And I think that church weddings are a good idea, but as far as God is concerned when you lay with a woman, you are married. Which makes casual sex a very bad thing.
And although we all believe Yeshua offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice.....the Lamb of God. The scriptures do not specifically say to stop animal sacrifices and the Apostles and the Jewish-Christians....still worshipped in the Temple and made animal sacrifices.....You would not fair well if you were in the Jewish Temple and refused to sacrifice to Yahweh.

You have repeated the exact error I identified. Scripture never says intercourse automatically creates marriage, yet you have announced, “As far as God is concerned,” that it does. You moved from your interpretation to God’s decree without producing the decree.

And Scripture does end the animal sacrificial order.. Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, abolished the former order, and where forgiveness exists there is no longer any offering for sin.

 

[Grailhunter]

You have repeated the exact error I identified. Scripture never says intercourse automatically creates marriage, yet you have announced, “As far as God is concerned,” that it does. You moved from your interpretation to God’s decree without producing the decree.

Find a requirement for a wedding ceremony in the Old or New Testament scriptures. The phrase "take a wife" explains it all.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24 No ceremony then or when Yeshua quoted it in the New Testament.
For the Jews wedding ceremonies were seen as Pagan. The Pagans brought the custom of wedding ceremonies into Christianity. And they were voluntary until the 16th century when Protestants made church wedding a requirement to be married. And still today most wedding ceremonies still have Pagan rituals and customs embedded in them.

 

[Grailhunter]

And Scripture does end the animal sacrificial order.. Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, abolished the former order, and where forgiveness exists there is no longer any offering for sin.

Like I said, we believe that Yeshua's sacrifice ended the need for animal sacrifices. But you will not find a scripture that says to end it, nor will you find a scripture that condemn those that continued to sacrifice animals. The Passover for the Jewish-Christians occurred as always, with a sacrificial lamb.

 

[Angelina]

Hi brother @Grailhunter,
You raise some legitimate historical concerns. There is little doubt that some influential church fathers held views about women, sexuality, and celibacy that went beyond, and at times even conflicted with, the teaching of Scripture. History records that Greek philosophical influences, asceticism, and later ecclesiastical traditions shaped portions of Christian thought in ways that often diminished the goodness of marriage and, in some cases, the dignity of women. Those are important observations and should not be ignored.

Where I believe your premise becomes problematic is in allowing those historical failures to become the lens through which Scripture itself is reinterpreted.

The biblical pattern is the opposite. Scripture judges both history and tradition, not vice versa. Jesus repeatedly corrected religious tradition by asking, "Have you not read...?" Matthew 19:4 and rebuked traditions that nullified the word of God Mark 7:13. Likewise, Paul instructed believers not to go beyond what is written 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Jude speaks of "the faith once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3, pointing to the sufficiency and permanence of apostolic teaching rather than an unfolding doctrinal correction through later history.

I also think your argument tends to conflate descriptive history with prescriptive theology. That certain church leaders held erroneous or extreme views does not mean those views arose from Scripture, nor does it follow that biblical doctrine itself must now be revised. The failures of Augustine, Jerome, Origen, or later medieval theologians should lead us back to Scripture, not beyond it.

For example, while Paul acknowledged the advantages of singleness during "the present distress" 1 Corinthians 7:26, he never portrayed marriage as spiritually inferior. He affirmed that marriage is good, that those who marry "have not sinned" 1 Corinthians 7:28, and elsewhere Scripture declares, "Marriage is honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4. Likewise, Genesis presents marriage before the Fall as part of God's good creation Genesis 2:24, and Paul later uses marriage as the very picture of Christ's relationship with His Church Ephesians 5:31-32. That is hardly a diminished view of marriage.

While I appreciate the historical observations you've made, I believe this is where the argument takes a step beyond what the biblical text actually supports. Scripture certainly teaches that sexual union is profound and creates a "one flesh" relationship, but it does not equate every sexual union with a covenant marriage. Paul's warning about joining oneself to a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6:16 demonstrates that one flesh language can describe the gravity of sexual sin without implying that a marriage covenant has been established. Covenant, public recognition, and lifelong commitment remain integral to the biblical understanding of marriage.

In short, I agree that the Church has often failed to live consistently with Scripture and has sometimes elevated tradition above God's word. But the remedy is not to reconstruct biblical doctrine through the lens of history. The remedy is the same one given throughout Scripture: to return to the text itself and allow it, not later tradition, nor reaction against tradition, to remain our final authority.

 

[Grailhunter]

Hi brother @Grailhunter,
You raise some legitimate historical concerns. There is little doubt that some influential church fathers held views about women, sexuality, and celibacy that went beyond, and at times even conflicted with, the teaching of Scripture. History records that Greek philosophical influences, asceticism, and later ecclesiastical traditions shaped portions of Christian thought in ways that often diminished the goodness of marriage and, in some cases, the dignity of women. Those are important observations and should not be ignored.

Where I believe your premise becomes problematic is in allowing those historical failures to become the lens through which Scripture itself is reinterpreted.

The biblical pattern is the opposite. Scripture judges both history and tradition, not vice versa. Jesus repeatedly corrected religious tradition by asking, "Have you not read...?" Matthew 19:4 and rebuked traditions that nullified the word of God Mark 7:13. Likewise, Paul instructed believers not to go beyond what is written 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Jude speaks of "the faith once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3, pointing to the sufficiency and permanence of apostolic teaching rather than an unfolding doctrinal correction through later history.

I also think your argument tends to conflate descriptive history with prescriptive theology. That certain church leaders held erroneous or extreme views does not mean those views arose from Scripture, nor does it follow that biblical doctrine itself must now be revised. The failures of Augustine, Jerome, Origen, or later medieval theologians should lead us back to Scripture, not beyond it.

For example, while Paul acknowledged the advantages of singleness during "the present distress" 1 Corinthians 7:26, he never portrayed marriage as spiritually inferior. He affirmed that marriage is good, that those who marry "have not sinned" 1 Corinthians 7:28, and elsewhere Scripture declares, "Marriage is honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4. Likewise, Genesis presents marriage before the Fall as part of God's good creation Genesis 2:24, and Paul later uses marriage as the very picture of Christ's relationship with His Church Ephesians 5:31-32. That is hardly a diminished view of marriage.

While I appreciate the historical observations you've made, I believe this is where the argument takes a step beyond what the biblical text actually supports. Scripture certainly teaches that sexual union is profound and creates a "one flesh" relationship, but it does not equate every sexual union with a covenant marriage. Paul's warning about joining oneself to a prostitute in 1 Corinthians 6:16 demonstrates that one flesh language can describe the gravity of sexual sin without implying that a marriage covenant has been established. Covenant, public recognition, and lifelong commitment remain integral to the biblical understanding of marriage.

In short, I agree that the Church has often failed to live consistently with Scripture and has sometimes elevated tradition above God's word. But the remedy is not to reconstruct biblical doctrine through the lens of history. The remedy is the same one given throughout Scripture: to return to the text itself and allow it, not later tradition, nor reaction against tradition, to remain our final authority.

Hi there Angelina, salutations.
Where I believe your premise becomes problematic is in allowing those historical failures to become the lens through which Scripture itself is reinterpreted.

I stick with the scriptures.....so I am not sure what you mean. This is one of those topics that I could write a book on.
The circumstances play a lot with what was discussed about marriage and family and what was not discussed about marriage and family. The Corinthians asked, is it better not to touch a woman? And Paul said, Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. Corinthians 7:7 And the wording sounds like marriage is given up as a concession to prevent sin.
Why? Why? Why? From this the Catholics came to believe sex and marriage were not a good thing. That virginity and non-sexual was considered pure and holy. They would not allow wedding ceremonies in their Churches until the Protestant lead the way. Was it all their fault? LOL I think that mothers can be pure. The whole celibate thing has haunted the Catholic Church from the beginning.

It is true that the New Testament did not have a focus on the family....or even marriage. Why?
The focus of the New Testament was saving souls from Hell and get them to Heaven, and they believed they were living in the last days....not months, not years, not centuries. The believed Yeshua could return at any moment. So that was their priority. Why have a family if the time was short? Why have a family for the Roman arenas. The scriptures are not a detailed history.

Sex is not dirty, marriage is a good thing and families are even greater. But if your beliefs are......Bible only, somethings can be misunderstood. But Bible only is not a new idea. So some throughout the ages have got the wrong idea, by just the words in the Bible or the lack of words in the Bible.
Take the Bible for what it is worth and do not use a lens. But at times you need to consider the historical circumstances.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. You cannot get a better endorsement for marriage.
It is always better to stick with the facts, biblical or history.

 

[Angelina]

Hi, brother @Grailhunter,
I think we've narrowed down where our disagreement actually lies.

I completely agree that understanding the historical circumstances can help us understand the background of a passage. Context is important. Where I differ is when our reconstruction of history begins to explain the text in a way the text itself does not.

For example, you suggest that the New Testament did not have much focus on marriage and family because the apostles believed Christ's return was imminent. While that is certainly one historical explanation, it is not one the biblical writers themselves give. Paul attributes his preference for singleness to "the present distress" and repeatedly says that those who marry "have not sinned." He never concludes that marriage is spiritually inferior, nor does he present it as merely a concession because the end was near.

Likewise, I agree that later church leaders developed an unhealthy view of sex and celibacy. But I don't think it follows that those views came from Paul's teaching. Peter himself warns that Paul's writings were being twisted by some, 2 Peter 3:16. That tells me the problem was not Paul's doctrine but how later generations interpreted it.

So I think the distinction is an important one. Historical context can illuminate Scripture, but it should never become the basis for conclusions that Scripture itself does not make. Our historical reconstructions should remain subject to the text, not the other way around.

That is why I keep coming back to Scripture as the final authority. History is a valuable servant, but it is not the interpreter of God's word. God's word remains the interpreter of history.

 

[Grailhunter]

Where I differ is when our reconstruction of history begins to explain the text in a way the text itself does not.

This is something I run into a lot. Interpreting scripture by tradition. And people wanting to believe something find a scripture that seems to support their belief, one or two scriptures, when there are dozens of scriptures that say different. For example; Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. This goes against many scriptures about love and respecting or mother and father...etc. It plainly says what it says but it cannot be literal. That is why I say you have to take the scriptures as a whole, as well as the general theme.

For example, you suggest that the New Testament did not have much focus on marriage and family because the apostles believed Christ's return was imminent. While that is certainly one historical explanation, it is not one the biblical writers themselves give. Paul attributes his preference for singleness to "the present distress" and repeatedly says that those who marry "have not sinned." He never concludes that marriage is spiritually inferior, nor does he present it as merely a concession because the end was near.

LOL The "present distress" is what I am basing my theory on.

Likewise, I agree that later church leaders developed an unhealthy view of sex and celibacy. But I don't think it follows that those views came from Paul's teaching. Peter himself warns that Paul's writings were being twisted by some, 2 Peter 3:16. That tells me the problem was not Paul's doctrine but how later generations interpreted it.

Well again the scriptures say what they say and the Bible only people if they do not take the topic or circumstance into a count can miss the point. I never meant to imply that any apostle was down on sex or marriage. Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1st Corinthians 9:5

That tells me the problem was not Paul's doctrine but how later generations interpreted it.

Correct.

Keep coming back to the scriptures sister, ya can't go wrong. On issues of concern regarding the scriptures find the actual words in the scriptures, rather than a translation or tradition....common belief.
The story of the Magi comes to mind. Oh three kings of orient are.....or three wise men....the scriptures cannot be translated as kings or wise men. But what they were leaves some questions. The word Magi means sorcerer or witch. Why would witches be interested in Yeshua. And their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The scriptures explain these as more than mere gifts....the scriptures refer to them as a treasure.....and as it is these were very expensive items in their day. And if the Magi were from the east and saw the star in the east and followed it, they would be going in the wrong direction to go to Jerusalem. And the scriptures do not say there were just three of them.
Witches.....back in the day, if someone could do something no one else could or could not be explained they were suspected of being witches. Odds are good that these people were Media from Persian/Egypt area. The Persian kingdom was friendly to Yahweh and the Jews. And they were people of the sciences. And were called or labeled Magi.

 

[Angelina]

Brother @Grailhunter,

I think we actually agree on more than we disagree. I have no issue with using history to help us understand the setting of Scripture. The cultural and historical circumstances surrounding the early church are certainly valuable to study.

I remain cautious when history begins supplying conclusions that the biblical authors themselves never state.

For example, you suggest that the New Testament gives relatively little attention to marriage and family because the apostles believed Christ could return at any moment. That is certainly one possible historical explanation, but I don't see the New Testament making that argument.

Instead, the New Testament continues to affirm marriage positively throughout its pages. Jesus points back to God's original design in Genesis. Paul teaches husbands, wives, parents, and children at length. Elders are expected to manage their households well. Younger widows are encouraged to marry, bear children, and guide the home. Marriage is called honorable in all, and the relationship between husband and wife is used as a picture of Christ and His Church.

Those teachings don't give me the impression that marriage became a secondary concern because the return of Christ was expected soon. Rather, they show that family life remained an important part of Christian discipleship while believers also lived in expectation of the Lord's return.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 7, I agree that Paul preferred singleness for those gifted for it, particularly because of "the present distress." But he is equally careful to say that those who marry "have not sinned," and he describes both singleness and marriage as gifts from God. That doesn't sound like marriage is merely a concession or a lesser spiritual state. It sounds like two different callings, each given by God according to his wisdom.

I also agree that parts of church history developed an unhealthy view of sex, marriage, and celibacy. Where I differ is in assigning the cause. Peter already warned that some would twist Paul's writings because they were difficult to understand. To me, that suggests the error lay with the interpreters, not with Paul's teaching itself.

So I think we're really discussing methodology. History is a valuable aid, but it is not inspired. Our reconstructions of history are always open to revision. Scripture alone is God-breathed, so it must remain the authority by which both history and our interpretations of history are tested.

That is why I keep coming back to the text itself. History can illuminate the background, but it should never become the foundation for conclusions the text does not explicitly make.

 

[Grailhunter]

For example, you suggest that the New Testament gives relatively little attention to marriage and family because the apostles believed Christ could return at any moment. That is certainly one possible historical explanation, but I don't see the New Testament making that argument.

Best wishes
It is not only that but also the impending tribulation. At the time Christianity was a renegade religion. At the time, in the minority, the primary religion of the time was Paganism. From their perspective they looked at it like we would look at cults. For around 300 years, until the time of Emperor Constantine, Christians were hunted and persecuted and tortured and used for slaughter entertainment. The worst of horrors unimaginable. Not the environment to raise a family.

Instead, the New Testament continues to affirm marriage positively throughout its pages. Jesus points back to God's original design in Genesis. Paul teaches husbands, wives, parents, and children at length. Elders are expected to manage their households well. Younger widows are encouraged to marry, bear children, and guide the home. Marriage is called honorable in all, and the relationship between husband and wife is used as a picture of Christ and His Church.

Those teachings don't give me the impression that marriage became a secondary concern because the return of Christ was expected soon. Rather, they show that family life remained an important part of Christian discipleship while believers also lived in expectation of the Lord's return.

Sweetie, I disagree. Count them up. As a whole there is very few scriptures to suggest what you would like to think. I am not saying that Christians at the time did not think like you are suggesting, but the scriptures do not dwell on it. Then again the family unit was nothing like you and I are a custom to. Women and children did not eat with the men. Arranged marriages where husbands still bought their wives until around the 12th century. Ladies were not allowed to be alone with men. Dating is actually a 20th century thing, around the time of the first automobiles. Women's rights? Forget it. But you are right about one thing....encouraged to bear children, not scripturally, but by custom. And women tended the home, they did not guide it. The old adage, they knew their place. A far cry from what it is today, but even then some Christians think it still should be that way.

That is why I keep coming back to the text itself.

Stick with the text, but don's use rose colored glasses.

 

[Angelina]

Brother @Grailhunter,

I don't disagree that the historical background helps us understand the circumstances the early Church faced. The persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire is well documented, and no doubt those circumstances affected many practical decisions believers had to make.

Where I continue to differ is that I don't see the New Testament itself drawing the conclusion that marriage became a lesser concern because of persecution or the expectation of Christ's return. Those are historical inferences, whereas I'm trying to stay with what the biblical writers actually say.

You mentioned counting the passages, but I don't think doctrine is established by the number of verses devoted to a subject. Rather, it is established by what those passages teach. When Jesus affirms God's design for marriage in Genesis, Paul devotes an entire chapter to marriage and singleness, instructs husbands, wives, parents, and children, requires elders to manage their households well, encourages younger widows to marry and manage their homes, and Hebrews declares that marriage is honourable in all, I don't come away with the impression that marriage had become a secondary aspect of Christian discipleship.

I also think we need to distinguish between biblical teaching and cultural practice. Arranged marriages, courtship customs, or the social position of women certainly provide historical context, but they don't determine doctrine. Scripture often describes the culture in which God's people lived without endorsing every aspect of that culture.

So I think we may simply be approaching the subject from two different directions. You seem to begin with the historical circumstances and then read the biblical teaching through that lens. I prefer to begin with the biblical text and then use history to help illuminate it where appropriate. For me, Scripture remains the standard by which history is evaluated, not the other way around.

Best wishes.

 

[Grailhunter]

Where I continue to differ is that I don't see the New Testament itself drawing the conclusion that marriage became a lesser concern because of persecution or the expectation of Christ's return. Those are historical inferences, whereas I'm trying to stay with what the biblical writers actually say.

For sure......Scriptures are an abbreviated account, topic focused.

You mentioned counting the passages, but I don't think doctrine is established by the number of verses devoted to a subject. Rather, it is established by what those passages teach.

I said that because you said---->Instead, the New Testament continues to affirm marriage positively throughout its pages.
Well we would be lucky if there is a couple verses affirming marriage positively. hardly throughout.....

Paul devotes an entire chapter to marriage and singleness, instructs husbands, wives, parents, and children, requires elders to manage their households well, encourages younger widows to marry and manage their homes, and Hebrews declares that marriage is honourable in all, I don't come away with the impression that marriage had become a secondary aspect of Christian discipleship.

I am from Missouri, as they say, show me.
Never said marriage was not honorable. Just that the New Testament is not going to devote much to singing the praise of marriage, wives, and children. What there is, is mostly regulatory scriptures.......
Definitely not a whole lot about children....

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 1st Corinthians 7:1-5

To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 1st Corinthians 7:12-15

33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. 1st Corinthians 7:33-35

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. Ephesians 5:22-33

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1st Peter 3:7

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 1st Corinthians 7:39

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:6-12

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Hebrews 13:4

3 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. 8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan. 16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. 1st Timothy 5:3-16

Well you could almost fit this on one page of regulatory scriptures.
The fact of the matter is.....the Protestants get the credit for Christian focus on the family. The Catholics had little interest in marriage and families. They would not allow wedding ceremonies in their churches until the Protestants made church weddings a requirement to be married. Until then there was no biblical requirement for a wedding ceremony.

 

[Angelina]

Brother @Grailhunter,
Thank you for taking the time to gather those passages.

Ironically, I think they illustrate the very point I was making. Every passage you've quoted presents marriage as something to be honored, protected, nurtured, or regulated according to God's design. None of them teaches that marriage became a lesser part of Christian discipleship because persecution was coming or because the Lord's return was expected soon.

I also don't think the amount of space devoted to a subject determines its importance. Scripture gives regulatory instruction because something is valuable enough to preserve. The New Testament also regulates eldership, the Lord's Supper, baptism, church discipline, and spiritual gifts. We wouldn't conclude those things were of lesser importance simply because much of the teaching surrounding them is instructional.

Where we continue to differ is not over whether persecution was real or whether historical context matters. I fully agree that it does. Rather, I don't see the biblical writers themselves making the conclusion that the expectation of persecution or Christ's return reduced the significance of marriage and family within the Christian life. That remains a historical inference, whereas I prefer to rest my conclusions on what the text explicitly teaches.

Best wishes.

 

[Grailhunter]

Ironically, I think they illustrate the very point I was making. Every passage you've quoted presents marriage as something to be honored, protected, nurtured, or regulated according to God's design. None of them teaches that marriage became a lesser part of Christian discipleship because persecution was coming or because the Lord's return was expected soon.

To the contrary......they are regulatory......not praise.

 

[Grailhunter]

I also don't think the amount of space devoted to a subject determines its importance. Scripture gives regulatory instruction because something is valuable enough to preserve. The New Testament also regulates eldership, the Lord's Supper, baptism, church discipline, and spiritual gifts. We wouldn't conclude those things were of lesser importance simply because much of the teaching surrounding them is instructional.

The amount affirms the importance....but still every verse is important.

 

[Angelina]

Brother @Grailhunter

I don't think "regulatory" and "affirming" are mutually exclusive.

Scripture often affirms God's gifts by regulating them. The commandments regarding marriage don't diminish its value; they protect it.

When Paul commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, when Peter tells husbands to honour their wives, when Hebrews says, "Let marriage be held in honour among all," and when Jesus reaffirms God's design from Genesis, those are indeed regulatory instructions, but they are also positive affirmations of marriage as God's good design.

So I don't think the question is whether the passages are regulatory. They clearly are. The question is whether those regulations present marriage as something good, honorable, and worth preserving. I believe they do.

 

[Grailhunter]

Where we continue to differ is not over whether persecution was real or whether historical context matters. I fully agree that it does. Rather, I don't see the biblical writers themselves making the conclusion that the expectation of persecution or Christ's return reduced the significance of marriage and family within the Christian life. That remains a historical inference, whereas I prefer to rest my conclusions on what the text explicitly teaches.

Yeshua and Paul did a good job on showing the importance of marriage.......not so much the importance in Christian life.

 

[Angelina]

Brother @Grailhunter
I completely agree that every verse is important, regardless of how many there are.

I also agree that the amount of material devoted to a subject can reflect its importance, although not necessarily its entire significance.

My point has never been that the New Testament constantly speaks about marriage. Rather, it is that wherever it does address marriage, it consistently treats it as God's good design. It protects it, honours it, regulates it, and even uses it as the earthly picture of Christ's relationship with His Church. That doesn't give me the impression that marriage had become a lesser part of Christian discipleship because believers expected the Lord's return or anticipated persecution.

I think that's where we continue to differ. I fully accept the historical context you have outlined, but I don't see the biblical writers themselves drawing that conclusion from it.