Week One DQ – Marriage

[Jamie]

Read Genesis 2:18 – 25 – What, if anything, do we learn about God’s view of what a marriage should look like?

[Anonymous]

God does not want man to be alone, and desires a spouse for us, that will help us. A wife should be a life partner, and someone to come alongside us to battle through this life together. In God’s eyes, when we marry, two people become one flesh, living in unity with each other and with God.

[gretchen211]

It is really interesting to me the process that God brought Adam through to see that he didn’t have a match and for him to realize a need. God is such an amazing teacher and intentional in all He does. and I love that Eve is created as a helper. When I read the book Captivating it used the word “Ezer Kenedo” (or something like that) for this phrase. They said it carried the idea of “desperately needed” helper and I think that adds such value to the woman. The human race was not complete with just the man. Both man and woman needed to be present to most completely express God’s image. I think that is true of a marriage and family as well. Both and woman are needed in a marriage to most completely express God’s desire for a family.
This passage also talks about leaving father and mother and becoming one with his wife. I think this pertains to a physical aspect, but also in the sense that the husband and wife create their own family, apart from their parents. It is sometimes hard in the beginning of a marriage to not do things the way your family did them, but as the years go by it is so rewarding to form a new family together with your husband.

[Anonymous]

One of the things I find interesting about this passage is its simplicity. It basically reads, “Man should not be alone and he needs a helper. Woman is then made from his flesh and they become one.” At face value this communicates that marriage is an intimate, totally committed union (apparently crowned by sexual union) between a man and a woman for the sake of companionship and being helpmates to one another (at least). Interestingly enough, this passage doesn’t say anything about romance or warm fuzzy feelings, the very things it seems that we tend to think marriage revolves around nowadays. That isn’t to say that romance shouldn’t be a part of marriage, but this passage doesn’t seem to communicate that warm fuzzies were meant to be the primary thing that people should be looking for (from a potential spouse, in a marriage, etc.).
This view of marriage, apparently God’s ideal, seems to contradict a lot of what our culture thinks is acceptable or even good nowadays. God’s ideal seems to be that the context in which sexuality is to be celebrated is within the bounds of the unique and intimate relationship that marriage is, but our culture says that it is okay to celebrate sexuality in many other contexts in which it can just be casual or something like that. God’s ideal seems to be that marriage is permanent (at least on this side of the grave), but our culture often seems to think that it is okay to approach marriage with that attitude that says, “If marriage isn’t suiting my needs how I want it to, then I’m out.” (And I don’t mean to say that people should stay in abusive marriages or anything like that) God’s ideal seems to be that marriage is a union between a man and a women, and our culture thinks we somehow have a right to marry someone of any gender we so choose. (What I find interesting here, among many other things, is that, if God does not exist, then it isn’t clear to me how we accidental byproducts of nature have any sorts of rights at all. On the other hand, if God does exist and he has given us rights, then I would think that we should want to know what he says those rights are.) So, bottom line, it seems to me that God’s ideal for marriage differs from our own many times.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that God brings (2:22) Eve to Adam. Much like a father would proudly walk his daughter down the aisle on her wedding day. Immediately following this first wedding comes verse 24 that you reference, Gretchen. It’s as if God is the first parent to send off his kids to become this sacred “one flesh”.

I think it is very hard for parents to do this; to let their children go. I find it interesting that God does it first here. He the parent brings the two together and then to show us it is good for parents to let go does so himself. Notice, he comes looking for them in the garden later, meaning, he gave them some space.

This verse is often directed at the newly weds (as it should be!) but I think it is helpful for parents to think through this as well.God empathizes with the struggle of parents as well.

[Jamie]

“This view of marriage, apparently God’s ideal, seems to contradict a lot of what our culture thinks is acceptable or even good nowadays.”

This is an excellent point. Discussion Question (for everyone) – What is the church’s role in all of this? For example – Culturally, should we fight for the protection of God’s definition of marriage? Or is marriage defined by God as between a man & a woman and it doesn’t really matter what a law says? The focus of the church should be on sustaining marriages in the way God defined? These are difficult questions to answer but we must think critically on these issues…especially today.

[Anonymous]

Those are great questions that have interested me for some time now. As of yet, I’m not sure what the answers are. It does seem to me that we want to stand for what is right. If God defines marriage a certain way, then I think we want to stand for that. What I’m not sure of, however, is whether or not that means that the church should be involved in the politics of defining marriage in the eyes of the government. It seems to me that the answer to this question flows out of the answer to the question of what we think our duties as citizens of a democracy are. Do we have a duty to politically advocate and vote for what is right? Or, is it okay to be indifferent? Does the answer to these questions depend on the subject under consideration? If so, is marriage something to get involved in politics over? I think other important questions for the church that relate to this issue are questions of tactics in spreading the gospel. Is it a better course of action to focus primarily on leading people to Jesus and then letting the transformation he works in their lives transform their ethics? What is the point of working to get people to live rightly in one area of life without bringing them to Christ the Savior? Are tactics in spreading the gospel more important than making a stand for what is right sometimes?
I’m not sure what the answers are to all of these questions at this point.

[gretchen211]

That is a really interesting thought. I never connected that before. I do think letting go is a tough thing. I remember very early on in my parenting life, and I can’t remember what it was for, but Tori had to go somewhere or leave for something. Sue told me this was just the beginning of learning to let go.

Thanks for the insight…

[gretchen211]

“Is it a better course of action to focus primarily on leading people to Jesus and then letting the transformation he works in their lives transform their ethics?”

I like this sentence. It isn’t really an answered question, but I think I tend to fall here most often. I agree d1n, I don’t know what the answers are and, especially here in MN, it is a hot topic that there doesn’t seem to be any room for any type of even civil discussion. I definitely believe it is going to be a place of persecution for followers of Jesus, whether or not we join in the political conversation.

I do think in the political discussion in MN it did help me when someone said they don’t argue with what God defined. It is not about rights or anything like that it is that God defined “marriage” as a man and a woman.

Beyond that issue, In the least, the church should be modeling God honoring marriages…

[Anonymous]

I like these thoughts and I largely agree.

[Anonymous]

Not sure we are given a mandate to “fight” for any of the “rules” God has established. A key word used today is tolerance. What people usually mean by that is that we should accept another persons view of something. However, tolerance does not mean we agree. It actually assumes two sides of an issue, it assumes disagreement. Personally, I think we should strive for more than just being able to put up (tolerate) with each other. Jesus died for people He knew disagreed with him and hated him, what are we willing to do to demonstrate love?

We (Columbus, Oh) just hosted one of the nations largest pride festivals and after the weekend I cam away with some practical things we can do as Jesus followers.

Action steps:
1.)Christians are rude about defending their view of marriage…be loving in speech.
2.)Christians should be more loving in their response to different views of marriage(sometimes that means don’t post that negative comment)
3.)Christian’s should have more Gay and Lesbian friends…seriously.

No real political “answers” hear either…sorry 🙂

[Author]

Posts