Copyright © 2007 by Paul Housley
New King James Version, Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved.
Bible text from the New King James Version is not to be reproduced in
copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas
Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions,
The red links will open the GOSHEN Bible Study Tools/Online Study Library© at the appropriate passage of the bible, in its own window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ever since I became a Christian I have felt that dating without a view to marriage is wrong, and I have found that many Christians have the same feeling. When I came across one who did not, I found myself unable to justify my position intellectually. Inspired by my conviction, I began exploring the question of the relationship between marriage and dating.
Some things that all Christians did find obvious though is that we should only date people of the opposite sex and that we should only date one person at a time. The next thing that seemed obvious is that these principles, that we feel belong to dating, have been taken from the principles of marriage: we only marry people of the opposite sex and we are only married to one person at a time. Furthermore we should only be married to or date one person at a time: that is, we should not go out with someone while we are married to someone else.
From this, it seemed obvious that dating is in some way like marriage. It is not like marriage because we apply some of the principles of marriage to it, but rather we apply some of the principles of marriage to it because we can see that it is in some way like marriage.
It may seem that I could never find any rules about dating in the bible, as people in the bible didn't date, and neither does the bible ever use the word "dating". But it is not so much a matter of whether the bible uses the same words as we use, or whether people of the bible behaved in exactly the same way as we do, as a matter of whether the bible gives principles that are in some way related to our behaviour today. To use any argument at all to prove, for example, that we shouldn't date people of the same sex, is to admit that there are principles that can be applied to dating.
It should also be pointed out that the original bible doesn't mention the word "marriage". The original bible doesn't use any English words. But when we use the word "marriage", we mean something by it, and the bible's Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words also have meanings. So when we see that the thing that we mean by the word "marriage" is the same thing that the bible means by some of its words, then we conclude that the bible does have something to teach about marriage. In the same way, when we use the word "dating", we mean something by it. So, if we find that whatever this thing is that we mean by the word "dating" is found in the bible, or if there are biblical principles that are related to whatever this thing is that we mean by the word "dating", then we must conclude that the bible does have something to teach about dating.
It became obvious that, before I could answer the question clearly, I needed to state the question clearly: I needed to know to what extent people who are dating are behaving as if they are married, and therefore to what extent the rules of marriage apply to dating. I needed to start from first principles: I needed to know what marriage and dating are.
This lead to two questions: "What is marriage in its essential nature?" and "What is dating in its essential nature?" If someone asked: "How should I treat the dating relationship?", then in order to understand his question, we should need to know what he meant by the dating relationship. If someone said "The marriage relationship should be treated like this.", then in order to understand his statement, we should need to know what he meant by the marriage relationship.
It is the bible that gives us our rules about how marriage should be treated: therefore, we must understand what the bible means by marriage. When the bible says that the marriage relationship ought to be a certain way, then the thing that ought to be this certain way, is the thing that the bible means by the marriage relationship. The definition of the marriage relationship is not to be determined arbitrarily or by laws or traditions, but by the scriptures alone.
When we know what marriage and dating are, we can see what they have in common. I started out with no clear idea of where I was headed. You may be surprised by the conclusion - I was.
The logical place to turn would seem to be to the account of the creation
of marriage. We shall have to turn elsewhere if we want to learn how we
should proceed towards becoming married, but this is the place to find
out what marriage is, and what it was made for
And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man."
Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (NKJV)
We are faced here with the idea of a man and a woman becoming joined ("one flesh"). Woman was made from man's flesh: therefore men and women become one flesh. Men and women today become joined after the pattern that was established at their creation. It is only sensible to conclude then, that God (who could have made her in any way He wanted) chose to make the first woman in a way which illustrates the special relationship that was hereafter to exist between a man and a woman. The terms "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" and "one flesh" must therefore be expressing the same idea.
Whenever the bible teaches about the nature of marriage, it always makes reference to this
union. Jesus quotes this passage in order to teach about marriage
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (NKJV)
Now if the bible always refers to this union when teaching about the nature of marriage, then we must conclude that when the bible uses the word "marriage" it means this union.
But what kind of a union is it? On the surface these terms have obvious physical
meanings: "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"
refers to the fact that Eve was made from Adam's side, and "be
joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" refers to sexual intercourse,
for when people have sexual intercourse, their bodies do become joined in some way.
Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "The two," He says, "shall become one flesh." But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him. (NKJV)
There is an antithesis in this verse: "one spirit"
(with the Lord) and "one body" (with the
harlot). "Body" is therefore the antithesis
of "spirit" and the thing being referred
to is the bodily act of sexual intercourse. But when the term
"one flesh" is used is this sense, the apostle cannot be
teaching that they actually become married, because he calls it
"sexual immorality"
But it would seem that the obvious physical meaning
is not the only thing that is taught in
He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female", and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate. (NKJV)
But if they are "one flesh" only while they are having sexual intercourse then they are not joined in a way that is permanent, and if as Jesus teaches, the way that they become "one flesh" should be permanent, then it cannot be referring essentially to the union of sexual intercourse.
Either "one flesh" refers solely to sexual intercourse (in which case it is not permanent), or it does not refer at all to sexual intercourse (If they are not physically joined in any way, and therefore "one flesh" does not describe sexual intercourse in any way, then what reason is there to believe that sexual intercourse has got anything at all to do with being "one flesh"?) or "one flesh" refers in some way both to sexual intercourse and to something of which sexual intercourse is a shadow.
Furthermore, these terms are used elsewhere to express nearness of kin
In what sense do I use the term "mysterious"? In sense that although the bible teaches that marriage is a real union between a man and woman, the exact way in which they are joined has not been revealed to us. And yet there must be a way for us to recognise the union, for we are given instructions about how we should treat that union. If we are to know when those instructions apply then we must have a way of recognising when the union exists, and it surely must be a simple way because marriage is for simple people as well as geniuses. Proof that the union were physical or spiritual in nature wouldn't help. If I knew that the union was spiritual in nature, how would would help me to recognise the union?
Saying that this union is made by God doesn't help in recognising it, for we can understand what it means to be joined by God, only inasmuch as we can understand what it means to be joined.
The relationship cannot be recognised by the rules of the relationship,
for to say that something ought to be a certain way, is to imply
that it can be another way. The bible teaches that we ought
to have sex, only if we are married
The bible teaches that marriage ought
to be permanent
We cannot
recognise marriage by the privileges or responsibilities that go with it.
The bible teaches that marriage gives us the privilege of making love
How do you know that you have this privilege? How do you know that you have the right to make love? Is it not true that you conclude that you have this privilege (whatever it is), because you already know that you are married, and it is not the other way round? You do not conclude that you are married because you know that you have this privilege. Therefore you conclude that you are married for a reason other than, that you have this privilege. It may turn out (if it can be shown that this is what the bible teaches) that you know that you are married because you know that you made a commitment to these privileges, but the present point is that you did not begin with the knowledge that you had these privileges.
The same argument applies to the responsibilities of marriage. The bible
teaches that marriage gives us the responsibilities to remain faithful
to each other
How do you know that you have this responsibility? Is it not true that you conclude that you have this responsibility, because you already know that you are married, and it is not the other way round? You do not conclude that you are married because you know that you have this responsibility. Therefore you conclude that you are married for a reason other than, that you have this responsibility.
Whether people have the privileges and responsibilities of marriage, is not apparent. We cannot know whether they have these privileges and responsibilities, unless we already know whether they are married. Therefore, the privileges and responsibilities of marriage cannot help us to recognise marriage.
So when the bible gives its statements about marriage, how do we know what relationship it is that these statements apply to? When it says that the relationship ought to be permanent, how do we know that it is not telling us that friendship ought to be permanent. When it says that we ought to have only one partner, how do we know that it is not saying that we ought to have only one friend? When it says that marriage is for people of the opposite sex, how do we know that it is not telling us that we should only be friends with people of the opposite sex? When it says that people leave their parents for it, how do we know that it is not telling us that they do this for friendship? When it says that we should make love only to such a partner, how do we know that it is not telling us that I should make love only to a friend? When it says that we enter into this relationship by covenant, how do we know that it is not telling us that we enter into friendship by covenant?
In order to recognise the union of marriage, we need to understand the purpose of the union.
God has made us to need certain things. Whenever we say that we need something, we mean that we need it for something. What else would we mean? We mean that possessing this thing will achieve something (though we may be mistaken).
When we say that we need the atoning blood of Christ, we mean that we need it in order to be at peace with God. We could also say that we need food, drink and air but we do not need these things for the same reason. We need food, drink and air in order to stay alive, but we do not need them in order to be at peace with God.
Whenever we claim that something is necessary, this raises the question: "Necessary for what?" Whenever we claim that something is not necessary, this raises the question "Not necessary for what?"
We could also, at this point talk about the final end of all our actions, or what we ultimately need everything for. Our ultimate end is to glorify God, so this is what we need marriage for. This is also what we need food for, and what we need buses for. But all these things also have more immediate benefits. Food sustains our bodies and it is because of this quality that it can also have a part in glorifying God. Buses take us from a to b, and it is because they offer this benefit that we can exploit them to fulfil God's purposes for the world. If something did not have a specific benefit then how could it be put to use towards our final goal? (Also, at this point, it needs to be said that just because something has a use towards another end, this does not mean that it cannot also be desirable in itself.)
Marriage gives us an illustration of God's relationship with his people, but what it is about marriage that makes it such a good illustration? There has to be something specific that is good about it in order for it to bear any resemblance.
We know that God's law is based upon showing love to each other, so the purpose of marriage must be to serve each other in love. But the will to do good to someone would not motivate us to do anything unless there was also the opportunity to do good to that person. If marriage did not offer something special that was good for that person, then love would give us no reason to marry.
So what in particular does marriage have to offer?
God has made us to need certain things in order to be satisfied. God has given us aspirations. There are many ways in which we can be fulfilled, and therefore many ways in which we can be unfulfilled. It would be wrong to treat someone pitifully because some part of his life was unfulfilled, but it would be incorrect to deny that he was unfulfilled.
We have different desires, which are satisfied by different things. Each desire could be satisfied by a range of things. For example, hunger could be satisfied by eating cheesecake or by eating a banana, but not by having a career. So we could be satisfied in some ways but not others.
Some scriptures may give some semblance of support
to the idea that God will give us everything we need in order to be happy
It is undeniable then, that God does not always give us what we need
in order to be happy in every way. Notwithstanding the fact that
biblical example does teach that all blessing comes from God and must be
received with thanksgiving, a Christian should not expect that his life
should be free of all unhappiness just because he is a Christian. There
may be some practical truth in the teaching that a wise person is more
likely to be materially well off. Notwithstanding this, the real significance
of the examples of material blessing, is that they are figuratively speaking
of the Spiritual blessing that God will give us
There is a way to be fulfilled in God, but to attempt to demonstrate that we are fulfilled in God by pretending that we could never be unfulfilled in
any other way, is to misunderstand what it means to be fulfilled in God. It is hypocrisy, and it amounts to pretending that we are Spiritual by denying
that we are human. St Paul's attitude in
Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content... Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. (NKJV)
He claimed to be fulfilled in Christ, but he did not deny that, in regard to more basic and human needs he was indeed unfulfilled. So there are things that we need for reasons other than to be at peace with God, or to be fulfilled in God or even to stay alive. When we say that we desire something, we mean that we need it or order to satisfy the desire.
And this sums up what things can be an end in themselves: anything that fulfils a desire can be pursued for its own sake. If marriage satisfies a desire (rather than merely being a useful tool towards satisfying another desire), then marriage can be an end in itself (which would still leave the question of whether it should be.) So do we have a desire for marriage in itself?
To claim that something (like a banana) makes you happy is to admit that you would not happy without it (or without something similar to it, like a cheesecake), for how can something make you what you would be anyway? The point cannot be evaded by claiming that it merely makes you more happy, for this is admitting that without it you would be less happy. It implies either that you have a desire that would be unfulfilled without it, or that it would not be fulfilled to the same degree. Therefore, nothing can ever give you any pleasure of any kind unless you have a need for it.
If someone chose to have friends, then this implies that friendship makes him happy. If friendship did not make him happy, then it follows that he would have been equally happy not having friends, in which case what reason does he have for choosing to have them? Unless he believed that having friends was in some way better than not having friends, he wouldn't bother with them. His behaviour shows that he believes that friendship makes him happy; that is, he believes that he needs friends in order to be fulfilled.
Most of all, God has made us to depend upon Himself for fulfilment. We long for communion with what is boundless and eternal. We need Someone on whom we can rely to give meaning to our existence, a Being whom we can worship. St Augustine put it like this: "There is a God-shaped space in everybody's heart, and only God can fill it." When we do not have this communion with God, then we feel restless and lonely.
God has also made us to depend upon certain other things. Food for the stomach and air for the lungs are things that we need to live, and when we are deprived of such things, we are made painfully aware of their absence. We feel the need for friendship; when we are deprived of that, we feel the pain of loneliness. We also feel the need for a special partner of the opposite sex; when we are deprived of that, we feel a different kind of loneliness. That is, people feel a need for a partner, and when they are deprived they call it "loneliness", but they mean something different to what they mean when they are deprived of friendship. To tell people that they are not "lonely" because they have friends often amounts to arguing about words. From childhood, we become aware that we desire a relationship that is more than friendship, and when we reach maturity, if such a relationship does not seem forthcoming, this can lead us to feel empty, unfulfilled or even desperate.
We should not suppose that God will always provide such a partner for
everyone who desires one, as if it were His purpose that we should never
feel lack of any kind; after all it is His purpose that some people should
go hungry. And we should not suppose that He will always meet our desires,
provided that we are living according to His will, as if all suffering
is a direct result of sin. Jesus, in
There may be exceptional people who have no need for such partners, just as there may be exceptional people who have no need for friends. I don't know whether there are such people, but it is my opinion that this desire is felt by at least the vast majority of men and women. But what about those who never get married? Apart from those who have singleness imposed on them, there are many people who apparently choose to be single.
This does not prove that they have no desire to get married: they may simply have conflicting desires; they realise that they can get married, only by sacrificing something else. They forsake marriage, not because they have no desire for it, but because (wisely or foolishly) they give priority to other things.
It may be remarked that there are those who claim to be perfectly satisfied without marriage, but there are also those who claim to be perfectly satisfied without eternity and without God. If people are capable of covering up their desire for the One without whom their lives have no meaning, then how much more easily could they cover up their desire for a partner of the opposite sex? It is pride that makes people claim that they have no need of God and Christians are not different to non-Christians inasmuch as they experience pride.
Even those who eventually choose singleness, usually experiment with boyfriends and girlfriends. It is evident that, in doing this, they are either in some way trying or fulfil the desire that they have for a partner of the opposite sex, or they are looking for someone to fulfil this desire. The fact that they are not content to be mere friends proves that they desire something beyond friendship. There could be other reasons, such as peer pressure, that cause people to have boyfriends and girlfriends, but it is my opinion that in the majority of cases, people have such relationships because they want them.
So, it is my opinion that this desire is felt by the vast majority of mankind, but even if I am mistaken, this does not affect the main point: that for those who do have this desire, it is God-given.
The fact that people are made happy by being married shows that it does fulfil a desire in itself, but it could also be a means to fulfil other ends.
The purpose of the union of marriage is found in Genesis 2:18. God was making for man a suitable helper. Suitable in what way? Suitable to be the one without whom he was alone. And what kind of helper was suitable to be the one without whom he was alone? The only one that was suitable in this way was the one of whom he could say: "This is now bone my bones and flesh of my flesh."
The Hebrew of
And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper opposite to him." (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
This is the reason that she was suitable for him. This word would not have been used of another man. It would not have been used of a woman, if she were suitable by virtue of the fact that she was a fellow member of the human race. She was suitable because in some way she was opposite: she was the opposite sex. If she was suitable because she was the opposite sex, then this passage is telling us about the benefits of marriage not merely of having a human companion.
So what was not good about not being married? Something can be good either because it is desirable in itself or because it leads finally to something that is desirable in itself. Both could be said about marriage but which is?
Perhaps
Mankind's dominion over the earth comes within the context of their being created in God's image, but the marriage relationship is not designed to reflect this. When they are considered as individual human beings, both men and women are declared to be created in God's image
Then God said "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
But when we specifically consider the picture that comes from their being a married couple it is only the man who represents God
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
The marriage relationship is designed to reflect God's relationship with his people. More specifically, in the new testament it reflects Christ's union with the church. It does not show His equality with us in His humanity - it is the mother-son relationship that does that
Some have suggested that marriage could also represent the trinity. We could make an analogy here: there is love within marriage and there is love within the trinity so they do have something in common. But the Bible never makes such an analogy. The Son is described as being "begotten"
In Genesis chapter 1, mankind in general is spoken of as representing God, but marriage is never mentioned, and all that the apostle Paul says about man in particular representing God, and woman submitting to her husband as the church submits to Christ, come out of chapter 2, which teaches specifically about the relationship of marriage.
Quite apart from all of this, there are other clear indications that between chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, the emphasis shifts from how God gives mankind dominion over the world to how God makes the world such a pleasant place for man to live in
The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. (NKJV)
So marriage comes within the context of God giving man things for his pleasure. If
If the only way that marriage resembles our relationship with God is that we show selfless love to each other, then friendship would make an equally good illustration and marriage would offer nothing extra. Indeed, Jesus did use friendship as an illustration of His love
So husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. (NKJV)
The apostle does not say that marriage is like our union with Christ because we love each other. He says that because there is a similarity in the way we are united - we are "of His flesh and of His bones", there ought also to be a similarity in the way our love for each other is expressed.
Communion with Christ and therefore reconciliation with God, is the fulfilment of our greatest desire. In it's fullness, it is heaven. Surely then, the fulfilment that we are supposed to get from marriage is the way that it resembles our union with Christ.
The Song of Songs is preoccupied with the lover and his beloved telling each other how much they are in love with and how happy they make each other:
Like an apple tree among the trees of the woods,
So is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down in his shade with great delight,
And his fruit was sweet to my taste.
(Chapter 2, verse 3 NKJV)I am my beloved's,
And his desire is toward me.
(Chapter 7, verse 10 NKJV)
The fact that man was alone before he had seen woman does not mean that he could not have felt any need for her. Although he may not yet have been able to identify the object of his need, he was still perfectly capable of feeling the desire, just as a newly born baby is perfectly capable of having its first experience of hunger.
Our need of each other is not a result of the fall of mankind, any more than our need of food is a result of the fall of mankind. It was in paradise, that God said, "It is not good that man should be alone."
Generally, God has made us all to depend on each other, just as all
the parts of the human body depend on each other.
The account of the creation of the first man and woman is designed to teach about the nature of mankind in general, not only about the nature of Adam and Eve. They were our first parents and we take after them, and there are some factors of human nature which have not changed. What has changed since then, is that we have become sinners so that we are now prepared to hurt people in our efforts to get what we desire. But the desire itself is the same as the one that they felt, and is in itself pure.
God made us this way from the beginning. Just as He has given us stomachs with a space to be filled with food, so we are conscious that He has made us so that, in a man's heart there is a woman-shaped space and in a woman's heart there is a man-shaped space, and just as our desire for food can only be satisfied by food, so our desire for a partner can only be satisfied by a partner. We need only consider popular music and ask what is the most common theme for songs, to realise that this idea is on the common consciousness of mankind. The fact that this was true of the first man and woman indicates that this is the rule. If there are people who have no such desire, then they are the exception.
This is not in any way to degrade celibacy. There are indeed those who find that they can best serve God in singleness, who are described by Jesus as "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."
When we set our heart on someone to be the one who fulfils our desire for a partner, then we say that we are "in love" with that person. What else would we mean when we say that we are "in love", unless we are speaking metaphorically? We certainly mean that the way we feel about people with whom we are in love, is different to the way that we feel about people that we see as mere friends. People would not have a desire to marry a particular person, unless they had a desire to get married at all.
The Greek word for this type of love is "eros". So how do we understand love of this kind, or how do we understand what it is that we want from the person with whom we are in love? Well, we know all our desires by their satisfaction: that is, when we say that we desire something or want something or have an urge to have something, we mean that we would be content if we had the thing that we want, and without it we would not be content. What else would we mean? If we are still not content when we have something, then this implies either that this is not what we want, or that we don't have as much as we want, or that we want something else as well. Therefore, if we can perceive that something will not satisfy our desire, then that thing is not everything that we desire. So then, I must examine my own desires and hope that if you have the same desires (I assume you do, if you are human.) you will understand what I am talking about:
First of all, I will tell you what I mean by "sexual desire": Part of my sexual desire is for stimulation of my body. If I imagine something that provides exactly the same physical stimulation for my body as a woman would, but doesn't do anything else, then would this thing satisfy me? It is obvious to me that some of my desires would be satisfied (That is the desire for stimulation of my body), but it is equally obvious that this would not satisfy all of my desires that would be satisfied by a woman. I can be certain that this is not what being in love is, for the object of my desire is my own body and does not go beyond it, whereas being in love is the desire for a woman. If this were all I desired then I wouldn't want a woman at all.
I also perceive in myself, a desire for a woman's body. There is something pleasant about the sight of a woman's form. The mere sight of Pictures, paintings and even images of women that originated in the minds of artists are pleasant in themselves. It is not merely beauty that I see in a woman's body. If that were the case, then everything else that I saw beauty in would have the same effect on me. There are many other things in which I can appreciate beauty, e.g. a man's body, a tree or a sunset, but I know that they do not hold the same attraction for me as a woman's body does. I perceive that the sight of a woman's body, on its own, does satisfy some of my desires. Perhaps this is what being in love is, for this is the desire for a woman - isn't it? But it is clear to me that possessing a woman's body does not fill the space that I have for a woman.
Apart from the two mentioned above, I am not aware of any other desire that is involved in sex which is obviously physical. What if I put them together? Then would I have something that I could be in love with? If I imagine a robot that possesses all the physical things that I desire from sex: that is with the ability to stimulate my body in exactly the same physical way that a woman could, and with exactly the same form as a woman, then could I fall in love with such a "woman"? If the attraction is merely skin deep, then what does it matter, whether she has a soul? It is clear to me that such a thing still could not fill the space that I have for a woman. There is a difference between a woman and a woman's body. Therefore there is a difference between desiring a woman and desiring a woman's body.
Perhaps the feeling that I associate with being in love is really a mixture of desires. I desire her as a friend, and I desire her body. The fact that I want her body is therefore the only thing that distinguishes what I want from her, from what I want from my other friends: the only reason I want to marry her, rather than merely to be her friend is that I want her body. In that case, all I need is to have a sexual relationship with a friend and then there would be no part of my love life left unsatisfied.
It is obvious to me that my friends leave a space in my life that could not be filled merely by a physical relationship, and the reason is that the things that distinguish women from men are more than skin deep. A woman has not only a woman-shaped body, but also a woman-shaped personality. It is quite clear to me that there is something about her inner being, and not merely about her body that makes her suitable (opposite) to me, and therefore able to fill this space that God has put into my heart. I do not desire this from all women; from most women I desire merely friendship, but I do desire it from someone.
If we do set our hearts on a particular person to be the one who fulfils our need of a partner of the opposite sex, then it is only natural that we should want to make love with that person. It is possible to desire to make love to someone without particularly wanting him or her to fulfil that place in our lives, but people do not generally call such a desire "love".
But if the essential reason for getting married is to fill the woman-shaped space in me, then wouldn't any woman do? Why is it that I view some women as suitable and others as unsuitable? Doesn't this prove that I choose whom I marry for reasons other than to fill the space that I have for a woman?
Yes, but there is a difference between reasons to marry her, and reasons to marry her. Reasons to marry her would be reasons that distinguish her from other women. Reasons to marry her would be reasons that distinguish marriage from other types of relationship. I should marry her because I saw things in her that I did not see in other women. I should marry her because I saw things in marriage that I did not see in other types of relationship.
If I saw that a woman was beautiful, charming and a Christian then these would be reasons to marry her. They would not be reasons to marry her. They tell me something of the advantages of choosing her rather than other women. They tell me nothing of the advantages of choosing a marriage relationship rather than other types of relationship. Some of the reasons for which I would choose a wife would also be applicable to friendship. If I met a charming woman then I might want to be her friend in order to experience her charm, but if I wanted her to fill the woman-shaped space in my heart then friendship would not do. The companionship that I desire from her is a different type of companionship to that which I desire from a friend. There would be no reason to choose marriage rather than friendship unless marriage had something to offer that friendship could not offer.
So what does marriage offer that friendship does not? Is it sex and children? No indeed! We know our desires by their satisfaction. The desire to have sex is satisfied, not by getting married but by having sex, and the desire to have children is satisfied, not by getting married but by having children. Getting married satisfies another desire: that is the desire to get married, the desire for a partner of the opposite sex, without whom I feel alone. It is clear to me that if I had friends, children and a sexual relationship, then there would still be an empty woman-shaped space in my heart. It is equally clear to me that, even if I was denied a physical relationship and children, then a woman could still occupy this woman-shaped space in my heart.
People would not get married unless they believed that being married was in some way better than merely being friends. People have got married even when they know that they cannot have a sexual relationship - even when they know that they cannot have any kind of sexual relationship. Therefore they see that marriage is more satisfying than mere friendship for reasons other than that it offers a sexual relationship. Although marriage may sometimes have social, economic and material advantages over friendship, if they search their hearts, they will see that there is satisfaction merely in the knowledge that they belong to each other.
The purpose of the union of marriage is found in
We have a desire for a partner of the opposite sex, which is itself distinct from sexual desire.
So now we know what relationship the bible is giving its statements about. We can now know what relationship ought to be permanent, what kind of partner we ought to have only one of, what relationship people leave there parents for, what kind of partner we should make love to and what relationship we enter into by covenant. In fact, these statements give us further reason to believe that we have correctly understood what the relationship is, for this seems the perfectly natural way to behave towards such a partner.
How could you describe marriage to someone who did not feel the need for it? You could describe a sexual relationship or something else that is related to marriage, and he may make the connection between what you are describing and marriage, but only if he already understands what relationship is related these things
It is true that something happens to a couple when they get married. They are joined together
This of course is not a foolproof way of knowing which couples are married. We can only rely on what people tell us, they may be lying and they may have misunderstood. But assuming that people are honest and speaking the same language, this is how we recognise marriage relationships.
There are many things that married couples say to express the way they feel about each other. They say that they belong to each other, or that they are part of each other, or that they fulfil each other, or that their lives are complete with each other, or that they are no longer alone now that they have each other. All the things that they say mean the same thing. They are expressing the kind of fulfilment that the relationship brings to them. The reason that they feel this way is that they are now joined.
The satisfaction does not come from what they do together or from making love (though this certainly brings some kind of satisfaction). The essential satisfaction that the relationship brings comes from the fact that they are now, not figuratively but really, though mysteriously "one flesh".
It is not by being in love, that we satisfy each other's desire for a partner. Love (of this kind) is desiring a particular person as a partner. We are well aware that we do not get satisfaction from desiring someone as a partner; we only get satisfaction from having a partner. In the same way, hunger is not satisfied by desiring a particular piece of food; it is only satisfied by eating something. If we desire someone as a partner, then that person may or may not actually be our partner. If we have someone as a partner, then we may or may not desire that particular person as a partner.
The primary reason for marriage is therefore laid down in
So how do we enter into this union?
The term "one flesh" has two meanings: one refers to the act of sexual intercourse, and the other refers to the union of marriage itself. Although they are different, it is obvious that they are related.
The bible teaches that sex is morally good within marriage and morally
bad outside marriage
Sexual desire is a perfectly natural desire that normal healthy people feel strongly by the time they reach physical maturity. And inasmuch as it is such a great pleasure, it is good to satisfy it, and bad to frustrate it. For those who believe in the sanctity of sex within marriage this may be a grounds for marrying young, but this is not always possible or convenient. What if you don't meet a suitable partner until you're thirty? Following the biblical principle would mean missing out on the opportunity to make love while you are in the prime of your physical life. Many people feel that, while such an act of self-restraint may be impressive, it is not the way they would care to spend their youth. And what if you never meet someone? This would mean having to spend your whole life in celibacy.
In such situations we simply have to admit that following biblical teaching may mean making a sacrifice. But there are other situations in which we know that doing what is right may mean making a sacrifice. A man may go hungry when, if he had been prepared to steal, his hunger could have been satisfied, and yet we believe that he is happier for choosing to do what is right.
It may be that some people can become bitter about being denied fulfilment
of this kind. Indeed, just as other people can become bitter about not
getting married, or not having the education they think they deserve, or
not being beautiful. There are many situations in which we cannot have
what we want. In such situations, we must learn that God's grace is sufficient
Some people will say that you cannot know whether you are suitable for each other until you have made love. But as long as you have the right feelings for each other and there is no serious physical abnormality, it is difficult to understand how you could fail to enjoy making love. The greatest joy of sex is to be found not in expertise but in the fact that you love each other. If you don't have the right feelings then you will not find the thought of making love very pleasant but there is no reason why you should have to try it.
Some people may say that there are times when it feels right to make love to someone that they have strong feelings for. Well, an action can be right in one way and wrong in another way. Inasmuch as making love is a big sensual pleasure, it is a good thing. When you use it to have communion with someone that you are in love with, this makes it better - much better, but even this experience is tainted by the realisation that you do not truly belong to each other. It is no excuse to claim that you are in love. Love of this kind is a wonderful thing, and it makes sex and marriage so much better, but according to the bible, it is marriage and not love that sanctifies sex.
So, why would the bible make such a rule?
Perhaps it is because of the consequences of having sex outside marriage. There is a difference between the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sex, and the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sin.
First then, what are the consequences that come from the fact that it
is sin? Much the same as those that come from any other sin. You feel guilty,
defiled and estranged from God. If you do not repent of it, then you will
not be able commune with God properly, and it may put a strain on relationships
with other people. There may also be special consequences that come from
a sin that is committed against your own body
Now if sex outside marriage has such consequences because it is a sin, then it cannot be a sin because it has such consequences. They may be an indication that it is wrong but they are not the reason that it is wrong.
Then there are the consequences of sex outside marriage that come from the fact that it is sex. These consequences happen regardless of whether the people concerned have sex in sinful situations, and they may sometimes be irrevocable.
Firstly there could be physical consequences. You may risk catching a sexually transmitted disease or there may be an unwanted pregnancy. But there are situations in which you can be certain that there will be no pregnancy. And provided that you are selective about your partners, you can have sexual relationships outside marriage and still be as sure that you will not catch a sexually transmitted disease, as you would be if you had sex only with your marriage partner. If we maintain that even in those situations, sex outside marriage is still wrong, then the physical consequences cannot be the reason that it is wrong.
Some may say that sex before marriage may spoil a marriage. This does
not explain why it should be wrong if the people concerned are intending
never to marry anyone. But let us consider a situation in which a man wishes
to marry a woman, but has reservations because he knows that she has already
had sex while she was single and he fears that this may have a harmful
effect on the marriage. What is it that is really bothering him? Is it
simply that she is not a virgin? I don't think that he would have the same
concerns if he were thinking of marrying a widow. According to the bible,
there is nothing at all wrong with marrying a widow
Some may say that sex outside marriage may have harmful psychological effects on people. There are several kinds of emotional suffering that they could be talking about. There is a kind that comes from a person becoming romantically attached to another and then being torn apart from him or her. This is what we call a "broken heart". But is it sex that causes people to get attached in this way? In my experience, when people had steady sexual relationships they did indeed get hurt in this way by splitting up, but when people had one night stands they did not. On the other hand, when people had steady relationships without sex, then they still got hurt in this way by splitting up. If we are going to use the argument of broken hearts then it makes far more sense to conclude that we shouldn't date than to conclude that we shouldn't have sex before marriage.
There are other ways in which this can cause people to suffer emotionally. People who have been involved in casual sex may feel cheep because they have not been treated with the proper respect, but this does not explain why we should feel that being treated like this is not a proper way to be treated.
Some may find that their consciences start to harden, so that they become involved in other sinful practices, and their attitude towards other people becomes more uncaring. But again, we can only believe that their sexual habits had anything to do with this if we begin by assuming that sex outside marriage is a sin and an uncaring way to treat someone.
Some may feel guilt and regret over what they did, but only if they begin by assuming that what they did was wrong. So we find that the emotional suffering that comes from sex outside marriage, comes as a result of the fact that it is a sin. It therefore cannot be the reason that it is a sin.
The relationship between sex and marriage can be seen not only in the
fact that the bible teaches that people ought not to have sex unless they
are married, but also in the fact that it teaches that if an unmarried
couple do have sex then they ought to get married
The reason that sex outside marriage is wrong is entirely to do with
the way that sex and marriage are related. Our physiological nature is
in many ways bound up with our psychological nature. This is why we smile
when we are happy, or why we feel pain when our bodies are damaged, or
why we are compelled to fall down before God. It is also why sex outside
of marriage cannot be considered a harmless sensual pleasure
The body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (NKJV)
As will be discussed later, the physical relationship that is appropriate to marriage is not confined solely to the act of sexual intercourse.
But in what way is sex related to marriage? What do we mean when we say that sex is part of marriage? There are only two ways in which it can be related: as the cause (or as part of the cause) or as an effect.
By saying that sex is the cause (or part of the cause) of marriage we mean that we are married because we have sex (or partly because we sex). By saying that it is an effect, we mean that we have sex because we are married; the sexual relationship is a natural consequence, which flows from the marriage relationship, although there could be circumstances that prevent this natural consequence from happening.
If the same question were asked about children, then it should be obvious that children are an effect of marriage and not part of the cause. Having children is definitely related to marriage, but in what way? When we say that children are part of marriage, we mean that they are a natural consequence of it, and we do not mean that they are part of what constitutes it, and although they are a great joy (and a great loss to those who cannot have them) they are not essentially what we get married for.
Now, does the bible really teach that we become "one
flesh" in the way described by Jesus in
Firstly, is sex the sole cause
of marriage? If this were true then there would be no such thing as sex
before marriage. Where then would be the sense in verses like
If it is possible to have sex without being married (in God's eyes), then we cannot say that people are married merely because they have sex. Therefore sex cannot be the sole cause of marriage.
Now, is sex part of the cause of marriage? If this were true then how could Joseph
possibly take Mary as his wife without having sexual relations with her
If it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without having sex, then we cannot say that people are not married merely because they do not have sex. Therefore sex is not part of the cause of marriage. It must follow from this that the sexual relationship is an effect of the marriage relationship, and not part of its cause.
The relationship between sex and marriage
can be seen in
Marriage is honourable among all and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (NKJV)
The first part of the verse teaches that the marriage relationship makes the sexual relationship wholly natural. What is implied by this, and also explicitly taught in the second part of the verse, is that without the marriage relationship, the sexual relationship is wholly unnatural. It is clear from the bible that marriage is the only thing that gives people the right to have sex.
Although it is very clear that becoming "one flesh"
as in married, is closely related to becoming "one
flesh" as in sexual intercourse,
On the other hand, there are verses that clearly teach that we become "one flesh" as in married, as a result of a covenant.
Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
(Mal. 2:14 NKJV)... so I spread my wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine.
(Ezek. 16:8 NKJV)
"Spread my wing over you" is a metaphorical way of speaking of marriage. Although the whole passage is figuratively describing God's relationship with His people, this proves that one of the things that this relationship has in common with marriage is that it is entered into by covenant.
Saying that sexual intercourse is necessary in order to consummate the marriage is misleading. "To consummate" in this sense means "to enter into the full privileges of", so it isn't even accurate because having children is also one of the privileges of marriage. As the question is about what we have to do in order to enter into the mysterious union of marriage, then it is not at all to the point to ask what we have to do in order to enter into the full privileges of marriage. The bible does not teach that we have to enter into the full privileges of marriage, in order to be married: therefore, it is not necessary to have had sexual intercourse, in order to be bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage.
What would it imply about our assurance of salvation, if God's covenant
with us were not to come into effect until we were to enter into the full
privileges of the covenant? It would mean that we could never be sure of
getting to heaven until we had got there. We have not yet experienced the
full privileges of being children of God, but we are children of
God, none the less
Whatever the law may say about the need to consummate a marriage in order for it to be a legal marriage, is irrelevant: the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to the law's definition of marriage.
Some may say that you become married when you have a wedding. What is it about it that makes it a wedding? What does a wedding have to contain, in order to be capable of marrying people? For instance, is it essential to have photographs taken? Most people would say that the essential thing is the marriage ceremony. That is, the thing that a wedding contains that makes it capable of marrying people, is the marriage ceremony. We must remember that, if the essential part of a wedding is the marriage ceremony, then this implies that anything that contains the marriage ceremony is a wedding.
So, in order to become married, it is necessary to have a marriage ceremony. What is it about it that makes it a marriage ceremony? That is, what does it have to contain, in order for it to be capable of marrying people? For instance, is it essential that they exchange rings? If they don't have rings, does this mean that it is not a marriage ceremony? Is it essential for someone to pronounce them "man and wife"? Most people would say that the essential thing is the marriage covenant. That is, the thing that a marriage ceremony has to contain in order to be capable of marrying people is the marriage covenant. We must remember that, if the essential part of a marriage ceremony is the marriage covenant, then this implies that anything that contains the marriage covenant is a marriage ceremony and, as anything that contains the marriage ceremony is a wedding, then anything that contains the marriage covenant is a wedding.
In the bible, there simply are no examples of how the marriage covenant
was conducted, and even if there were, this would not mean that we would
be bound to do it in the same way, for the bible does not bind our conscience
merely by examples. The bible simply
teaches that we have to make a covenant
If God has created men and women with a desire to marry and an instinctive knowledge of what we require from each other, then we would expect society to create laws and customs that reflect that part of our nature. And this is in fact what we see. All cultures have customs relating to marriage, even in those lands where the bible has had no influence. This does not mean that all laws and customs must reflect the way God intended things to be; we must take into account the fact that people are sinners and may make errors in their conduct. There are some societies in which sex before marriage is considered a perfectly acceptable thing and others in which it is frowned upon.
Such cultural differences can be explained by sin, but how can we explain the similarities except by admitting that there is something in human nature that compels us to behave in a certain way towards marriage? How can we explain the fact that even people who reject the civil institution of marriage still follow the same rules? They still pair off; they still get hurt when the relationship comes to an end; they still feel that they would not want their partner to make love to other people; there are still those who seem to believe that there is something good about not making love to just anyone they fancy, but only to people with whom they have a special relationship.
In all of this, we have to remember that there are basically two opposing forces driving human behaviour. On the one hand, we were created in the image of God, we understand what is good and we want to do it. On the other hand, sinful desires drive us away from good behaviour and cloud our judgement about what is the right thing to do. It is not at all impossible that a society as a whole may fall into a sinful practice. Even a supposedly bible believing nation is not barred from such an error. So the fact that something is a well accepted custom of the day or even that it has been for hundreds of years cannot be a grounds for concluding that it must be all right, if it proves to be at odds with the bible.
So then, the essential reason that people marry is not because of civil institutions; rather civil institutions were based upon something that already existed. Adam and Eve were married before the existence of civil society, so marriage cannot be a civil institution in its essential nature. As Adam and Eve were married, not by virtue of any civil law, so any man and woman could take each other as husband and wife. Adam and Eve were not legally recognised as being married: therefore we cannot say that people are not married, merely because they are not legally recognised as being married.
Now this does not mean that I have a low opinion of legal marriage.
Our laws concerning marriage were originally based on the scriptures. Even
in those lands where the bible has had no influence, their laws and customs
were based on human nature, and human nature was designed by God as it
is recorded in
I say "usually" because there are exceptions. A legal marriage is usually a true marriage, but it is not a true marriage by virtue of the fact that it is a legal marriage. The laws and customs of society were based upon another law, which is itself prior to and higher than the laws and customs that were based upon it. A legal marriage is only a true marriage by virtue of the fact that it conforms to the higher law. On the other hand anything that conforms to the higher law is a true marriage even if it does not conform to the laws or customs of society, and this is where we get the term "common-law marriage".
If we say that it is necessary to get legally married to be married, and then define marriage as being legally married, then all we are saying is that it is necessary to get legally married in order to be legally married. The bible says that marriage is a mysterious union. What reason is there to believe that it is necessary to get legally marriage, in order to enter into this mysterious union?
The possession of a marriage licence is not what marriage is. In the same way, the possession of a driving licence, road tax, insurance and an MOT certificate is the normal requirement (in this country) for driving a car; but that is not what car driving is: someone who drives a car without them is still driving a car.
It may be objected that if the bible commands us to obey the civil law, then doesn't this mean that the bible makes it necessary for us to get legally married.
If it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married
in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying the civil law,
then the answer may be "yes". God does command us to obey the civil law
Is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying the civil law, in cases where the civil law does not contradict the bible? If we have a strict definition of the civil law, which is concerned solely about what is legal, then the answer is "no", for it is not illegal to have a common-law marriage. The law does not say that it is necessary to go through the civil contract in order to be married; it merely says that it is necessary to go through the civil contract in order to be legally married.
But we should not merely consider whether something is legal or illegal,
but also whether it is culturally acceptable. The fact that Jesus attended
a wedding
So then, is it necessary to get legally married? Necessary for what? Necessary in order to fulfil the bible's requirements. The bible's requirements about what? If it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about obeying society's rules, and therefore living at peace with all men, then the answer is "yes" - except where society's rules contradict the bible. However if it is a question of whether is it necessary to get legally married in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about being married, then the answer is "no", the bible does not teach that it is necessary for us to fulfil the bibles requirements about obeying society's rules concerning marriage, in order for us to be married in God's eyes. To say that people are in the wrong is one thing; to say that they are not married is another thing entirely.
If we say that people are not married in God's eyes on the grounds that they are not obeying society's requirements concerning marriage (as God told them to), then we may as well say that people are not driving a car in God's eyes on the grounds that they are not obeying society's requirements concerning car driving (as God told them to). The bible defines marriage as a relationship, not a state of moral correctness, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Therefore, it is not necessary to be legally married, in order to be
bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage, and this is the point of
practical importance. This is not in any way to approve of people who choose
to forsake the legal requirements of marriage; it is merely to say that
they have an obligation to keep God's requirements concerning marriage,
regardless of whether they have kept society's requirements concerning
marriage
It may be suggested that a covenant can be considered
a true covenant only if someone other than God and the parties concerned
witnesses it. This may be true if we are talking about a legal covenant,
but we are in fact talking about what the bible means by "covenant". When
people made covenants in the bible, they sometimes called upon witnesses,
but in every case they were referring either to God or to the parties.
Never is there an indication that anyone else played a part in the making
of the covenant, and in the case of the covenant that David and Jonathan
made
The reason that we make vows in front of witnesses is as a safeguard, so that one party has got proof that these vows were made in case the other party should try to break them. There may be all sorts of reasons for saying that it is a good idea to make a legal covenant. It may make the rules of marriage, to some extent legally enforceable, although in our society this argument has little force. Making the marriage into a public thing does to some extent put pressure on the parties to keep their covenant.
But no matter how many good reasons you could come up with, for saying
that legal, public and enforceable marriages are good ideas, this would
not change the fact that the bible
says we become married by a covenant
If a Christian couple have committed their marriage to God, and are intent on living their married life in a way that is honouring to Him and consistent with what He has commanded, then they could be said to be experiencing "Christian" marriage. In the same way, a group of Christians who have committed a game of cricket to God, and are intent on playing in a way that is honouring to Him could be said to be experiencing "Christian" cricket.
The sort of things that make a marriage more fulfilling, happy and honouring
to God such as love and respect can be found in places such as
It is not for us to decide for ourselves what kind of relationship we are going to apply the rules of marriage to. When the bible says that marriage ought to be a certain way, we infer that this rule applies to all marriages, not merely to good, "Christian", or normal marriages. If the bible gives us rules about how all marriages should be treated (regardless of whether they are "Christian" marriages), then to say that we are not interested unless they are "Christian" marriages is ignoring the Word of God. Marriage will become good, if we obey the rules that God has given us. If we decide that we are only going to apply the rules to a good relationship, then that is the same as saying that we are only going to obey the rules in a relationship in which we are already obeying the rules.
There are those who conclude that, as a marriage ought to be
submitted to Christ, only Christians are capable of being truly married.
For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church. (NKJV)
This presents a relationship in which the woman is subject to the man and they are both subject to Christ. Obviously, only Christians can be subject to Christ, but there is no implication that one relationship cannot exist without the other.
This arrangement that is applied to the woman, the man and Christ is
also applied, in
A marriage between non-christians (or between a non-christian and a
Christian) is just as binding as a marriage between Christians.
Someone may say that it is necessary to be joined by God in order to be married. But then the question must be asked: "How do we know whether we have been joined by God?" If we claim to know that one group of people are joined by God, and another group are not, then we must back up our claim by stating how we know whether people are joined by God.
God acts sometimes according to His ordained power and sometimes according to His absolute power. His ordained power is simply referring to the fact that He is everywhere, controlling all events, great and small, according to the laws that He has ordained to govern the universe. His absolute power refers to the fact that He sometimes intervenes in His ordained laws, and does things that these laws are quite inadequate to explain. This is no more difficult for Him; it is simply different. Into this category fall prophecy, inspiration, miracles and the regeneration of a soul who becomes a Christian.
God's joining people together in matrimony falls into the category of
His ordained power. In
The point is that we do something that results in our being joined by God. For convenience I shall put it like this: We do something to persuade God to join us. So then, what does God require us to do?
It may be objected that if marriage is a sacred institution, then doesn't this mean that it is necessary for Christians to enter into it in fear of God? Isn't it therefore necessary for them to celebrate it, not only as something between themselves, or even as something between themselves and society, but also something between themselves and God?
This would seem reasonable, and in most cases this will lead people to celebrate their marriage with a religious service. There may sometimes be exceptional circumstances. The classic example is of two people cast together on a desert island. But even in exceptional cases, Christians ought at least to commit their marriage to God in prayer.
So then, is it necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way? Necessary for what? If it is a question of whether is it necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to be treating marriage in a proper way - as a sacred institution, then the answer is "yes". However if it is a question of whether it is necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to fulfil the bible's requirements about being married, then the answer is "no", the bible does not teach that it is necessary for us to treat marriage in a proper way - as a sacred institution, in order for us to be married in God's eyes. To say that they are in the wrong is one thing; to say that they are not married is another thing entirely.
Therefore, it is not necessary to celebrate marriage in a religious way, in order to be bound by the bible's rules concerning marriage, and this is the point of practical importance. The bible's rules concerning marriage, apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage.
Someone may say that it is necessary to be in the presence of God in order to get married. What do you mean by "the presence of God"? If you mean, that God must see what we are doing, then we are always in the presence of God.
If by "the presence of God" you mean "in a church", then saying that it is necessary to get married in a church because it is necessary for people to get married in the presence of God, is exactly the same as saying that it is necessary to get married in a church, because it is necessary for people to get married in a church. So whatever you mean by "the presence of God", what scriptures can you come up with to prove that it is necessary to get married "in the presence of God"?
There is no reason to believe that invoking God's blessing is an essential part of marriage. If it were necessary to ask God to join us in order to be married, then don't you think the bible would have said so?
What does God require us to do in order to persuade Him to join us?
This question must be answered scripturally. The
bible says that we become married by covenant
A covenant simply means a two-way promise. Both sides of the agreement make promises to each other. There are no biblical examples of how the marriage covenant was conducted. There are examples of how people conducted other covenants but they vary from one to another. Sometimes they were witnessed; sometimes they backed up their promises with oaths and curses; sometimes they erected stones as a symbol and reminder of the promises that they made. Although, all these things could be considered to ratify the covenant (which means to give formal consent to) and may make the covenant more enforceable (and this may be desirable) none of this ever made it any more effective than it would have been if they had not done these things. A covenant is a covenant simply because they make promises. To say that they are not bound to keep it simply because they didn't make it in particular way would be completely arbitrary. Why should we ask what we have to do in order for our promises to be binding? The bible does not teach that we have to do anything other than make promises, in order for them to be binding, so this should be the end of the matter.
The way we give formal consent to the covenant with God, is to be baptised, but if we said that this covenant does not come into effect until we ratify it, then this would mean that we could have no assurance of salvation unless we have been baptised.
The question of whether a marriage covenant needs to be conducted in any particular way in order to qualify as a marriage covenant, should be settled by whether the bible ever says so. If the bible has said that it must be a covenant, without any further qualification, in order for it to be capable of marrying people, then the matter is closed. The bible says that we become married by covenant - not by declaring what we are doing to anyone, not by being witnessed, not by being recognised by any man or any society, not by celebrating what we are doing, not by performing some rite to symbolise what we are doing, not by asking God to marry us, not by asking God to bless what we are doing, not by asking God to recognise what we are doing, not by going to a place of worship or anywhere else, not by giving formal consent to what we are doing, not by entering into the full privileges of what we are doing - simply by covenant, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage.
So, we become married by a covenant - a covenant
to what? To marriage - what is
marriage? Some may say that we become married to someone when we make
a lifelong commitment to that person. David and Jonathan made a lifelong
commitment to each other
A lot of confusion comes from the fact that we often think of the marriage covenant as being constituted by all of the vows that we make. The exact vows that people make vary from one wedding to another. Some women promise to obey their husbands and some do not. Even those who believe that it is right for them to make this promise would not think that this promise is part of what constitutes the covenant: that is, they would not say that it would not be a marriage covenant if they did not make this promise. They do not believe that it is right to obey their husbands merely because they promise to, but rather they promise to because they believe that it is right to obey their husbands.
The same applies to some of the other marriage vows. It is not right for them to love each other merely because they promise to, but rather they promise to because it is right for them to love each other. It is not wrong for them to be unfaithful merely because they promise not to, but rather they promise not to because it is wrong for them to be unfaithful. It is not wrong to break off a relationship of this type merely because they promise not to, but rather they promise not to because it is wrong to break off a relationship of this type. If the only reason for saying that they ought to behave in this way, is that this is what they promised to do, then why should we say that these ought to be the terms of the marriage? Why not say that they are free to make up their own terms? Why shouldn't they promise to take each other for the time being, with the understanding that they can have a bit on the side? If we say that the marriage ought to have particular terms, then we are admitting that there is a reason that they should behave in this way, other than that they promised to do so.
The fact that we promise to love each other, to forsake all others and to stay together until death, may lead people to believe that the marriage covenant is a commitment to a loving, exclusive, lifelong relationship. Not so: it is a commitment to a relationship, which ought to be loving, exclusive and lifelong.
The bible does not teach that we have to make these vows in order to be married; it merely teaches that when we have committed ourselves to marriage, we ought to follow these rules, and the bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage. We make the vows because we perceive that the things that we promise to do are the right things to do. They have become necessary as a safeguard, because of our sinful, fickle nature, but if we still lived in a perfect world, in an unfallen state then these vows would be unnecessary because we would do what was right by nature: once we had agreed to make someone our marriage partner, it would simply never occur to us to separate what God has joined together.
What is this thing that they commit themselves to? It is not possible to make a commitment unless we understand what it is that we are committing ourselves to. Therefore, even though we may find it difficult (or impossible) to describe, we understand what marriage is.
It is not necessary to be aware of what all the intrinsic qualities of marriage are, in order to understand what marriage is, any more than it is necessary to be aware of what all the intrinsic qualities of a triangle are, in order to understand what a triangle is. Just as it is possibly to understand what marriage is without understanding all of its qualities, so it is possible to commit ourselves to marriage without understanding all of its qualities.
Committing ourselves to a relationship without understanding one of its qualities does not imply that the relationship does not still posses the quality that we have failed to recognise. If a couple have committed themselves to marriage without understanding that it should not be broken off arbitrarily, then this does not mean that their relationship can be broken off arbitrarily. It is still a relationship of a type that should not be broken off arbitrarily, even if they did not agree to this.
One of the essential qualities of marriage is that it ought to be a
lifelong relationship. There may be exceptional circumstances that justify
divorce. What exactly these circumstances are will
be discussed in due course, but at this point it is sufficient to say
that a marriage should not be broken off arbitrarily. That is, it should
not be broken off just because one or both of the parties want to
Saying that marriage ought to be lifelong is, of course, the same as saying that it ought not to be broken off: saying that the relationship ought to continue until death, is exactly the same as saying that it ought not to end until death. It is not good enough to say that it will be lifelong unless it is ended, for this qualification nullifies the statement that it will be lifelong. It is the same as saying that it will be lifelong unless it is not. Therefore, anyone who enters into marriage with the idea that he or she can get a divorce arbitrarily has not made a lifelong commitment.
Some say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that the relationship ought to be permanent; others say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that the relationship ought to be sexual; others say that it is absolutely necessary that they understand that they have an obligation to love each other; and others would say other things or combinations of them. But why?
It is true that it is intrinsic to the marriage relationship that it ought to be permanent, and that a sexual relationship will naturally flow from it. But, we can conclude from this, that we have to commit ourselves to marriage on the understanding that it ought to be permanent, or that a sexual relationship will naturally flow from it, in order to be married, only if we assume that it is necessary to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding all that is intrinsic to it, in order to be married.
It is also true that it is intrinsic to the marriage relationship that
wives should obey their husbands
So, the only way to prove that we have to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding a specific thing about it, in order to be married, is either to prove that this is what marriage is or to come up with a scripture which specifically teaches that we have to commit ourselves to this thing, in order to be married.
Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a permanent relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be permanent, in order to be married? Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a sexual relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be sexual, in order to be married? Do you have any scriptures that teach that marriage is a loving relationship, or that we have to commit ourselves to it on the understanding that it must be loving, in order to be married? The case must stand or fall by whether either position can be justified from the scriptures. If neither position can be justified from the scriptures then insisting that it is necessary to commit ourselves to this thing (whatever it is) is adding to the scriptures.
Does the bible teach that marriage is a permanent relationship?
It teaches that marriage ought to be a permanent relationship
We do not become married by a commitment to being in love. Being in love is a desire, which supposes that there is something that is desired. The commitment is to the thing that we desire, not to the desire itself. What do we desire?
It is inadequate to say that it is a desire for a person, unless we state what it is that we want from the person. It is inadequate to say that it is companionship that we want from the person, unless we state what kind of companionship we want. Friendship love is a desire for some kind of companionship from a person. We want the person to be more than a friend, otherwise we would have no grounds for choosing marriage rather than friendship.
Some may say that we become married when we make a commitment to a sexual relationship. They must state what they mean by a sexual relationship. A physical relationship? A covenant to a physical relationship means exactly the same thing as the mutual offer of a physical relationship, or mutual physical consent. Are we to believe that that is what a marriage covenant is?
If a sexual relationship is what we commit ourselves to, then a sexual relationship is
what marriage is. As the reason for marriage is the need that we have for a partner, marriage must be the fulfilment of this need. Therefore we commit ourselves to be the one that our partner needs. If a sexual relationship is what we commit ourselves to, then a sexual relationship is what we get married for. Man's need is described in
If we say that we become married by making a commitment to a sexual relationship then, as we commit ourselves to be each other's husband or wife, a husband or wife is essentially a sexual partner. And if a husband or wife is a sexual partner then when we desire a partner, what we really desire is a sexual partner. Therefore being in love with someone (that is desiring him or her as a partner) is wanting to have a sexual relationship with him or her. We are aware that being in love with someone is different to wanting to have a sexual relationship with him or her: it is a different kind of desire.
It is not a desire for a combination of friendship, sex and children, for if this were the case then the desire would be satisfied by a sexual relationship with, and children by a friend. We desire a special type of companionship, one that fills the space that we have for a partner of the opposite sex. The kind of relationship that fulfils this role is one in which they belong to each other and are part of each other, in a mysterious way. This is what we desire: therefore, this is what we commit ourselves to.
If, by a sexual relationship, you mean nothing more than the most obvious and basic meaning of the word "sexual", then a covenant to a sexual relationship is nothing more than consent to a physical relationship, and if we become married by a covenant to a sexual relationship, then we must conclude that any couple who consent to a physical relationship are married. What exactly the physical things are, is not the point: the point is that if a sexual relationship is to be defined solely in physical terms then, whatever these physical things are, consent to these physical things is what a marriage covenant is. The only way around this conclusion is to say that, by the word "sexual", you mean something other than the obvious, or at least you mean something more than the obvious, in which case what exactly do you mean by the word "sexual"?
If, by the word "sexual", you do mean something other than the obvious, then I can imagine only one other thing that you can mean. If I am mistaken, then no doubt, you will enlighten me, but the only thing that I can imagine is the fulfilling of each other's desire for a partner of the opposite sex. It is useless to ask me to explain more clearly what I mean, for if we agree that the bible has not told us in exactly what way we are joined, then it should be obvious that there is no clearer way to describe it, and no way at all to describe it to someone who does not feel the need for such a companion.
The only way we can recognise this union is by the satisfaction that it brings. So, the only way we can understand that we are committing ourselves to this union is by committing ourselves to fulfil each other's need for a partner of the opposite sex.
Someone may say that the covenant is more than sexual consent, but must include it. A marriage covenant is a covenant to marriage. If sexual consent partly constitutes the marriage covenant, then the sexual relationship partly constitutes marriage. We have already concluded, from the fact that it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without a sexual relationship, that the sexual relationship cannot be part of what constitutes marriage, but rather must be a natural consequence of it. We become married by committing ourselves to what marriage is, and not by committing ourselves to its consequences.
Whatever arguments may be applied to the relationship between sex and marriage, may also be applied to the relationship between conception and marriage. People may find themselves in circumstances that prevent them from having a sexual relationship, but they may also find themselves in circumstances that prevent them from conceiving. On the other hand they may never have had any intention of having a sexual relationship, but they may also never have had any intention of conceiving. So where's the difference? Why should one be treated differently to the other?
It is true that sex was intended to flow from marriage, but this is also true of conception. It is true that sex is sanctified by marriage, but this is also true of conception. Does this prove that conception is an essential part of marriage? If not, then neither does it prove that sex is an essential part of marriage. Does it prove that people have to enter into marriage, with the intention of it leading to conception, in order to be married? If not, then neither does it prove that they have to enter into marriage, with the intention of it leading to sex, in order to be married.
Just as the thing we need in a partner is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in us (from which the sexual relationship flows), so the thing that we commit ourselves to is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in our partner (from which the sexual relationship flows).
It must be pointed out that the method of becoming married (by covenant) is defined by what we commit ourselves to, and not by what the primary motive is for making the commitment. There could be all sorts of good and bad reasons for motivating us to make the commitment, other than that we want a marriage partner: people have married, for love, for sex, for children, for money, for fame, for convenience, in obedience to their parents, at gun point and to save life, but the fact remains that they made the commitment, and the bible teaches that that is the way to become married.
One final point: we know that there is a point in every Christian's life when he puts his faith in Christ, but not everyone can point to a specific day and not everyone expressed their faith with a specific prayer. It is theoretically possible that two people may commit themselves to each other without being able to remember a the day when it happened, and without expressing their commitment in words (I am pointing out that they could do this; I am certainly not saying that they should.), but they always in some way communicate that they have accepted each other to fill this place in their lives.
In summary, we must remember firstly, that marriage is not a wedding. At
a wedding we make a commitment (at least formally) to each other, we make
a declaration (at least formally) to others, we obtain the law's (and the
public's) recognition and (at a Christian wedding) we ask for God's blessing.
Marriage is the thing that we commit ourselves to, the thing
that we declare that we are doing, the thing that is legally recognised
and the thing that we ask God to bless. This thing is a relationship.
In the scriptures, our relationship with God is constantly compared to the relationship between a man and woman.
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (NKJV)
Secondly, we must remember that
this relationship is not essentially a sexual relationship. Although
a normal healthy couple would want to have a sexual relationship,
marriage cannot be defined in these terms. Men and women become
"one flesh" in a way that
the bible has not technically described, and in which they should never be separated. The only way that we can recognise it, is by the fact that it fulfils our need of a partner of the opposite sex,
as it is described in
Thirdly, we must remember that we do not fulfil each other's need of a partner by being in love with each other (although we are supposed to be in love with our partners).
When we set our desire on someone as the one to fill the man or woman-shaped space in our hearts, then we say that we are "in love" with that person. This is what love (of this type - eros) is. When we set our desire on God as the one to fill up the God-shaped space in our hearts (as only God can: nothing else works.), then we could (metaphorically) be said to be "in love" with God; that is we have a love for God, called "worship", which is like eros. People have also metaphorically described the way they feel about people with whom they are in love by saying that they "worship" them.
We describe our partner as our Husband
or wife. In most languages (Hebrew and Greek included) the word for "wife"
is the same as the word for "woman", and the word for "husband" is the
same as the word for "man". (In English, the word "wife" is archaic for
"woman".) It simply means that she is his woman and he is her man: she
is the woman who fills the woman-shaped space in his heart, and he is the
man who fills the man-shaped space in her heart (Song
of
My beloved is mine, and I am his.
Now that she is his woman, she is
joined to him and he thinks of her as part of his body
So men ought to love their own women as their own bodies; he who loves his woman loves himself. (NKJV)
In the marriage relationship, we fulfil each other's need of a partner, not by being in love with each other (that is by desiring to be each others partners), but rather by belonging to each other and being part of each other (that is by being each others partners).
Fourthly, we must remember that marriage is constituted not by civil laws, but by Divine laws.
Fifthly, we must remember that we
enter into this relationship by agreeing to enter into it
The covenant (agreement or commitment) that is made between marriage
partners, which is essentially that he will be her man and she will be
his woman, is like the covenant that God makes with us, which is essentially
that He will be our God and we shall be His people
Just as the covenant that God makes with us does not come into effect, only when we have ratified the covenant (by being baptised) or when we have consummated the covenant (by entering into heaven), so the marriage covenant is effective, with all its implications, from the moment it is made.
Finally, we must remember that there are responsibilities as well as
privileges that go with the relationship. Just as the relationship that
we have with God necessarily should be permanent and involve that we forsake
all other gods and give what belongs to God (worship) to nothing else
|
|
Firstly, I must define what I mean by "dating". I do not mean going on dates. It is obvious that there is a difference between having a boy or girl as a friend and having a boyfriend or girlfriend. Dating is not distinguished from friendship because it is between people of the opposite sex, or because it is an exclusive relationship. There are other types of relationship that we may choose to have with people of the opposite sex, and with only one person. Dating is distinguished from other types of relationship because we perceive that it ought to be this way: it would be wrong to have this type of relationship with someone of the same sex, or with more than one person at a time.
When a couple start dating, they view each other differently to when they were merely friends. They feel as if they have some sort of exclusive claim over each other so that there are certain things that belong to them alone, and that if their partner did these things with other people, then this would be unfaithful to them.
The whole point of the book is to address this kind of behaviour - not the behaviour of meeting each other and going out together, but the behaviour of viewing each other as if they have some sort of exclusive claim over each other. I am addressing the subject not because I approve of it, but because it really happens - not merely among non-christians: the majority of Christians that I have spoken to would view their boyfriends or girlfriends in this way. This type of relationship therefore needs addressing; not to do so would be to bury our heads in the sand.
Most people use the word "dating" to mean two things: one is going on dates and the other is having a boyfriend or girlfriend. Although the two usually go together, they can be separated. You can go on a date with someone without his or her being your boyfriend or girlfriend, and you can have a boyfriend or girlfriend without going on dates with him or her. The word "dating" is commonly used to describe both the activity of going on dates and the relationship between a boyfriend and girlfriend.
To tell me that I have an incorrect definition of "dating" is therefore to argue about words. I am addressing the subject of the type of relationship that I have described. I have chosen the word "dating" to refer to it, firstly because (in my opinion) it is the word that most other people would use when referring to it, and secondly because I don't have a better word to use. If you have one, please let me know.
Someone is not your girlfriend or boyfriend because you go out (to dinner, the pictures, etc.) with him or her, but rather you go out with him or her because he or she is your girlfriend or boyfriend. Someone does not become your girlfriend or boyfriend simply because you go out with him or her, and going out is not an essential part of having a girlfriend or boyfriend.
If it is possible to date (that is to have a boyfriend or girlfriend) without going on dates (that is going out to dinner, the pictures, etc.), then we cannot say that two people are not each other's boyfriend and girlfriend merely because they do not go out to places with each other. If it is possible to go on dates (that is to go out to dinner, the pictures, etc.) without dating (that is having a boyfriend or girlfriend) then we cannot say that two people are each other's boyfriend and girlfriend merely because they go out to places with each other.
If it is possible to date without seeking life partners, then we cannot say that people are not dating, merely because they are not exploring each other as life partners. If it is possible to seek life partners without dating, then we cannot say that people are dating, merely because they are exploring each other as life partners.
I and many others have felt that dating ought to be used only to seek life partners, but in saying this we imply that dating can be used in other ways. Therefore when we say dating ought to be used only to seek life partners, then by dating we must mean something other than seeking life partners, otherwise we would be saying that people who are seeking life partners ought to do this only to seek life partners.
If it is possible to date without a physical relationship (e.g., kissing and cuddling), then we cannot say that people are not dating merely because they do not have a physical relationship. If it is possible to have a physical relationship without dating, then we cannot say that people are dating merely because they have a physical relationship.
If it is possible to date without being in love, then we cannot say that people are not dating merely because they are not in love. If it is possible to be in love without dating, then we cannot say that people are dating merely because they are in love.
If it is possible to date without being attracted (sexually or otherwise) to each other, then we cannot say that people are not dating merely because they are not attracted to each other. If it is possible to be attracted to someone without dating him or her then we cannot say that people are dating merely because they are attracted to each other.
It cannot be a combination of physical things and physical attraction and being in love, for it is possible to date without doing one of them. It cannot be physical things or physical attraction or being in love, for it is possible to do one of these things without dating. Therefore, dating must exist independently of these things.
What we see in a girlfriend or boyfriend is a partner of the opposite sex. What else would we see in a girlfriend or boyfriend? We must see more than a friend, or else we would be content to be mere friends. If a physical partner were what we saw, then this would explain why we should want to do physical things, but it would not explain why we should want to date. If a potential marriage partner were what we saw, then this would explain why we should want to find out whether we were suitable for each other, but it would not explain why we should want to date to each other. We feel alone without the person, and we feel fulfilled by the person: he or she fills the space that we have in our hearts for a partner of the opposite sex, a space that the companionship of a mere friend could not fill.
You may ask how a relationship could be considered to fill the space that you have for a person of the opposite sex in any way, if there is no physical relationship, no physical attraction and no being in love. But this is exactly what we have said about marriage, and the arguments that have been used regarding the definition of marriage are equally applicable to dating: we know our desires by their satisfaction:
Being in love, is the desire to possess someone as a partner. Whether it is marriage or whether it is dating that we are talking about, our desire for a partner is not satisfied by desiring someone as a partner, but by having a partner. It is not satisfied by a physical relationship, for being in love is different to being physically attracted. It is certainly not satisfied by physical desire (or any other kind of desire), for we do not satisfy our desire for one thing by desiring something else.
Dating cannot be recognised by what dating couples do. They may do nothing different to what friends do, and yet they are more than friends. They feel fulfilled by each other in a way that they could not be fulfilled by mere friendship, and their fulfilment comes from the knowledge that they belong to each other.
If it is wrong to marry someone, while you have another marriage partner, then what is the reason for this? It is because this type of relationship belongs only to one person. You may say that this would be wrong because it would be unfaithful to your present partner, but in that case, it would be unfaithful because it belongs only to one person. Why else would it be unfaithful?
You may say that that it would be unfaithful because, you made a promise not to share this relationship with anyone else, but in that case, you made this promise because it was right to make this promise, and it was right to make this promise because it is a relationship that belongs only to one person. Why else would it be right to make this promise? Why else would either of you want to make this promise?
Exactly the same argument applies to dating: the reason that it is wrong to date more than one person, is that the space that is occupied by a dating partner is a space that should be given to only one person.
Could we conclude that a boyfriend or girlfriend and a husband or wife occupy different spaces, but they both happen to be spaces that should be occupied only by people of the opposite sex, and by only one person? This may be conceivable, until we remember that not only are they both exclusive relationships, but they also exclude each other. Not only is it wrong to date more than one person at a time, just as it is wrong to be married to more than one person at a time, but it is also wrong to date someone while you are married to someone else.
Perhaps this is because of the things that go with dating: the physical relationship, the physical desire and being in love? These are indeed things that should be given to only one person, but I put it to you that even if you had no physical relationship, no physical desire and no love of this kind for your dating partner (Remember that dating in its essential nature exists independently of these things.), you would still think that it would be unfaithful to date someone while you were married to someone else.
Perhaps it is wrong because you promised not to, or because deceit is involved, or because it would cause hurt. I put it to you that even if you had made no such promise, and it involved no deceit and no one got hurt, you would still think that it would be unfaithful to date someone while you were married to someone else.
Perhaps it is wrong because dating couples are exploring each other as potential marriage partners. I put it to you that even if they were not exploring each other as potential marriage partners, you would still think that it would be unfaithful to date someone while you were married to someone else.
The reason that we believe it would be unfaithful to date someone while we are married to someone else is that we perceive that a dating partner is given a place that should be given only to our marriage partner; that is, they occupy the same space.
If they were different spaces then, the filling of one space would have no implications over the filling of the other. There would therefore be no reason to say that it is wrong to fill the husband or wife-shaped space at the same time as the boyfriend or girlfriend-shaped space; that is, there would be no reason to say that it is wrong to date someone while you are married to someone else. If the only reason that it could be intrinsically unfaithful to be married to more than one person, is that the space that is occupied by a marriage partner is a space that should be given to only one person (What other reason could there be?), then this implies that, in order for it to be intrinsically unfaithful to have one relationship at the same time as the other, they must both be occupying the same space. Therefore, the fact that it is intrinsically unfaithful to date someone while you are married to someone else implies that a boyfriend or girlfriend occupies the same space as a husband or wife.
Don't dating couples describe the way they feel about each other in the same way that married couples do? They say that they belong to each other, and that they feel like part of each other, and that they are fulfilled by each other, and that their lives are made complete by each other, and they say that they are lonely when they do not have a relationship like this (even if they do have plenty of friends).
Marriage and dating both fulfil the same need. If a girlfriend is not there to fill the space that a man has for a woman in his life, and a boyfriend is not there to fill the space that a woman has for a man in her life, then why do they insist on dating people of the opposite sex (even when they are not seeking life partners)? The only people who are inclined to date people of the same sex are the same people who are inclined to marry people of the same sex. Is this not because the inclination that drives them to dating is the same as the inclination that drives them to marriage - an inclination to have someone to fill the space that they have for a partner of the opposite sex?
Now, let us remember how the bible describes marriage.
It describes the desire that it fulfils. If we were to read
Dating is found in the bible and the bible teaches us what dating is for: it is not for acquiring experience of life, or for finding out what people are like; it is for fulfilling our need of a partner of the opposite sex, and the bible teaches that it ought to be permanent. We get out of our obligation to make the relationship permanent by making arbitrary qualifications. We say that the relationship does not have to be permanent if we do not have sex, or if we never agreed that it would be permanent, or if we are not sure that we want it to be permanent, or if we haven't had a traditional ceremony, but such qualifications cannot be justified from the bible. We may as well say that we do not have to keep a promise if we cross our fingers, or we do not have to be nice to people if we are joking. The bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage.
It may be objected that although
We ought rather to begin by recognising that the relationship that is being described is the relationship that fulfils the desire that is being described; and then we ought to accept that whatever the bible says about the relationship that fulfils this desire is indeed true about the relationship that fulfils this desire. If no one had ever taught us that it would be wrong to behave in this way towards a dating partner, then we would believe that this would be the perfectly natural way to behave towards a dating partner.
Wherever a marriage exists, we would expect there to be consequences. There could be circumstances that prevent these natural consequences from happening. There is no reason to suppose that married couples will always be aware that these things are natural consequences of the relationship that they have, and they may sometimes try to suppress them (for good or bad reasons), but even so, we would still expect there to be a manifestation of the consequences:
Firstly, both dating couples and married couples experience being in love. This is what makes them want to be each other's partners. Love (of this kind - eros) is the desire to be one with someone, the desire to possess and to belong to someone.
As being in love makes us want to go out with someone, and makes us want to marry someone, then a boyfriend or girlfriend and a husband or wife are the objects of the same desire, and therefore fulfil the same desire - a desire for someone to be your partner of the opposite sex. We know our desires by their satisfaction: if it is the same desire, then it is a desire for the same thing.
Secondly, the breaking up of a dating relationship can be just as devastating as the breaking up of a marriage. It may be objected that dating couples ought not to get so attached to each other that they will be devastated if they split up. But this is making the assumption that it is natural to hold on to such a relationship lightly, which is calling the question. The very subject under discussion is whether it is natural to hold on to such a relationship lightly. The fact that the breaking up of the relationship can be so devastating, is evidence that it is not natural to hold on to such a relationship lightly.
Thirdly, both dating couples and married couples experience sexual attraction and make love. Sexual intercourse is not the only way of making love. The way that dating couples kiss and
cuddle each other is not the same way that friends kiss and cuddle; it is the same way that married couples kiss and cuddle. It may be shallow, but it is a form of making love. Otherwise why don't we do this with people of the same sex? Any act that would be homosexual between people of the same sex must in itself be sexual. It is true that the real place where sin is committed is in the heart
It is true that not all dating couples kiss and cuddle in this way (It is also true that not all those who kiss and cuddle in this way are dating couples.), but people are inclined to behave in this way because of the relationship that they have with each other. In fact the physical relationship flows just as naturally from dating as it does from marriage. The difference is, with dating we restrain ourselves. Later on I will explain why I believe there are good reasons to restrain ourselves, but at the moment I am just saying that the inclination to make love that comes from dating is the same as the inclination to make love that comes from marriage.
Fourthly, both dating couples and married couples feel that they should make love only to each other: a boyfriend would be jealous to find that his girlfriend was kissing and cuddling other boys in this way, just as a husband would be jealous to find that his wife was having sex with other men (and just as a husband would be jealous to find that his wife was kissing and cuddling other men in this way).
On the question of what is permitted outside marriage, it must be conceded that the bible does not give a list of all the things that are not permitted, but we should not conclude from this that the bible contains no principles about these things. To use any argument at all to prove, for example, that we shouldn't do these things with people of the same sex or that we shouldn't do them with anyone other than our marriage partner once we have a marriage partner, is to admit that there are principles that can be applied to these things.
Why is it that people (who listen to their consciences) don't kiss and cuddle in this way (and commit other minor acts of making love) with just anyone? They only do this with people whom they are dating. They perceive that this type of behaviour belongs to a special type of relationship, a relationship in which the other person is theirs. Do you think that there is one type of relationship in which people are entitled to go the whole way, and another type in which only minor acts of making love are allowed? (Where exactly the line is drawn seems to be a matter of opinion.) Surely, there is only one type of relationship in which making love is allowed at all.
If it is wrong to do something with someone other than your marriage partner, while you have a marriage partner, then what is the reason for this? The bible does not give a list of all the things that you should not do with people other than your marriage partner. It is simply obvious that to do this thing with someone else would be unfaithful.
The reason that this would be unfaithful is that this thing belongs exclusively to the person that you have committed yourself to as your marriage partner. Why else would it be unfaithful?
You may say that to do this would be unfaithful because you promised your partner that you would not do this thing with other people. Actually, people do not usually make specific promises not to do specific things with other people; they make a general promise not to be unfaithful, so they must begin with the belief that these things would be unfaithful if they did them with other people. In any case, if you made a promise (generally or specifically) not to do certain things with other people, then you made this promise because you believe that it would be wrong to do such things with other people; you do not believe that it would be wrong to do such things with other people merely because you promised not to. Why would people want to make such a promise unless they began with the belief that it is in the nature of marriage that there are certain things that belong exclusively to the person that they have committed themselves to as to their marriage partner?
The reason that this thing belongs exclusively to the person that you have committed yourself to as your marriage partner is that it is a thing belongs exclusively to marriage. Why else would this thing belong exclusively to the person that you have committed yourself to as your marriage partner? If you say that it belongs exclusively to your marriage partner because to do it with someone else would be unfaithful, then it becomes a circular argument: to do it with someone else would be unfaithful because this thing belongs exclusively to your marriage partner.
Therefore if it is wrong to do something outside marriage when you are married, then it must also be wrong to do it outside marriage when you are not married.
But the same argument applies to dating. It is obvious that there are things that you should not do with people other than your dating partner, and if you did, then this would be unfaithful to your dating partner. It must follow then that these things belong exclusively to dating. But they are exactly the same things that belong exclusively to marriage. If the same things belong exclusively to marriage and exclusively to dating, then marriage and dating must be essentially the same thing.
We become someone's boyfriend or girlfriend in the same way that we become someone's husband or wife: by agreeing or committing ourselves to it; that is by covenant. People may not always express their commitment in words, but they always in some way communicate that they have accepted each other to fill this place in their lives. So, there is a difference between marriage and dating, only if there is a difference between what they commit themselves to.
Someone may object: "Although I am not accepting the full responsibilities of marriage, neither am I experiencing the full privileges of marriage." But it should be all or nothing. You should either accept marriage as God gave it in its fullness or leave it alone until you are prepared to do so.
Marriage, in its essential nature, is not something that you can have in part. There are no degrees of this type of relationship. There are some relationships that there can be degrees of, such as friendship. There are other relationships that there can be no degrees of, such as parenthood: you cannot have a deeper parent; you can have a parent with whom you have a deeper friendship, but not a deeper parent.
In the same way you cannot have a deeper husband or wife; you can have a husband or wife with whom you have a deeper friendship, or with whom you are more deeply in love, or with whom you make love more deeply, but not a deeper husband or wife. Someone is either your partner or he or she is not.
Someone is the man or woman in your life if he or she fulfils the need
you have of a man or woman in you life, as
it is described in
However we do not fulfil our need of a partner by experiencing the privileges of marriage (though there are desires fulfilled by this) or by accepting the responsibilities of marriage. We fulfil each other's need of a partner by belonging to each other and being part of each other (in a way that the bible has not technically described). Of this, there can be no degrees.
Consider those who are for some reason prevented from having sexual intercourse. Are we to conclude that any relationship they can have is bound to be something less than a true marriage? But we have already seen that marriage is the only thing that gives people the right to have any kind of sexual relationship. If we believe that they have the right to have some kind of sexual relationship, then we must believe that they are truly married.
If it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without having sex, then we cannot say that people are not married on the grounds that they do not have sex: therefore we cannot say that dating is not marriage on the grounds that dating couples do not have sex. So, on what grounds can we say that dating is not marriage?
Someone may object that marriage has all sorts of privileges and responsibilities that dating does not have and therefore cannot be essentially the same relationship. There are some privileges and responsibilities of marriage that are obvious. There are other things that have been suggested as being privileges and responsibilities of marriage that are not so obvious. But even if someone could come up with the scriptures and arguments to prove that they were indeed privileges and responsibilities of marriage, then the only thing that this would prove is that they are privileges and responsibilities of marriage.
This would not prove that marriage is different to dating. How do you know that dating does not have the same privileges and responsibilities as marriage? To conclude that it does not, is to assume that dating is not marriage, which is calling the question: the question is whether dating is marriage. You cannot know whether dating has the same privileges and responsibilities as marriage, unless you already know whether dating is marriage.
Someone may object that this conclusion may give people the licence to have sex before legal marriage. Later on, I will give reasons that I advise people not to do this, but I concede that, to be consistent with the conclusion, we cannot say that sex before legal marriage is intrinsically wrong. However to say that the conclusion is wrong on the grounds that it leads to the conclusion that people can have sex before legal marriage, is making the assumption that legal marriage is the same thing as true marriage, which is calling the question. The question is whether legal marriage is the same thing as true marriage. This must be proved and not assumed. The bible's rules concerning marriage apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to the law's definition of marriage. If anyone is tempted to have sex before legal marriage on the grounds that dating is marriage, then you cannot have it both ways: if there are privileges, then there are responsibilities: you cannot have sex (on the grounds that you are married) and then split up (on the grounds that you are not married).
Someone may object that saying that dating is binding leaves the daunting possibility of being stuck for the rest of our lives with an intolerable relationship. In that case, saying that marriage is binding leaves the daunting possibility of being stuck for the rest of our lives with an intolerable relationship. There may be exceptional circumstances under which it is better to break off a marriage or at least to live separately. What these exceptional circumstances may be is not the point. The point is that the circumstances that justify breaking off dating should be no less exceptional than the circumstances that justify breaking off a marriage, unless dating is less binding than marriage, and we cannot know whether dating is less binding than marriage, unless we already know whether dating is marriage.
Someone may object that at a wedding there are all sorts of things that we commit ourselves to that we do not commit ourselves to when we start dating? And if we commit ourselves to different things, then doesn't that mean that we have different relationships?
Yes indeed, for instance if a couple promise to take each other as husband and wife, and to tell each other no lies, rather than merely promising to take each other as husband and wife, then they have committed themselves to a marriage without lies, rather than merely to a marriage. It may even be a good idea for them to commit themselves to a marriage without lies.
I believe that it is a good idea for a man to promise to love his wife
It may be objected that with dating we do not make a lifelong commitment. Are you suggesting that the only difference between what we commit ourselves to is the length of time for which we commit ourselves to it? In that case the only difference between dating and marriage is the length of time for which they last, unless there is something different about the things that we commit ourselves to, other than that we commit ourselves to one permanently and the other temporarily.
In
Why would Jesus warn people about separating what God had joined together (v6), if they had not been joined together? Jesus told them that their relationships ought to be permanent, and yet they had not committed themselves to them on the understanding that they would be permanent: therefore, the thing about the marriage relationship that makes it one that should be permanent is not that they entered into it on the understanding that it would be permanent. Jesus regarded their relationships as marriages, and yet they had not committed themselves to them on the understanding that they would be permanent: therefore, we do not have to commit ourselves to it, on the understanding that it must be permanent in order for it to be a marriage in God's eyes.
Someone may attempt to make sense of Jesus' words, while beginning with the assumption that we do indeed have to commit ourselves to the relationship on the understanding that it must be permanent, in order to be married in God's eyes. The main problem is not so much the difficulties that may be involved in making sense of Jesus' words but rather this: What reason is there to begin with such an assumption? It should not be necessary to prove that we do not have to commit ourselves to the relationship on the understanding that it must be permanent, in order to be married in God's eyes. It should be sufficient that there is an absence of any teaching to the contrary.
In this passage, Jesus says that once the relationship is begun, it ought to be permanent. This could lead to the conclusion that we have to commit ourselves to the relationship on the understanding that it must be permanent in order to be married in God's eyes, only if we begin with the assumption that it is necessary to commit ourselves to everything that marriage ought to be in order to be married.
Someone may quibble about what exactly it was that the Pharisees misunderstood, and what exactly is was that Jesus was teaching them. But whatever you think Jesus was teaching, the point is that He was teaching them one of the intrinsic qualities of marriage, and whatever quality He was teaching them was precisely the quality that they had misunderstood. Jesus taught them something about how their relationships should be, and yet they had not committed themselves to them on the understanding that they would be as He taught them that they ought to be: therefore, the thing about the marriage relationship that makes it one that should be as He taught that it ought to be is not that they entered into it on the understanding that it would be as He taught that it ought to be. Jesus regarded their relationships as marriages, and yet they had not committed themselves to them on the understanding that they would be as He taught that they ought to be: therefore, we do not have to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding all that it ought to be, in order for it to be a marriage in God's eyes.
If it is not necessary to commit ourselves to marriage, understanding
all that it ought to be in order for it to be a marriage in God's eyes,
then why in particular should we say that we have to commit ourselves to
it, on the understanding that it must be permanent in order for it to be
a marriage in God's eyes? Are there any scriptures to prove this? We certainly
cannot use
Nowhere does the bible teach that we have to commit ourselves to the relationship on the understanding that it must be permanent, in order to be married in God's eyes. There is therefore no reason to begin with this assumption: therefore to make sense of Jesus' words using this assumption is unnecessary, and therefore wrong.
Therefore we cannot say that people are not married on the grounds that they did not commit themselves to it on the understanding that it would be permanent: therefore we cannot say that dating is not marriage on the grounds that dating couples have not committed themselves to it on the understanding that it would be permanent. So, on what grounds can we say that dating is not marriage?
Now, if a couple had committed themselves to marriage but had failed to realise that permanency is a natural consequence of it, then what would we expect to see? We would expect there to be trouble if they split up. This is exactly what we see with dating: it is very often just as devastating for dating couples to split up, as it is for those who have marriages that we all agree are marriages. It may be true that they do not all end like this, but neither do all those marriages that we all agree are marriages. When we say that dating ought to be used only to explore people as potential life partners (for those of us who have such feelings), are we not admitting that this type of relationship is not really meant to be temporary, and relationships of this type which come to an end should be avoided as much as possible. So, we have no evidence that permanency is any less a part of dating than it is a part of marriage.
It may be objected that dating couples do not make a sexual commitment. If we become married by covenant, then the thing that we have to commit ourselves to in order to be married is what marriage is in its essential nature. If we become married by committing ourselves to a sexual relationship, then a sexual relationship is what marriage is in its essential nature, and a marriage covenant is exactly the same thing as sexual consent.
If being in love with someone (that is desiring him or her as a partner) is essentially different to wanting to have sex with him or her, then a marriage partner is essentially different to a sexual partner: therefore committing ourselves to be someone's marriage partner is essentially different to committing ourselves to be someone's sexual partner.
Someone may object that we do not commit ourselves to this mysterious union when we date. But how would you know whether you have committed yourself to this mysterious union? The only way we can recognise the union is by the satisfaction that it brings. How else can we recognise it? Therefore, committing ourselves to be each other's special partner of the opposite sex is exactly the same as committing ourselves to this mysterious union.
What marriage is, must be determined by the account of the institution of marriage as it is given in
You may say that surely, sexual consent must be part of the marriage
covenant, for surely the sexual relationship is part of the marriage
relationship, for how can it be separated when it
is so implicitly in
If it is possible to be married (in God's eyes) without having sex (or making love), then we cannot say that something is not a marriage merely because there is no sexual relationship: therefore a marriage is something other than a sexual relationship: therefore, it is not by committing ourselves to a sexual relationship, but by committing ourselves to something else, that we commit ourselves to marriage.
Just as the thing we need in a husband or wife is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the man or woman-shaped space in us (from which the sexual relationship flows), so the thing that we commit ourselves to is not essentially a sexual relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in our husband or wife (from which the sexual relationship flows).
Now, if a couple had committed themselves to marriage but had failed to realise that the sexual relationship is a natural consequence of it, then what would we expect to see? If the sexual relationship truly does flow from the relationship that they have, then we would expect the sexual relationship to attempt to assert itself, even if they tried to suppress it. This is exactly what we find with dating couples: most of them do make love, by kissing and cuddling, without any trouble to their consciences, even though their consciences probably would trouble them if they did this with people whom they were not dating. Most dating couples do draw a line somewhere, but they keep to this line only by an act of self-restraint, and by suppressing what seems natural to them. It may be true that sexual desire seems to be missing from some dating relationships, but it also seems to be missing from some of those marriages that we all agree are marriages. So, we have no evidence that the sexual relationship is any less a part of dating than it is a part of marriage.
Just as the thing we need in a boyfriend or girlfriend is not essentially a physical relationship (e.g. kissing and cuddling), but a relationship which fills the man or woman-shaped space in us (from which the physical relationship flows), so the thing that we commit ourselves to is not essentially a physical relationship, but a relationship which fills the space in our boyfriend or girlfriend (from which the physical relationship flows - as far as we do not restrain ourselves).
It may be objected that dating couples have not reached the stage that they are sure they want to marry. Is it not true that people often find out whether they want something by trying it out? Someone may ride a horse to find out whether he likes horse riding. He sees it as trial horse riding. If we date to find out whether we want to marry a person, then that makes dating a trial marriage, unless there is something to distinguish it from marriage, other than that it is done to find out whether we want it, rather than being committed to it for life.
It is just as silly to define marriage as being sure that we want to be each other's partners as it is to define marriage as being in love. Being in love is desiring to be each other's partners, and when we are sure we want to marry, then we have come to the decision that it is actually a good idea to be each other's partners. However the same argument applies to both: we are not married when we desire to be each other's partners or when we are sure that it is a good idea to be each other's partners. We are married when we are each other's partners.
Dating allows us to have a man or woman without having to make a permanent commitment to him or her. Instead of taking each other as our man or woman till death us do part, it is taking each other as our man or woman for the time being. Am I saying that dating is wrong? (Remember that I am certainly not saying that going on dates is wrong.) Dating is not wrong if we realise that it is the type of relationship that God designed to be permanent, but the situation where we are able to say "This is my man or woman", temporarily, is wrong.
And now to answer the question that inspired me to write the book in the first place: why do some of us have a conviction that casual dating is wrong? That is, why should we date only to explore someone as a potential marriage partner? And while I'm at it, why shouldn't we date people of the same sex, why shouldn't we date non-christians, why should we only date one person at a time, and why shouldn't we continue dating other people once we are married? Why should this be considered unfaithful?
If we say that dating should not be treated in this way because it is a relationship in which we should be exploring each other as potential life partners, then this is calling the question. Why ought dating to be used only to explore someone as a potential life partner? Why shouldn't we do it just for fun?
It is inadequate to say that using dating for anything other than exploring each other as potential life partners is a waste of time. Nothing is a waste of time, as long as we get something out of it. If we get enjoyment out of dating then it is not a waste of time. Do you think it is wrong to do a jigsaw? And anyway, do you really believe that it is wrong to date someone while you are married to someone else, on the grounds that you are wasting your time? I put it to you that the reason you believe that it would be wrong to date someone while you are married to someone else is that you perceive that this would be unfaithful to your marriage partner.
Saying that dating more than one person is a waste of time because it is not possible to seriously consider more than one person as a marriage partner is also inadequate. Even if it is assumed that it is not possible to seriously consider more than one person, this is still making the assumption that the only legitimate use of dating is to explore someone as a marriage partner, which is again calling the question. Why shouldn't we date just for fun? And if we can date just for fun, then why shouldn't we date more than one person at a time? I put it to you that the reason you believe that it would be wrong to date more than one person at a time is that you perceive that this would be unfaithful.
It is also inadequate to say that treating dating like this causes hurt. Although this is a good reason in itself, I put it to you that even if no one were to get hurt, you would still think that it would be wrong to date someone while you were married to or dating someone else. I put it to those who think that dating without a view to marriage is wrong, that even if no one were ever to get hurt, you would still think it was wrong. And we must still ask why people get hurt when dating is treated like this.
Why should a husband or wife get hurt to find out that his or her partner was dating someone else, if dating is essentially a different type of relationship? And why should a boyfriend or girlfriend get hurt to find out that his or her partner had another partner, unless it is a type of relationship in which he or she should have only one partner? Why should anyone get hurt when a relationship comes to an end, unless it is a type of relationship that is not supposed to come to an end?
Perhaps people get hurt when their relationship comes to an end because they were hoping that it would end in marriage. This is again supposing that people must be dating with a view to marriage. Why shouldn't they date without a view to marriage? And why do people still get hurt when their relationships come to an end, even if they have no intention of getting married? Because the fact that two people are dating implies that they are in some way inclined to marry each other, even if they are not consciously aware of it? We can make this conclusion, only if we begin by assuming that dating is precisely the relationship that they would be inclined to have, if they were inclined to marry each other. Why would we believe that people who are inclined to marry each other would also be inclined to date each other, unless dating is in some way like marriage? In what way it is like marriage will be discussed shortly.
It is inadequate to say that it would be hurtful to the person to whom you were married, or whom you were exploring as a marriage partner, if he or she knew that you were exploring someone else as a marriage partner, for this is again making the assumption that the only legitimate use of dating is to explore someone as a marriage partner. Why shouldn't we date just for fun? And I put it to you that even if you were dating without a view to marriage, you would still think that doing this while you were dating or married to someone else would be hurtful.
The reason that dating someone else while you already have a dating or marriage partner causes hurt is that it is unfaithful to the partner that you already have. Why else would it cause hurt?
Why is it unfaithful to date someone while you already have a dating or marriage partner? It may be a breach of trust. On what grounds does the partner that you already have trust that you will not take another dating partner? You may have promised not to. Why did you make this promise? On what grounds did either of you have any desire to promise that you would not take another dating partner? If you did not make this promise explicitly, then on what grounds did you assume that there would be an understanding that you would not take another dating partner? Whatever reasons you may come up with, they will all ultimately be based on the assumption that dating is a type of relationship in which you should have only one partner.
If dating is a kind a relationship in which people should have only one partner, then this implies that they are giving to each other something that should be given to only one person. If furthermore, they ought not to date someone while they are married to someone else, then this implies that what they are giving to each other, is something that would belong exclusively to a marriage partner. Why should a marriage partner believe that it would be unfaithful for his or her partner to date someone else, unless he or she believed that this involved giving to the other person, something that should be given only to him or her? Why do we believe that dating involves giving to someone, something that would belong exclusively to our marriage partner?
Is it because of the sexual things that are involved? But we would still believe that we would be giving to our dating partner, something that would belong exclusively to our marriage partner, even if we did not do any sexual things. Whatever sexual things may be involved, are a manifestation of something deeper that we are giving to our dating partner, which would belong exclusively to our marriage partner. So why do we believe that the place that we are giving to a dating partner is something that should be given only to one person, and why do we believe that this place would belong exclusively to our marriage partner? What we are doing is applying the rules of the marriage to dating. We know that marriage belongs only to one person, so when say that dating belongs only to one person, we are treating dating as if it is marriage.
Why do we apply this rule of marriage to dating? Why do we apply any of the rules of marriage to dating? Why do we believe it is wrong to date a non-christian? Why do we believe that we should only date people of the opposite sex? Why should we believe that it is appropriate for dating couples to kiss and cuddle each other, in a way that would be inappropriate for mere friends? What we are doing is treating dating as if it is marriage. Why else should we apply the rules of marriage to dating?
Why do we treat dating as if it is marriage? Because it is in some way like marriage? In what way is it like marriage? We cannot say that it is like marriage because it is an exclusive relationship between people of the opposite sex, for this is calling the question. Why ought we only to date people of the opposite sex and only one person at a time? It is the other way round: we say that we ought to only date people of the opposite sex, and only one person at a time because dating is like marriage.
In what way is it like marriage? Because the fact that two people are dating implies that they are sexually attracted to each other? We can make this conclusion, only if we begin by assuming that dating is precisely the relationship that they would want to have, if they were sexually attracted to each other, and this is again treating dating as if it is marriage. Why else would we believe that people who are sexually attracted to each other would want to date each other? Because the fact that two people are dating implies that they are in some way inclined to marry each other? We can make this conclusion, only if we begin by assuming that dating is precisely the relationship that they would be inclined to have, if they were inclined to marry each other. Because the fact that two people are dating implies that they are in some way attempting to fulfil the desire, that is fulfilled by marriage? We can make this conclusion, only if we begin by assuming that dating is precisely the relationship that they would want to have, if they were trying to fulfil the desire that is fulfilled by marriage. Why should we believe that people would want to date each other, in order to attempt to fulfil the desire that is fulfilled by marriage, unless we believed that dating does fulfil this desire?
What reason could there be for saying that dating is like marriage, other than that it is, in its essential nature, a relationship in which we satisfy each other's need for a partner of the opposite sex? That is, it is essentially the same thing as marriage. What quality of a relationship could possibly warrant treating it as if it is a marriage, other than that it is a marriage?
So the conclusion is that we have a conviction that casual dating is wrong because we have a conviction that this type of relationship is not supposed to be temporary. We are convicted that we should apply this rule of marriage to dating because dating is marriage, and this is also the reason that we have a conviction that we should apply the other rules of marriage to dating.
The dating relationship and the marriage relationship are essentially the same. They both fill the space that we have for a partner of the opposite sex - one permanently, the other temporarily. This type of relationship should only be permanent.
Hasn't love got anything to do with it? Yes, it has everything to do with it.
Anyone who is familiar with the bible will know that love has got a
lot to do with God.
Because the bible speaks so highly of love, people may think that if
they can claim that they that they are "in love" with someone, then it
must be good and pleasing to God. This is not necessarily so: the Greek
word for being in love is "eros", but when the bible speaks of love in
such places as
Jesus defined love of this kind, as doing to others as we want them
to do to us
Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. (NKJV)
Eros, on the other hand is a desire - a desire for a particular person to fulfil our need for a partner of the opposite sex. Admittedly, it is one of the strongest of our desires. But we know that this desire can be fickle: it can spring to life in a moment and die almost as quickly. It can be sparked off for the most trivial of reasons, such as admiration, gratitude or pity. We cannot say that is not real on the grounds that we know where it came from.
Such feelings cannot be the deciding factor in whether a marriage is right. Even where there are circumstances that will make eros last (which is desirable in marriage), this is not the thing that makes the difference between a marriage that is morally right and one that is morally wrong. Agapé is what makes the difference between anything being morally right and morally wrong. So how will love of this kind affect our lives?
It is because of God's love that we are assured of His eternal faithfulness. There is a special word in Hebrew that is used for God's covenant love ("chesed"), which is used in the following scriptures:
Therefore know that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and love for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments.
(Deut. 7:9) But the love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting.
(Ps. 103:17) Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His love endures forever.
(Ps. 136:1) "...for the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed" says the Lord, who has love for you.
(Is. 54:10) You will give truth to Jacob and love to Abraham, which you have sworn to our fathers from days of old
(Mic. 7:20) (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
Again, in the Old Testament, we find that this is the only thing that God
wants us to do
I desire love, not sacrifice. (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
So we find that God wants us to love as He does: faithfully, firmly and
permanently. In fact it is within a marriage in which a couple feel a duty
to make each other happy, that eros is most likely to last and to grow.
Agapé is the kind of love that He commands men to have for their
wives
Men, love your women just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it. (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
And this is why He hates divorce
...because the Lord has been witness between you and the woman of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your woman by covenant.
But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks Godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the woman of his youth.
"For the Lord God of Israel says that He hates divorce, for it covers one's garment with violence," says the Lord of hosts... (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
The reason that divorce is wrong is found in verse 15: "did He not make them one?" Remembering that the whole law of God is based on love, we must conclude that to separate men and women who have been joined in this way is against the law of love. They are part of each other: a man can have one of his limbs violently separated from him, but this is not natural, and it is no more natural for him to be separated from his woman, once he is joined to her.
When you agree to make someone your woman, this should be for life. There is no getting around it by finding another word to use, like "girlfriend". The word that is translated "divorce" literally means "to send away". God hates it when you send away your woman; He sees it as an act of violence (v16).
Our code of conduct in any particular area (e.g. dating) will depend upon our general view of how we are intended to live. If it were true that the best way to do good to ourselves and others is to experience as many things as possible, then it may follow that we should try to have as wide a variety of experiences as possible, and this would include dating relationships. But that is not at all a biblical view of how we are intended to live. If we have a biblical perspective, then our whole lifestyle will be based on the premise that we should love.
We should seek the happiness of our man or woman. It is not right to break someone's heart so that we can pursue our own romantic happiness. God wants us to love. How can it be His will for us to send our man or woman away except in very exceptional circumstances? If we say that Eros has a bigger place than Agapé in deciding whether we ought to marry someone, then that is like saying that it is more important to do what we want than to be kind to people.
Part of the point of publishing this book online was to invite feedback. However, I have already done a great deal of this beforehand. I am aware of how much is at stake. If my conclusions are basically wrong then I could be leading multitudes astray. But after many years of debating the subject no one has faulted the reasoning. It is time to start acting as if my conclusion that dating and marriage are the same thing is correct. If they are, then the common practice of having trial partners before we settle down with one, is a terrible sin and if I am to be innocent of the blood of all men, then my duty is clear: I must do all I can to persuade people to change their ways. Christians are having trial marriages. I consider this so serious that nothing will stop me short of persuading me that my conclusion is wrong.
There are few people who can have read this far, without agreeing that dating is at least similar to marriage. But they may still hold back from saying that it is the same thing. Well, now that I have stated in what way dating is the same as marriage, it is up to them to state in what way it is different. I will never abandon my campaign until someone tells me what the difference is. It is your duty to answer. If my belief is wrong then I am in a pitiful state of ignorance, and if you know what the difference is then it is not right for you to keep this knowledge from me.
To save your effort (and mine) and to give you an opportunity to find fault with my logic, here is a summary of the things that have been urged as the difference between dating and marriage:
| Legal recognition | Marriage is the thing that the law recognises, not the recognition. Adam and Eve were not legally recognised as being married: therefore we cannot say that people are not married, merely because they are not legally recognised as being married: therefore we cannot say that dating couples are not married merely because they are not legally recognised as being married. |
| Public recognition | Marriage is the thing that the public recognises, not the recognition. We could just as easily be publicly recognised as dating. There is a difference between a publicly recognised marriage and publicly recognised dating only if there is a difference between marriage and dating. What is the difference? |
| Sex | It is possible to be married without having sex (or making love): therefore, we cannot say that people are not married merely because they do not have sex (or make love): therefore, we cannot say that dating couples are not married merely because they do not have sex (or make love). It is also possible to have sex (and make love) while you are dating: therefore, having sex (or making love) cannot be what makes the difference between dating and marriage. |
| Right to sex | We cannot know whether we have the right to have sex (and make love) unless we already know whether we are married: therefore, we cannot know whether dating couples have the right to have sex (and make love) unless we already know whether they are married. |
| Transcendent sex | The two become "one flesh" in a way that transcends the physical act of sexual intercourse. As the bible has not told us exactly in what way we become "one flesh", the only way that we can recognise the union is by the satisfaction that it brings.
How else can we recognise it? Consider whether
the filling of the man or woman-shaped space in each other's life |
| Sexual attraction | It is possible to be married without being sexually attracted: therefore, we cannot say that people are not married merely because they are not sexually attracted: therefore, we cannot say that dating couples are not married merely because they are not sexually attracted. It is also possible to be sexually attracted while you are dating: therefore, sexually attraction cannot be what makes the difference between dating and marriage. |
| Love (Eros) | It is possible to be married without being in love: therefore, we cannot say that people are not married merely because they are not in love: therefore, we cannot say that dating couples are not married merely because they are not in love. It is also possible to be in love while you are dating: therefore, being in love cannot be what makes the difference between dating and marriage. Love of this kind is the desire to posses someone as a partner. We are married, not when we desire to be each other's partners, but rather when we are each other's partners. |
| Privilege | We cannot know whether we have the privileges of marriage unless we already know whether we are married: therefore, we cannot know whether dating couples have the privileges of marriage unless we already know whether they are married. |
| Responsibility | We cannot know whether we have the responsibilities of marriage unless we already know whether we are married: therefore, we cannot know whether dating couples have the responsibilities of marriage unless we already know whether they are married. |
| Possession | We describe a marriage partner as "my man/woman", and a dating partner as "my boyfriend/girlfriend". When we say that we belong to each other we are simply saying that we have a particular kind of relationship with each other - a relationship that fulfils a particular desire. There is a difference between the way we possess a husband or wife and the way we possess a boyfriend or girlfriend, only if the relationships fulfil different functions. |
| Fulfils a different desire | It appears that |
| Degree | Marriage could be a degree of something only if it is essentially a type of relationship of which there can be degrees. If it is not essentially a sexual relationship, then it is not a degree of sexual fulfilment. If it is not essentially being in love, then it is not a degree of being in love. If it is not essentially a privileged relationship, then it is not a degree of privilege. If it is not essentially a responsible relationship, then it is not a degree of responsibility. It is subterfuge to talk about a degree unless you state what it is a degree of. We are married when we are part of each other in a way that has not been technically described. Of this, there can be no degrees. As this union is mysterious, the only way that we can recognise it is by the satisfaction that it brings. |
| Seeking marriage | It is possible to date without seeking marriage: therefore we cannot say that people are not dating merely because they are not seeking marriage. It is also possible to seek marriage without dating: therefore we cannot say that people are not seeking marriage merely because they are not dating. Let us suppose that you are dating, and you are seeking marriage as well. This does not say anything about the difference between the relationships: all it says is that you have one relationship and you are seeking the other. What is the difference between the relationship that you have and the relationship that you are seeking? |
| Certainty | It is possible to be married without being sure that you want to be married: therefore, we cannot say that people are not married merely because they are not sure that they want to be married: therefore, we cannot say that dating couples are not married merely because they are not sure that they want to be married. It is also possible to be sure that you want to be married while you are dating: therefore, being sure that you want to be married cannot be what makes the difference between dating and marriage. We are married not when we are sure it is a good idea to be each other's partners, but rather when we are each other's partners. |
| Permanent | So, the difference between marriage and dating is the length of time for which they last? |
| Binding | This is the same as saying that it ought to be permanent. We cannot know whether a relationship ought to be permanent unless we already know whether it is a marriage: therefore, we cannot know whether dating ought to be permanent unless we already know whether dating is marriage. |
| Submission to Christ | Marriage is the thing that we submit to Christ, not the submission. We could just as easily submit dating to Christ, and have a distinction between Christian dating and non-christian dating. I am not asking what the difference is between a Christian marriage and a non-christian marriage; I am asking what the difference is between marriage and dating. There is a difference between Christian marriage and Christian dating only if there is a difference between marriage and dating. What is the difference? |
| Love (Agapé) | Love of this kind, and all the things that flow from it (respect, trust etc.) make the difference between a good marriage and a bad marriage, but they could just as easily make the difference between good dating and bad dating. I am not asking what the difference is between a good relationship and a bad relationship; I am asking what the difference is between marriage and dating. There is a difference between a good marriage and good dating only if there is a difference between marriage and dating. What is the difference? |
| Joined by God | If you claim to know that dating couples are not joined by God and therefore not married, then you must back up your claim by stating how you know this. What do we do to persuade God to join us? |
| Asking God to join us | The bible never teaches that it is necessary to ask God to join us (or even to believe in God), in order to be joined by God. |
| Wedding | What does the wedding have to contain in order to qualify as a wedding, that is capable of marrying people? |
| God's blessing | Marriage is the thing that we ask God to bless, not the blessing. We could just as easily ask God to bless dating. There is a difference between a God-blessed marriage and God-blessed dating only if there is a difference between marriage and dating. What is the difference? |
| Public declaration | Marriage is the thing that we declare that we are doing, not the declaration. We could just as easily publicly declare that we are dating. There is a difference between marriage and dating only if there is a difference between what we declare that we are doing. What is the difference? |
| Presence of God | I challenge you to state exactly what you mean by "the presence of God" and then to find scriptural support for saying that we need to get married in "the presence of God" (whatever you mean by it), in order to be married in God's eyes. |
| Covenant | The bible teaches that we become
married by the covenant |
| Witnessed covenant | The covenant is the thing that is witnessed. There is no biblical teaching that a covenant has to be witnessed (or ratified or consummated) in order to be effective. We could just as easily be witnessed making a commitment to dating. There is a difference between a witnessed marriage commitment and a witnessed dating commitment only if there is a difference between marriage and dating. What is the difference? |
| Sexual commitment | This means the same as physical consent or a mutual physical offer. If it is possible for dating couples to give physical consent, then a physical commitment cannot be what makes the difference between dating and marriage. Marriage is the thing that we commit ourselves to. If a sexual relationship is what we commit ourselves to, then a sexual relationship is what marriage is. We are not married because we have sex (or make love), but rather we have sex (and make love) because we are married. |
| Degree of commitment | Marriage could be a degree of commitment only if it is essentially a type of relationship of which there can be degrees. It is subterfuge to talk about a degree of commitment unless you state what it is a degree of commitment to. We are married when we are part of each other in a way that has not been technically described. There can be no degrees of commitment to this. |
| Transcendent commitment | As the precise way that a man and a woman are joined together has not been revealed to us, then the only way that we can recognise the union is by the satisfaction that it brings. If by a commitment to a transcendent relationship, you mean the commitment to fill the man or woman-shaped space in each other's life, then this is what we do when we date, as well as what we do when we marry. If this is not what you mean, then what do you mean? It is subterfuge to talk about a commitment unless you state what it is a commitment to. |
| Permanent commitment | So, the difference between what we commit ourselves to is the length of time for which we
commit ourselves to it? In |
| The other vows | The various promises that we make, we make because we believe that they are the right things to do within marriage (just like the promise to permanency). They are things that make it a good marriage; they are not things that make it a marriage. |
If your description of marriage does not match any of these objections, then consider these general questions:
|
|
Having gone through the theory, it is now time to discuss the practical implications of the conclusion. The question that may be on your mind is how then you are supposed to find out whether it would be a good idea for you to marry someone. But this is indicative of the fact that society has conditioned us to think that it is necessary to date in order to find out whether it is right to marry. Why should we begin with this assumption? Isn't it strange that most people would say that dating is an indispensable thing if we are going to find the right person, when we have lived without it for thousands of years?
Someone may point out that dating (and getting packed in) can be a valuable learning experience. No doubt this is true but it doesn't prove that it is right to seek such learning experiences. We have done all sorts of things that were wrong to do, but turned out to be valuable learning experiences. The fact that good may come of an action does not prove that the action was not morally bad. God can bring good out of evil. We must determine whether something is right, not by whether it could be useful but by whether it is in accordance with biblical principles.
If we look to the holy men and women of the bible to give examples of how we should conduct our lives in so many areas, then surely the finding of a marriage partner should be no exception. The question we are really asking is whether people in the bible needed to have trial relationships in order find out whether they were right for each other.
When Abraham's servant prayed to be guided to someone suitable for Isaac
and she came along, his intention was to take her back to be his wife,
not his girlfriend
It is strange that people argue that, as people in the bible didn't date, we can gain no example to follow about dating from the bible. Does it never occur to them that the fact that the bible never presents us with trial periods might be an example to follow?
This is not to say anything for (or against) arranged marriages. There
are examples in the bible of those who found their own marriage partners,
such as Jacob and Rachel
People in the bible did have periods of betrothal, but these were never
seen as trial periods. For the seven years that Jacob waited for Rachel
he was certain that he would marry her at the end of them
Joseph her man, being just and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to divorce her secretly. (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
The word "divorce" could literally be translated "relieve", "release" or "dismiss". The fact that the word "divorce" implies release from an obligation shows that they were already bound to each other, and it took something as serious as unfaithfulness for this obligation to be broken. There could be a number of reasons that they were bound to each other. They may simply have made a promise to get married in the future, but the point is that this was not a trial period.
What I am saying is that dating is not a legitimate way of finding out whether someone is right for you, just as a trial marriage is not a legitimate way of finding out whether the person is right for you. In fact I am saying that that is what dating is - a trial marriage (or a temporary marriage for those who are dating without considering each other as potential life partners).
This conclusion has some implications about how we should now behave towards dating: that is that we should not engage in temporary, experimental or trial dating. We should date someone, not only as being prepared to marry, but as being determined to marry. It should be all or nothing. Once we start dating, this should be the point of no return. Does this mean that once we have entered into the process of courtship, engagement, or betrothal, there is no turning back? That depends on what you mean by these things, and it ultimately depends on what exactly it is that you commit yourselves to.
If you commit yourselves to being each other's partners in the future, then this should be seen as just as binding as any other promise. However, you are not married yet, and you have no right to make love in any way yet.
If you commit yourselves to going on dates, then this does not make you anything more than friends, and does not give you the right to make love in any way. And there is no reason why you should not make this commitment to more than one person; that is there is no reason why this should not go on dates with more than one person. Indeed, there is no reason why you should not go out (to dinner, the pictures etc.) with people of the same sex, and going on dates does not in itself imply that you are exploring each other as potential marriage partners. If it is possible to go on dates with someone, without that person being your boyfriend or girlfriend them this implies that a boyfriend or girlfriend is something more than merely someone with whom you go on dates. Therefore you have to commit yourselves to something more than merely going on dates, in order to commit yourselves to being each other's boyfriend or girlfriend.
If you commit yourselves to exploring each other as potential marriage partners, then of course, this is not binding. But remember that making this commitment does not in itself make you anything more than friends, and does not give you the right to make love in any way. You should also remember that you do not posses or belong to each other. Therefore you do not have any exclusive claim over or obligation toward each other. There is no reason that it is intrinsically wrong to explore more than one person as a potential marriage partner. If it is possible to explore someone as a potential marriage partner, without that person being your boyfriend or girlfriend them this implies that a boyfriend or girlfriend is something more than merely someone whom you are exploring as a potential marriage partner. Therefore (even if the intention is to facilitate exploring each other as potential marriage partners) you have to commit yourselves to something more than merely exploring each other as potential marriage partners, in order to commit yourselves to being each other's boyfriend or girlfriend.
If you commit yourselves to a physical relationship then first of all,
this is wrong! The bible makes it abundantly clear that we are not given
the right to make love in any way, merely by consenting to do so, but only
by getting married
If you commit yourselves to being each other's special partner of the opposite sex - the one who fills the man or woman-shaped space in each other's lives (which is how I have defined "dating" for the purpose of this book), then there really is a reason that you should not make this commitment to more than one person; that is there really is a reason that this should be done with only one person, for the bible teaches that this is way to become married, and the bible's rules concerning marriage (It should be exclusive and permanent.) apply to the bible's definition of marriage, not to an arbitrary definition of marriage.
So in finding the right method to discover whether someone is good to marry, we must throw off the basic assumption that it is necessary to date, and begin again from first principles. The time has come for Christians to consider the intrinsic nature of dating and not simply to accept it because we see it in the world around us.
The decision of whether to marry is a complex issue. The bible teaches that the single life is in some ways bad and in some ways good. Before we discuss the pros and cons of marriage though, it is necessary to point out that there is a part of your life that will not be affected at all by marriage. It won't make the slightest difference to how holy you are.
In
There were also people around who taught the opposite: that there was
something less holy about being single. The point of verses 17 to
24 is really the same as that of
There is however a difference between saying that being married is inherently more Spiritual and that being married might make it easier to be more Spiritual. There is a difference between saying that singleness is more holy and that singleness is more expedient. Paul would not give any advice at all about whether it is good to be married or single, if there were not some ways, for some people, in some circumstances, in which one was more desirable than the other.
Now, the fact that there is nothing intrinsically holy or unholy about the state of marriage does not mean that there could never be any moral implications to the decision of whether to marry. There is nothing intrinsically holy or unholy about eating an apple pie, but there could conceivably be particular situations in which it would be wrong for someone to eat an apple pie, and other situations in which it would be wrong for him not to. If our decision on whether to marry is made from selfish motives without giving the highest priority to the issues that the bible makes the highest priorities, then our decision could be sinful. But if our decision is based on how we can best fulfil
God's law of love in the situation that we are in, then the decision itself
will be glorifying to God. Jesus indicates that there are some people who ought to choose to be single
Although whether you are married makes no difference to how holy you are, there are other parts of your life that it makes a big difference to. If you have to live with hunger pains, then this will make no difference to your walk with God, but it will make a good deal of difference to how happy you are. So then, in what ways will marriage affect your life?
Even though the present circumstances that we live in do give us some
reasons for preferring singleness,
marriage is the state that mankind was designed for.
The idea that people can be perfectly happy being single may have an appearance of Spirituality to it, but it is a false Spirituality. We may as well saythat they can be perfectly happy without friends, or without food. And indeed a Christian can, in a special way, be happy without marriage or friendship or work or sex or food or water or air. A Christian should never worry about such things
And those desires are reasons in themselves for seeking satisfaction as long as there are no reasons to the contrary. It is not only the other person's happiness that we should consider. The bible teaches that we should put others first but it does not teach that we should therefore think nothing of our own happiness. The commandment is that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves
The idea that we do not need to be married in order to be fulfilled is really a reflection of the spirit of the age. In a world that would have us believe that independence is a virtue, it is not at all cool to admit that we need a partner of the opposite sex, and it is considered a sign of weakness.
Marriage was the final work of creation; it is stated that man's state of singleness was not good; and what's more, woman was made from part of his body, so they were to be considered part of each other, and incomplete without each other (as they would be incomplete without an arm). It is difficult to see how God could have shown us any more clearly that men and women need each other. To claim that marriage, is not necessary in order for men and women to experience the fulfilment of their Divinely constituted nature, is to fly into the face of everything that is taught both from the scriptures and from experience, and it is based on pride.
It may sometimes be God's purpose that someone should live a single life. This does conflict with the fact that the bible has declared that this is not good
It may even be His command to some people that they should live a single life. But this does not conflict with the fact that marriage is the state that mankind was designed for. The point is that in order for them to follow their calling, they are required to make a sacrifice.
There are several others things that could be said in favour of marriage.
God has said that He wants us to raise Godly children
But there are some people that God calls to be single
"for the kingdom of heaven's sake"
If there are so many good things to be said about marriage, then why does Paul teach that singleness is preferable? In verse 28 he speaks of troubles that go with marriage. Ever since the fall, troubles have been inevitable between married couples
He who finds a woman finds a good thing, and obtains favour from the Lord.
(Prov. 18:22 NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
If some verses advise people to marry and other verses advise people to remain single, to select arbitrarily which piece of advice to follow, is not to follow advice at all. In order for there to be any point in listening to these pieces of advice, we have to understand when they apply and which ones have priority over which others.
It is necessary to be clear about what I mean by "Christian service". I do not mean that you will have more effort to put into glorifying God. Everything we do can and should be done in a way so as to glorify God. The time you spend working for your boss, the time you spend studying for exams, the time you spend performing your duties towards your marriage partner and the time you spend proclaiming the gospel, will all be glorifying to God as long as you act out of love. To suggest that the single person is more suited to glorifying God would be to suggest that there was a mistake in the creation of mankind.
By "Christian service" I simply mean the things you do to effect the proclamation of the gospel. This includes preaching the gospel, sharing your faith in a conversation, time you spend at evangelistic events or preparing evangelistic literature, time spent in prayer for the spreading of the gospel and anything whose aim is to communicate the gospel to unbelievers.
The proclamation of the gospel is not the only thing that we should
be concerned about in this world, but it is our primary reason for being
in this world and therefore should be given a high priority. And this is
why Paul prefers singleness to marriage: the proclamation of the gospel
has a higher priority than our personal fulfilment. This is seen in
Jesus indicates that there is a difference between those who are single because of circumstances, and those who are single because of choice
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. (NKJV)
We cannot claim to be single by choice, if we are single because
we do not feel ready for marriage, or because we have never met anyone
we consider suitable, or because no one has accepted us. We can only claim
that we are single by choice, if we have made up our minds that
even if we found someone who was ideally suited to us, we would still
turn the opportunity down. Of course even if you have not chosen
to be single, you can still use any time in which you do happen to find yourself
single, for the kingdom of heaven's sake. What we are considering at the
moment though is how we can know whether we ought to choose singleness.
If we are better able to effect the proclamation of the gospel when we
are free from the duties of marriage, and if the proclamation of the gospel
is our primary reason for being in this world, then shouldn't we advise
everyone to choose a life of celibacy? But according to Jesus, this
advice does not apply to everyone
All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given. (NKJV)
There is a parallel between Jesus' words in
Marriage is also laid down as the Divine preventative of sexual immorality. Paul, after stating his preference for singleness, in
...but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. (NKJV)
The implication is that if they can exercise self-control then they
need not marry. The gift therefore that is required to lead a life of celibacy,
is the ability to keep our sexual passions under control. In fact Jesus
says that if we do have such a gift, then we ought to use it
He who is able to accept it, let him accept it. (NKJV)
Our decision of whether to choose singleness is therefore not one that we have been given the right to make arbitrarily, or because we feel like making a show of our sacrificial nature; if we choose this way of life when God has not equipped us for it, then it may lead to sinful consequences. The bible does not teach that you should choose to live in celibacy if you are a minister of the gospel, or if you are in the prime of your life. Rather it should depend upon whether you have been given the required gift.
So how can we know whether we have been given such a gift? The answer
is at the end of
It is better to marry than to burn.
The idea of burning was often used in biblical times to express a strong desire. (The word that we translate "lust" comes from a word that means heat.) Of course the idea could also have other meanings in other contexts, but here the context is entirely to do with controlling sexual desire, so it would be arbitrary to reject sexual passion as the most obvious meaning of "burn". Of course it is true that having your own partner will not mean an end to all sexual temptation and the married person will also have times when he or she has to exercise self control. It is also true that God is always able to deliver us from temptation, but this does not in any way diminish our responsibility to take practical steps to keep ourselves away from it. The bible clearly teaches that marriage is a big help in resisting temptation, and that this fact is a compelling reason for seeking marriage for those who struggle with it.
This principle is to take priority over his previous statement that it is good for people to remain single (vv8-9). Therefore the reason that we should avoid burning with passion, must have a higher priority than the reasons he gives for preferring singleness - that is more freedom to effect the proclamation of the gospel. Why would this be?
It is entirely to do with avoiding sin. Partly because of the risk of
falling bodily into sexual immorality, but also because lustful thoughts
are sinful in themselves, and Jesus says they are the same thing
Our purpose is to glorify God, and we glorify God by living holy lives (Matt. 5:16). Therefore there is nothing that should be given a higher priority than avoiding sin, even if this means that we have less time to put into proclaiming the gospel.
We know from the bible and from experience, that neglecting or delaying marriage leads to temptation and sin, both in the body and in the mind. Our concern for purity of body and mind is so important that it should take priority even over our Christian service.
As the bible constantly represents marriage as necessary for a fulfilled life, states that a single life is not good and warns us of the evil consequences of inappropriate celibacy, then unless we have been equipped to lead a single life in purity of body and mind, we should not only welcome marriage but also actively seek it.
What is a good age to get married (provided that we have found someone suitable)? If we are going to answer this question scripturally, then we must consider the biblical rationale for marriage, and then ask at what age this rationale is fulfilled. If
The conclusion that
dating and marriage are essentially the same does not necessarily mean
that dating is wrong. It does not mean that people should be expected to
be single until it is convenient for them to get legally married. The bible
has declared that it is not good for them to be without a partner of the
opposite sex
Young people often say that they are not ready for such a relationship, but the fact that they date, indicates that they believe that they are indeed ready to have partners of the opposite sex. They would be far more reluctant to put off legal marriage for so long, if it meant being single. Reasons for delaying marriage will fit into one of three categories: either they believe that it would be inconvenient under their present life's circumstances, or they believe they have not developed into a mental state that will make such a relationship successful, or they do not believe they have found someone who is personally suited to them. The present discussion is over when people can be considered ready to make a lifelong commitment. The subject of when they can be considered ready for legal marriage will be discussed in due course.
Concerning their life's circumstances: They may say that life still has too many uncertainties and that they want to make sure that the person they marry will fit in with the lifestyle they choose (which is normally a matter of wealth and social status). Nowadays, society dictates that we should organise our marriage around our career rather than our career around our marriage. What this implies is that our career is more important than our marriage.
First of all, it is the nature of life - especially the Christian life
- that it is filled with uncertainty. None of us know where we will be
in a year's time or even tomorrow
Secondly, marriage is not a business venture. The purpose is that two people can find happiness together in true love. People have married even in the face of tremendous difficulties because they believed that it was worth it. God has made us so that marriage gives us one the greatest pleasures that we are capable of experiencing, and we must have a very low opinion indeed of this happiness if it does not far outweigh such trivialities as wealth and social status. And their love must be shallow if it cannot overcome differences in education and careers.
Thirdly, there is more to the subject of whether two people are compatible,
but whether they are compatible inasmuch as they have the same aims
in life, is adequately summed up for the Christian in
They may say that they do not know whom they should spend the rest of
their lives with, because they do not yet know God's plan for their lives.
But we are not required to discover God's plan for our lives. Why should
we need to know the future? It is neither our duty nor our prerogative
to attempt to bring God's plans into effect. We are simply required to
obey. God works through all events to bring us to where He wants us, just
as He did with Joseph
It may be remarked that young people should enjoy their childhood or their youth first. If this is proposed as a reason why young people should wait before they get attached, then it must be referring to parts of our childhood or youth that supposedly we could not enjoy if we were attached. One thing this could be referring to is simply enjoying the feeling of being single - the feeling of not having a partner. But this is a valid argument, only if young people do enjoy the feeling of not having a partner, and the fact that they are inclined to date indicates that they don't. Alternatively it could be referring to enjoying the things that we do during our childhood or youth that we could not do if we were attached. But does being attached prevent young people from doing the things that they normally do? That depends on what things we are thinking of:
One thing that the world seems to consider an important thing for people to experience before they settle down is to love and to make love to different men or women. And the church has to some extent been swept along in this attitude, even though we do draw the line somewhere. It is true that by making a lifelong commitment to one person, we forfeit the chance to experience certain physical pleasures with different people. But I cannot see how choosing to miss the opportunity to experience certain physical pleasures with several people, in order to experience them with only one for as long we live, is anything to regret.
By making a lifelong commitment to one person, people also have to give up the chance to date different people. But I cannot see how choosing to miss the opportunity to have this kind of fulfilment from many temporary relationships, in order to have it from only one that is lifelong, is anything to regret.
It is ironic that the experiencing of these pleasures is urged as a reason to delay making a lifelong commitment, when the rightful place of these pleasures is within a lifelong relationship. Apart from pleasures of the kind that have been mentioned, I cannot see why marriage should in any way prevent us from enjoying friends and parties and all the usual things that young people enjoy.
There are those who voluntarily spend all their time alone together once they have paired off, but this is a matter of choice; they do not have to live like this, and older people are just as likely to fall into this trap as younger people.
They may say that being married will hamper their Christian service.
In the past people who choose to get married rather than spend their
life in singleness in order to be able to put more effort into their Christian
service were judged to be less Spiritual. The same attitude can be found
today in a slightly different form: People who choose to get married rather
than spend their youth in singleness in order to be able to put more effort
into their Christian service are often judged to be less Spiritual. If
Concerning their mental state: They may say that they are not mature enough, but "mature" is a very emotive word, and can mean all sorts of things. "Maturing" means "developing". Developing into what? An "adult"? This again is emotive rather than descriptive. We need to state precisely what faculties a person needs to have acquired, in order to be considered ready for marriage. Young people who want to get married are often told that they ought to wait because they will be more experienced in a few years time. But it will always be true that we shall be more experienced in a few years time. If we used this argument consistently we would wait forever, unless we had a clear idea of how experienced we need to be in order to be ready. It is possible to say all sorts of vague things about how people need to develop certain mental faculties in order to be ready for marriage, without being at all specific about what those faculties are. What these faculties are should not be determined arbitrarily. We should not impose on people a way of life that the bible has declared is not good, because they fail to meet up to a standard, which the bible does not make a qualification for marriage.
We can develop in some way by acquiring knowledge and experience, but is this what makes a relationship edifying? Surely, it is Spiritual maturity that makes a relationship edifying. This means developing into a Christ like person, or acquiring Christ like characteristics. What would these Christ like characteristics be except the fruit of the Spirit?
Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
(Gal 5:22,23 NKJV)
What else makes any kind of relationship edifying?
Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
(1 Cor 8:1 NKJV)
The most simple, uneducated and inexperienced couple can fill each other's lives with happiness if they show love to each other. On the other hand, the most intelligent and knowledgeable couple can make each other's lives a misery if they do not. If they are in a mental state that will make a relationship successful, then how they can find someone who is personally suited to themselves is something that will be discussed in due course.
It is the fruit of the Spirit that makes any kind of relationship successful, and it is the absence of this character which makes any kind of relationship break down. When we behave in a way that is contrary to this character, when we always want our own way, when we easily become angry, when we take our frustrations out on each other, when we not prepared to make an effort to make it up again - this is what makes us immature and this is what puts strain on marriages and indeed on friendships. The fruit of the Spirit is what makes us Spiritually mature, and therefore into attractive partners, and it is what we should encourage in ourselves and in others. However, marriage should not be considered a reward for attaining a level of Spiritual maturity.
He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Matt. 5:45 NKJV)
Marriage is itself a means of bringing out of us, some of the most noble aspects of Christian love. Whatever requirements we have concerning the other person's Spirituality, are not due to our strength, but rather to our weakness. The reason we want someone to possess certain qualities is that we cannot cope with someone who does not possess them.
The subject of what qualities are desirable in a partner, and what qualities we should encourage in ourselves and others in order to become good partners, is the same subject as what we should strive for anyway, regardless of whether we want to get married.
A detailed discussion about what exactly these qualities are, and how by the grace of God we should be able to meet each others needs by exercising these qualities is the subject for another book, but it would be appropriate to make a few points, for when people are married, or thinking of getting married, it becomes even more important that we behave properly towards each other. We have tremendous power over someone who is in love with us. We know that our slightest action (or inaction) can make the difference between their happiness and misery. We can use this power for good or for evil.
So how should we encourage each other to be mature? There is no better
way to prepare people for a good, God honouring marriage than to teach
them to love. Christ's love for the church,
is the example that men are supposed to follow when they show love to their
wives
The commandment is not merely that we should not treat others in a way
that we don't want them to treat us, but that we should treat others in
a way that we want them to treat us
We have a duty to show love to people by meetings their needs
We should love those who hate us
It may be remarked that it is not solely about Spiritual maturity, because people also need to have developed practical skills in order to live on their own. Firstly, the present discussion is not so much about when people are ready for legal marriage, but rather when they are ready to commit themselves to each other. Secondly, there is no reason why young people should not have learned these practical skills if they and their parents had the intention. Thirdly, we are too hung up about the idea of independence anyway; that people should need help from their parents in certain practical ways is not such a bad thing.
There is a view that God has planned exactly who it is that we are going to marry (or He has planned that we are not going to marry anyone). Even if this view is correct (I happen to believe that it is.), there is no reason that it should affect our method of searching. Some people conclude that if it has been planned by God, and therefore will happen (or not happen) anyway, then there is no point in doing anything to try to make it happen. Others conclude that attempting to make it happen, is failing to accept whatever He has planned. Others conclude that we have to find out who this person is (if anyone) and we should only proceed to marry someone, if we have discovered that this is the person that God has planned for us.
But all these reactions are based on the assumption that our duty is
in some way affected by God's plan. It comes from confusing what we mean
by "God's will". Sometimes we mean His purpose, or what He has planned.
Sometimes we mean His guidance, or what He commands us to do. The
two are not necessarily the same. It was his purpose that Jesus
would die on the cross
If we do feel God urging us to explore someone as a marriage partner, then this should not cause us to make any conclusions about the outcome. He may later tell us to stop, or we may be unsuccessful for reasons beyond our control. It means nothing more than that this is what we are supposed to do for the present.
The fact that God has planned what will happen, is a reason for us not
to worry, but it is not a reason for us not to act. It is
still our duty to obey His commands. Trying to make something happen, is
not the same thing a failing to accept whatever He has planned. Worrying
about something is the same thing as failing to accept whatever
He has planned.
As for whether we should try to discover God's plan for us before we act, it is neither our duty nor our prerogative to attempt to bring God's plans into effect. We are simply required to obey. God works in all events, all our actions and decisions (whether they are obedient or disobedient) to bring us to where He wants us. The fact that there is only one course of action that is consistent with His purpose does not mean that there is only one course of action that is consistent with His guidance. We may find that there is more than one person, who matches up to everything that God has commanded about the person that we should marry. We do not have to be concerned about whether the person we choose is the one that God has planned for us. He is omnipotent. He works in everything, including our choosing (Whether this is because He influences our choice or because He anticipates our choice, makes no difference.), to bring us to the one He has planned for us, or to no one at all. This does not change the fact that, from our perspective, any decision that was consistent with His commandments would have been equally obedient. How can anything be considered disobedient, if it is not breaking a commandment?
It is our duty to obey. In all our decisions, we must follow either His specific commandments or the general commandment, upon which all the specific commandments are based - the commandment to
love. Love means desiring good for people, including ourselves
If we need to find potential partners, then we should do whatever is reasonable, in order to meet people (like going to places where we should expect to meet people). If there is someone in particular that we are interested in, then we should do whatever is reasonable, in order to get to know the person, and to facilitate getting married (like making some effort to spend time with him or her). If God has commanded us to love, then how can it be right to frustrate people (by our action or inaction) without a good reason?
What of dating agencies? There is nothing morally wrong with the idea of getting someone else to do the initial searching. (They are only called "dating agencies" because you would be expected to meet each other on dates, so in this context the word "dating" is used in the other way to the one I have generally used. Whether you are "dating" in the sense of satisfying each other's need for a partner of the opposite sex on a trial basis is another matter.) So if it really does seem like the most efficient way to meet potential partners, then a Christian dating agency would be a good idea.
As the most likely place for a Christian to meet a potential partner,
is somewhere where other Christians meet, then it is these places that
have the greatest opportunity to help people find their partners. If we
truly love people then we would show concern for all their needs, not only
their Spiritual needs, and we would show it not only with words but also
with actions
Sometimes we do things to help people who are hungry, so we should not neglect to help people who are lonely. In the bible, the word "hatred" is used to imply neglect. To fail to love, is to hate. We should also remember that single people are often lonely, not only because of the lack of a partner, but also because of a lack of friends in general. The kind of events that help people to meet potential partners would be the same as those that help them to meet friends in general. In both cases, they need to meet each other, in circumstances that allow them to get to know each other.
We sometimes have events whose main purpose is to meet people's Spiritual needs, and other needs may be met incidentally. Other times we have events whose main purpose is to meet a more basic human need. There is nothing wrong with holding an event whose main purpose is to feed hungry people, and there is no reason that we should try to disguise the fact that the main purpose is something other than to meet people's Spiritual needs. Churches often fail to help lonely people. Everyone needs a social life: just as the body is starved without food, so the soul is starved without love.
What of arranged marriages? For most of our history, people believed that finding their children a suitable marriage partner was one of the best things that they could do for them. They believed that their children needed help in finding this person and in setting up their homes. The reason that arranged marriages
are thought of so badly, is that they are equated with forced marriages. We tend to think of a situation where the parties are given no choice in the matter. No doubt, for many people this is true, but it does not have to be the case. Rebekah was given a choice
Although it is rare nowadays, for parents to give their children any help in meeting potential partners, it is still common for them to put pressure on their children in order to get them to marry people they approve of, or not to marry people they disapprove of.
Whenever we give advice about whether two people should marry, we should remember that nothing is ever in their best interests unless, either it makes them happy, or it contributes to their Spiritual edification (which is the highest form of happiness). Too often, we think we can do "good" to someone, in a way other than by working towards their happiness, or we judge what will lead to their happiness by worldly standards rather than by what the bible teaches, and we can find that we are making their lives a misery in our efforts to do them "good".
Obviously, a true friend would warn someone, if he saw that a clear biblical principle was being disregarded, or if he saw a recipe for disaster. But warning them is the only thing we can do. If despite all our warning, they are still determined to go ahead, then there is no point in trying to make life difficult for them.
For all those who have an opportunity to help people, whether they are parents, friends or leaders, some things ought to be borne in mind when they decide what is appropriate both in what they do to help people to meet, and in the advice that they give. There are two extremes to be avoided:
The first is being totally indifferent to other people's need. It can be easy to think of their feelings as trivial, and to treat them as if they are weak or unspiritual if they let their feelings show. The pain of loneliness is real, every bit as real as the pain of hunger.
The second is treating people as if their lives were pitiful because they do not have a partner. We should be caring, but not patronising. They may be in some way unfulfilled, but their lives are wholly worthwhile simply because they are children of God and we should treat them accordingly.
Regrettably, we often find that our own folly is the cause of our having to spend some or all of our lives alone. It is hard for us to admit that we want somebody. It is also hard for us to admit it, when like a particular person. How many opportunities are missed because of pride? Sometimes, we are simply not prepared to make the first move; sometimes, we do not respond to the other person's advances; sometimes, we go as far as rejecting the other person's efforts, because we are determined to demonstrate that we do not need him or her. We are cool because we want to show that we are strong or independent or Spiritual. It is a hypocritical position: we believe that we are worth the other person's effort, and the other person is not worth the same kind of effort. This is everything that God stands against
We live in a society that has a low view of marriage. It is not seen as something that is necessary in order to be fulfilled. If you marry young, this is regarded as something that will spoil the fun that you could otherwise have had. To give our marriage priority over our career is seen as foolish. But there was a time when the opposite was the case. Society's present view of marriage is partly the result of a backlash against a time when marriage was given far too much importance. We should understand what is the rightful place of marriage, giving it neither a lower nor a higher place than it deserves.
Marriage is given an important place in the bible. This is partly because
it is one the greatest pleasures that God has given us to enjoy. But its
most important place is when it is used as a metaphor for our relationship
with God. In the bible, the union between
a man and a woman is compared to the union between Christ and the church
Marriage does bring some kind of fulfilment, and will therefore make you life in some way happier than it would have been if you were single, but it does not make life meaningful. Only a relationship with God can make life meaningful, and to look to anything else for this kind of fulfilment is breaking the first commandment (Ex. 20:2-5).
Even though we may describe marriage as being permanent, we are only speaking in earthly terms. When this life is over, marriage will be done away with (Matt. 22:30), but the relationship between God and His people will last an eternity.
So it is worth putting some effort into pursuing marriage, but it is not worth letting this pursuit preoccupy our lives. It's value is only temporary (1 Cor. 7:29-31) and we were put here to pursue things of eternal value.
These principles are also of help to those who for some reason have to spend some (or perhaps all) of their lives without fulfilment of this kind. The way to cope is not for them to pretend that there is nothing missing, or that the pain they go through is not real, but rather to remember what they do have. If we truly worship God, then this will outweigh any suffering we may experience in this world, and when we experience our relationship with God in its fullness, there will be an end to all our suffering (Rom. 8:18).
What do we mean when we use the term "the right one"? We sometimes mean the one that God has planned for us (if indeed He has planned anyone) in order for his purposes to be accomplished. In this sense of the term, we do not have to be the least bit concerned about finding "the right one", because God will accomplish His purposes regardless of whether we are obedient or disobedient. By "the right one", we could also mean someone who will make us a good partner. In this sense of the term, there is no reason to believe that there could be only one person who is able to do this. After spending time with a particular person we can certainly become attached to that person so that he or she becomes "the one" and no one else will do, but there is no reason to believe that someone else could not have become "the one", if he or she had been the one that we spent time with. Although there is no reason to believe that there could be only one person who could make us a good partner, it seems obvious that we could be more suited to some people than to others, and in this sense of the term, we should be concerned about choosing someone who is right for us.
So how are two people to know whether they are right for each other? We determine whether anything is right, by whether it is God's will. By God's will (in this sense), we mean what God commands us to do. In order to know whether God is guiding us to marry a particular person, we need to know two things. First we need to know what kind of person God commands us to marry, and then we need to know whether that person is the kind of person that God commands us to marry.
If the fact that someone is called "Jane" and has a scar on her left cheek is indicative that we should marry her, then this implies that we already believe that God has told us to marry someone who is called "Jane" and has a scar on her left cheek. If the fact that someone is a Christian, is in any way indicative to us that the person may be right for us, then this implies that we already believe that God has told us that the person must be a Christian. If the fact that we want to marry someone is in any way indicative that God may want us to marry the person, then this implies that we already believe that God wants us to marry someone that we want to marry. Our knowledge of what a person is like can never be of any help in determining whether the person is right for us, unless we also know what the person needs to be like in order to be right for us. How would God guide us to the person that He wants us to marry, except by telling us what the person must be like, and by giving us opportunity to find out what the person is like?
So what do we need to know? What does God say the person must be like?
Firstly there are some principles that will always apply. It is
quite clear from the bible that if someone already has a partner then,
by virtue of this fact, that person is unsuitable
One biblical principle is that a Christian should never marry a non-christian
Another biblical principle is that we should not marry someone who is bound to someone else. Neither should we marry someone, if we are bound to someone else. This gives rise to advice concerning people who have partners or who have had partners before. If we are consistent with the conclusion that dating and marriage are the same thing, then the advice for someone who is dating, is the same as the advice for someone who is married, and the advice to someone who split up with his or her girlfriend or boyfriend is the same as the advice for someone who has had a divorce.
One of the biggest problems people seem to have with the idea that dating and marriage are essentially the same thing, is that it seems to lead to harsh consequences for those who are dating. But if you believe this then you must already believe that there are harsh consequences for those who are married. If you believe that it leads to the conclusion that a dating couple who split up must never marry again, then you must already believe that a divorced couple must never marry again. If you believe that it leads to the conclusion that a dating couple are stuck together for the rest of their lives no matter what, then you must already believe that a married couple are stuck together for the rest of their lives no matter what.
Perhaps the harshest conclusion seems to be that people may find themselves in a position that they never bargained for. Most people who date these days do so on the understanding that they can break it off if it doesn't suit them. But this could just as easily apply to those marriages which we all agree are marriages. Nowadays most people enter into marriage with the understanding that they can get a divorce if it doesn't suit them. God has declared that divorce is an intrinsic evil. It therefore must not be qualified by whether the couple understand that they must stay together.
The point is, that whatever harsh consequences you believe there are that flow from the conclusion that dating and marriage are the same thing, you must already believe in these harsh consequences. Therefore the fact that it may lead to harsh consequences cannot be an argument against the conclusion that dating and marriage are the same thing.
What follows is my understanding of the consequences of such a relationship. I am giving it only for completeness, and even if I am quite wrong, it does not in any way affect the question of whether dating and marriage are the same thing.
The question may be asked: "What about those who make a mistake? Surely, if they find that their relationship is wrong, then it is better to end it than to be stuck with each other for the rest of their lives?" First, what exactly is meant by the word "wrong"?
If by "wrong" you mean "not God's will" then how do you know that it is not God's will? Do you not want to go out with the person because you feel that it is not God's will, or do you feel that it is not God's will because you do not want to go out with the person? What God's will is, must be determined primarily by what is revealed of God's will in the bible.
We invent our own rules about what it is that makes a relationship wrong,
and therefore for what reasons a relationship can be broken off, and so
nullify the word of God, which states that this type of relationship should
never be broken off even if we were wrong to get together in the
first place. And we are so good at making our reasons sound Spiritual.
We say that we want to give more of our lives to God, rather like the Pharisees
who got out of supporting their parents by saying that they wanted to give
their gifts to God
So, if you think that a relationship is not God's will, then you must prove this from the bible. However, when most people describe their relationship as "wrong", they mean that it is not making them as happy as they would have hoped.
The question then becomes: "Surely, if their relationship is not making them as happy as they would have hoped, then it is better to end it?" On this point I disagree: I don't think that it is obvious that ending the relationship is the best thing to do. Whether it is better to end such a relationship should not be based on our own good judgement, but on what God has commanded, which is based on His perfect judgement.
The feeling that it is better to end a poor relationship is based on a misconception of what it is that makes a good relationship. We give Eros too high a priority in this matter, and this is because it is so strong, and because it makes such impressive promises: when we are in love we are certain that it will last forever, and that being together is the sure and only way to lifelong happiness. When we find that a relationship does not live up to these promises (and especially when we see these promises made from another potential relationship), then we feel that our whole happiness is on the line and to miss this opportunity is the most pitiful thing that could ever happen to us. We all know how fickle Eros is. It doesn't always last, and when it does last, this is not because they possess some quality of "rightness" for each other, but because they strive to be right for each other.
On the other hand, making a relationship not work is very easy to do, either through deliberate action or simply through failing to put in the required effort. The love and happiness can be put back into a marriage that has lost it if you are both willing to put the effort back into it.
You must not think that I have a low opinion of Eros. The book of Proverbs
gives us lots of advice about how to live a life filled with happiness,
and one of its reoccurring themes, is that a man should find lasting happiness
with a woman.
Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice with the woman of your youth. As a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and always be enraptured with her love. (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
This advice may concern relationships that they entered into before they realised what God's standards were. They may have made mistakes in ignorance. Those mistakes can be forgiven. Even if they knew full well that they were breaking God's commandment when they married or when they got divorced, there is still equal forgiveness for those who have faith in Christ.
Forgiveness implies the removal of the consequence of sin, and the consequence of sin is punishment. Forgiveness does not imply the removal of all the consequences of marriage, just because getting married happens to have been a sinful action. One of the consequences of marriage is that you become obligated to the person that you married. Even if it was wrong for you to marry this person, you are still obligated to this person. This consequence is not a punishment. It is a consequence of the fact that it is a marriage, not a consequence of the fact that it is a sinful action. Forgiveness therefore removes the punishment that comes from the sinful action, but not the obligation that comes from the marriage.
So, we should all understand that we are obligated to the partner that we have now, regardless of whether we were wrong to marry that person, and regardless of whether we were unfaithful to someone else when we got married to that person. Our obligation is not removed merely by splitting up, but only by those exceptional circumstances that release us from the marriage obligation.
So, what are those exceptional circumstances?
They are: firstly, the death of the other He does seem to make a distinction between the Christian couple and the couple were one is an unbeliever. To the one whose unbelieving partner leaves, he says to let him or her go; to the Christian couple, he says that they shouldn't leave in the first place. He does not say that the deserted party is bound to the Christian who deserts him or her, but there does seem to be the impression that when a Christian partner leaves, some more time and effort should go into reconciliation, for he says that the one who leaves should return. The Apostle is not concerned only with the question of whether or not it would be adultery.
To divorce and to remarry may no longer be adultery if our partner has been unfaithful, but it could still be wrong for other reasons. If we grow tired of our partner, shut him or her out until he or she is so desperate for some love and affection, that in a moment of weakness he or she falls into an act of unfaithfulness, and if we wait for that moment so that we can at last be free of him or her, then we would not be following the law of love. In fact love requires us to forgo our rights even when we are the wronged party.
If someone is no longer bound, then it follows that this person is free
to marry again, for the only grounds that the bible ever gives for forbidding
remarriage, is that the person is bound to someone else A woman is not to depart from her man. But
even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her
man. (NKJV Italics are my own translation.)
It also follows that if we split up with someone on our own initiative,
then we are still bound to that person, if he or she still wants us back.
We may have understood our duty towards another person, but the other person may not see things the same way. We cannot force someone to take us back, or to stay with us if that person is determined to leave. We can warn someone about what God's commandments are but that is all we can do. We should not try to manipulate then into making the decision that we believe is the right one, by deception, by failing to give them all the information that they would want or by flattery, for example. It is their right to make an informed decision without pressure, even if it is the wrong decision. And the apostle implies that it is not in the interests of peace to but too much effort into persuading an unbeliever to return to a relationship that he or she has left As long as we have followed everything that God commands us about what
the person must be like, then our decision can be based on personal preference.
In ...she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes,
only in the Lord. (NKJV)
This of course does not nullify other biblical commandments. It does not
mean that she can marry a man who is already married, if she wants to.
It does not mean that she is at liberty to disregard any other obligations
she may have, in pursuit of the man she wants. It simply means that, as
long as her choice does not conflict with any other Divine principle, she
may marry anyone she wants. So, whether there are any other principles
to consider, is something that cannot be determined from this verse. If
we were to find someone who matches everything that God has commanded us
about the person we should marry, and we decided to go ahead, then how
could this be considered in any way disobedient?
As the primary reason for
marriage is to bring happiness, then we should marry according to our
personal preference. This is not to say that there may not sometimes be
exceptional circumstances in which it may be right for us to marry someone
that we don't particularly want to marry (We may already have obligated ourselves to the person,
by promising for example.), or that even in normal circumstances, we should expect someone who
exactly matches everything that we ever hoped for. It simply means that under normal
circumstances, we should choose someone that we personally find desirable.
Even if there are disadvantages to the marriage, these should be weighed
against the advantages. It would be short sighted, to tell someone that
it was for his or her own good that you do not want to marry him or her,
if the pain that you would cause this person through not marrying him or
her is greater than that which would be caused by whatever hardships
there may be. We are not required to feel as if we could not bear to live
without the person. Ultimately, the point of getting married is not to
make life seem worthwhile (Only God can do this.), but to make your life
and the other person's, in some way better than it would have been if you
had not.
Before we even begin to explore someone, we must ask ourselves whether
we are ready to make a lifelong commitment.
We should not still be dithering about whether we want to get married at
all. If we should discover that the person is suitable, then are we going
to go through with it? If we are not sure about this, then we should not
do anything that is likely to raise someone's hopes, only to have them
dashed when we decide that we are not ready for that kind of commitment
anyway.
The same applies to any difficult circumstances that we can see. If we are not prepared, from the start, to do whatever is necessary to overcome the difficulties that we are aware of, then we should not start exploring that person, or trying to win his or her affection.
In order to avoid hurt and embarrassment, we should find out the things
that can be found out without telling the person how we feel, before we
move on to the things that cannot be learned without giving the game away.
But there will come a time when we will have to tell the person how we
really feel, for we also need to know whether he or she feels the same
way. Before we take this step though, we should make up our minds that
we will not turn back unless we come to the conclusion that we cannot
be happy together; that is, we will not give up arbitrarily.
One consequence of this principle is that, once we have reached this
stage, their should be only one person. Otherwise, if we are considering
more than one person at once, then we will have to turn at least one of
them down, even if they are all entirely suitable.
We should also know how we should respond, when we know or suspect that
someone is interested in us. It is cruel to string the person along if
we do not feel the same way, or if we are not prepared to make a lifelong
commitment, should we find out that the person is suitable.
The way we let someone know that we do not feel the same way, and the
way we behave towards the person afterwards, can often have entirely selfish
motives. When we say "This is my way of dealing with it", we can mean "This
is the way I want to behave." It would not be considered an excuse for
unkind behaviour in other situations, so why should it be considered an
excuse in this situation? If for any reason we do not want to marry the
person, we should put the person off in the same way that we would want
someone to put us off. In many cases, we can let someone know that we do
not feel the same, simply by not doing anything to show them that
we do feel the same. Even when we have to tell them plainly, it
is not necessary to be rude and it is rarely necessary to be firm. We should
also tell the truth, and not make excuses about how inconvenient it would
be to get married, when the honest reason is that we just don't want to.
We must be prepared for whatever answer the other person gives, knowing
that it is his or her right to turn us down for whatever reason he or she
likes. Even if we really are the best thing that could ever happen to the
other person, and the only thing that is stopping him or her from admitting
it is pride, it is still their right to turn us down and our duty to accept
it.
It would be very hurtful to the other person, if we started avoiding
him or her, and this should not be done unless there is a very good reason,
such as that one of us is severely tempted by being in the presence of
the other. Why should we feel uncomfortable in the other person's presence?
The fact that someone finds us attractive is no reason to get embarrassed.
How is this going make the person feel? Either we are telling the other
person that he or she is not worthy of having such feelings for us, or
we are telling him or her that we do not trust him or her to keep himself
or herself under control. If we respect and trust the other person, then
we should take it as a compliment.
We should remember that the emotions that may be involved will make
the other person extremely vulnerable. If we want, we could easily use
this position to hurt them. On the other hand, if we feel the same way,
we have an opportunity to make them happy, and it would be very wrong to
miss this opportunity if we really want to
treat the person in the way that we should want to be treated. Playing
hard to get is treating someone in the opposite way to the way that we
want that person to treat us.
In order to allow someone to get to know us properly, we ought to be
honest and open about ourselves. Although this will require humility, the
person will most probably find out what we are truly like in the end anyway,
and it is better to happen sooner than later. It is also hurtful not to
be trusted.
There are things that we must find out about the person, before we know
whether this is someone who is personally suitable for us. So how can we
find out whether someone is personally suitable for us, if not by dating?
But how can we determine what method will tell us the things that
we need to know, unless we have first decided what things we need
to know?
Saying that we don't know what we need to know can only lead us to conclude that we don't know what method will tell us the things that we need to know. Our method of finding out about someone must be based on what we do know about what we need to find out. So, what are the things that we need to know?
We may need to know about the person's Spirituality. The question we should be asking is whether being married to such a person will be edifying. We will become Spiritual snobs if we do not remember that we look for Spirituality in a partner because we need it, not because we deserve it. But whatever it is that we need to know about the person's Spirituality, we can find out by spending time together, observing and asking questions.
We also need to find out whether we have compatible beliefs in all sorts of matters. These
may include doctrinal beliefs, views on the responsibilities of husbands and wives, sex, money
and the raising of children. How are you going to find these things out except by discussing it?
One very important thing that you will need to agree on, is what the
terms of the relationship are. It would be very unwise to enter into a
relationship, without first making sure that the other person regards it
as seriously as we do. The bible says that this kind of relationship should
be lifelong, so we should make sure that the other person is looking for
something more than a temporary relationship. It may be that the other
person has honestly misunderstood, just how seriously the relationship
must be taken, and it may take some effort on our part to show him or her
what the bible teaches about it. If the other person cannot agree, it is
unwise to enter into a relationship that bible says should be lifelong,
unless the other person agrees that there is no turning back. In practice
this may mean that we have to put off marriage, until we get legally married.
I should also suggest that it is unwise to start courting someone who is
prepared to give up arbitrarily or for trivial reasons.
We should consider whether we are really attracted to the person, or
whether we are attracted to the lifestyle that being married to that person
has to offer. If it is the person's money or high-flying career that we
are interested in, then the relationship is likely to break down, should
the other person loose his or her money or career. We should therefore
ask whether we would still want to marry the person even if he or she did
not offer such a lifestyle.
We must not attach too much importance to way people look
We will want to know whether we are in love or whether we are attracted
to each other for superficial reasons. I call one kind of attraction "fancying"
by which I mean an attraction to qualities that, we believe, make the person
a good partner. Being in love is an attraction
to the person himself or herself, as a partner. It is not the same as the
distinction between "love" and "lust", as if the two were mutually exclusive:
neither fancying nor being in love are necessarily lustful, but both of
them can become lustful. Any desire can become lustful if it controls us
to the point where fulfilling it is more important than doing good to others.
And any desire can be pure if we control it out of concern for the good
of others. Eros is a desire, distinct from sexual desire but still a desire,
and a desire has no intrinsic virtue: it is good in the right context and
bad in the wrong context.
When we first begin to explore someone, this is usually because of attractive
qualities. Love is something that usually comes later. It is better to
find out whether someone is suitable while we merely fancy each other,
as finding that the person is unsuitable, will lead merely to disappointment,
whereas if we are in love then it will lead to hurt. In order to know which
kind of attraction it is, we simply need to imagine whether we would be
equally happy with someone else who possessed the things that we find attractive.
You could be attracted to someone because he or she was good looking, charming and Spiritual, but if these were the only reasons you had for choosing the person, then you would be just as happy marrying anyone else who was good looking, charming and Spiritual. The same applies to all other qualities that you find attractive: if these were the only reasons you had for choosing the person, then you would be just as happy marrying anyone else who possessed them. But when we are in love then no one else will do, regardless of whether there are other people who possess the qualities that we find attractive, and very often, in spite of the fact that the person with whom we are in love does not possess all the qualities that we find attractive. Love is different to merely being attracted to the person's qualities, but being attracted to the other person's qualities will usually spark it off. We should not think that it is not real love just because we have identified the things that sparked it off. We know that it is love, if no one else will do. But there is no reason why dating should help you to decide whether you are in love.
Marriage is not made right merely by the fact that we are in love with the person. People commit all kinds of evil and emotionally violent acts, and justify them be saying "I did it for love." They mean Eros; they did it because they were in love. But as this kind of love is the desire to posses someone as a partner of the opposite sex, saying "I did it for love." is the same as saying "I did it because I wanted to." Marriage, like anything else, is made right by things more virtuous than a desire, and made wrong by things more evil than a lack of desire.
Having said all this, it is still right to expect to marry someone with whom you are in love, in normal circumstances.
We also need to know is whether we can be close friends and whether
the friendship in itself brings happiness. We find out whether we get on
as friends, and whether we can communicate properly, in exactly the same
way that we find out whether we get on with anyone else as friends: that
is, by spending time together, doing things together and talking to each
other. You may find that you have already found that you can be good friends,
before you even began to think that you might want to be more than friends.
In order to know whether the relationship is right, what else do you
need to know? And if you think that this is a naive and unrealistic way
of finding a marriage partner, then what makes dating a better way? How
does dating give you any advantage in finding out the things that you need
to know?
Someone may say that they need to know what it is like to kiss the person.
If this is urged as a reason that it is necessary to date, then you must
be talking about the kind of kiss that you would not feel right giving
to someone, unless you were dating him or her. Therefore you are not talking
about the same kind of kiss that people give their mothers; you must be
talking about a passionate kiss. Why
else would you feel that you need to be dating someone in order to give
them such a kiss?
So why would you need to experience this kind of kiss? Because, how
do we know that we are suited unless we have been intimate? But isn't this
exactly the argument that people of the world
use, to explain why they need to know what someone is like in bed, before
they can know whether it is right to marry him or her? So it cannot
be a valid argument.
Discussing it - yes, I think this is very important, but trying it out
- people are not motivated to passionately kiss each other because they
want to find out whether they will enjoy it, but rather because they already
believe that they are going to enjoy it very much.
Someone may object that, by being friends with someone, by doing things
together and by talking to each other, the only thing you will find out
is whether the person is good to be friends with, to do things with and
to talk with. This is based on the premise that the only thing you will
find out is what you have tried, so by this argument, the only way you
will find out whether the person is good to marry is to marry him or her.
This reveals the real reason that people believe that dating gives them
an advantage in getting to know whether it is a good idea to marry someone:
they can see that dating is in some way like marriage, and that inasmuch
as it is like marriage, they can find out what being married would be like,
by trying it. (The argument that it is necessary to have sex with someone
to find out whether he or she is anatomically compatible is based on the
same premise - that we need to try it to find out whether it is right.)
So some people think they can find out whether it is "right" by trying
it out, and simply watching to see whether it lasts, or they may even deliberately
try to make it not work, reasoning that if it is "right" then nothing
will prevent it from working. This demonstrates an assumption that if we
find someone who is "right" for us, then it will automatically work.
That is, there will be guaranteed love and happiness without any need to
make it work: if the love and happiness does not last, then this
is not through any failing of the couple, but rather because the relationship
simply isn't "right".
No doubt, some relationships require more effort than others, but if we are complacent about
how perfect our love is, and we do not continue to work at it, then it is in danger of failing.
The only way that you can know that it will last is through determination to put in effort.
It may be objected that someone may put on a show (consciously or subconsciously)
and reveal his or her true nature only after the marriage. But whatever
masquerade you would fall for, from a friend, you would be just as likely
to fall for, from a dating partner, unless dating gives you an advantage
in getting to know the person, so this cannot be a grounds for saying that
dating is necessary. However, it is worth contemplating the point.
There really are some cases, where one of the partners has turned into
a monster after marriage, and it is difficult to see how this could possibly
have been anticipated. If someone were to acquire our love, by pretending
to be nice, when his or her real intentions were to marry us, only to satisfy
his or her own desires without caring for our feelings, or even to get
satisfaction from deliberately making our lives miserable, then this certainly
would be one of the most hateful things that anyone could do to us. In
order to make sense of such situations, it is necessary to remember the
whole duty of the Christian life. Certainly, we should make every effort
to avoid a situation like that, but is it really our duty to shield ourselves
from any possibility of harm? Our duty is simply to obey, and all God's
commandments are based on love. Our duty
is to love those who love us, and to love those who hate us First, what can be done to avoid poor decisions? Well, having a clear idea
of what basis to make the decision on for starters: that is, we must find
out all the things that we truly need to know. It is not enough merely
to consider how good looking they are, how charming they are and whether we
are in love: we must have found out what is their Spiritual state, how
kind they are, and whether we get on as friends for example - all those
things that we are supposed to find out while we are courting.
But how can we avoid being deceived about those things on whose basis we are going to decide? If we want to find someone who loves us with the self-sacrificing love that God commands people to have
("agapé"), then how can we be sure the person really does have this virtue and is not just pretending? There is no absolutely sure method, for there are some people who fool everyone, but there are ways to minimise the risk. One of the problems nowadays is that people like to be independent, and so they seek as much as possible to avoid relying on other people in determining
whom they will marry. We should not neglect to draw upon the experience of our parents and other acquaintances out of pride. Generally, people become better judges of character with age. (This is not a good enough reason in itself for sixteen year olds to wait until they are twenty: if the fact that we acquire better judgement with greater experience is alone a good enough reason to wait, then it would follow that twenty year olds should wait until they are twenty five, and twenty five year olds should wait until they are thirty, and thirty year olds should wait until they are thirty five, etc.) We should draw upon whatever wisdom is available to us, provided that it is Godly wisdom, based upon Godly values rather than worldly values.
It is not right to keep people in suspense for any longer than is necessary.
So once we have started to explore someone as a potential partner, we should
discover the things that we need to know as quickly as possible. The seriousness
of the task before us cannot lead us to conclude that we should proceed
more slowly, unless there is a reason to believe that going more
slowly will help us to do a better job. Dragging the process out will serve
only to raise expectations, to prolong our days of loneliness and uncertainty,
to waste time and to miss opportunities.
There is virtue in patience when there is a reason to wait, but there is no virtue in waiting just for the sake of waiting. Once we have found out all that we need to know, then why wait to make a decision? What is there to wait for? It may be that we are not expecting any more information; we just need time to process the information that we have got. We should certainly pray over important decisions, and meditating on the facts can help to clear our minds, and to enable us to make a wise decision, but there is no reason that this should take a long time. The fact that it is such an important decision cannot lead us to conclude that we should spend more time making it, unless there is a reason to believe that spending more time will make the decision any better.
I would suggest, that the reason people put off making a decision is
often neither that they need to discover anything else, nor that they need
the facts to become any more clear, but rather that they are simply frightened
of making a commitment. They like to think they have a choice to take it
or leave it. Once they have made their choice, then they will no longer
have a choice, and this frightens them. So our motive for delaying making
a decision can be entirely selfish, even though it doesn't actually do
us or the other person any good. It is not right to keep people hanging
on in uncertainty, and if we do have to disappoint them, then it should
be done as quickly as possible.
Sometimes the reason that we are waiting is that there is something
about the person that we do not like, and we are hoping that he or she
will change. Sometimes we are hoping that we will change in some
way or that something else about the situation will change. We should ask
ourselves whether we would be prepared to marry even if the present circumstances
remained the same. If so, then there is no point in waiting for change.
People can change and adapt, and it is right that we should be mutually
adaptable. It is also right that we should make each other aware of our
sins and encourage each other to give them up. But in all cases, if change
is hypothetical then we must make our decision on the basis of the situation
now. Ultimately, the point of getting married is to make your life
and the other person's, in some way, better than it would have been if
you had not. We should aim to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the
marriage will indeed fulfil this objective, but we can never be sure beyond
all doubt.
So if you have found someone that you want to marry, and that person also
wants to marry you, if your marriage does not contradict any biblical commandment
or principle, if you understand what the commitment implies, and are determined
to carry out your duty, then how can it be wrong? Go for it! Give yourselves
to each other.
How should we then proceed? In Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's. (NKJV)
We must obey everything that God commands us about our partner of the opposite
sex (There is no looking back.), but at the same time we must avoid
anything that is illegal, or offensive to those around us.
Although living together, and making love are natural consequences of
such a relationship, and what we desire, this is unacceptable to many people.
People have believed for most of their lives that living with, or making
love to someone that we are not legally married to, is wrong. The reason
for this is that they have believed for most of their lives that legal
marriage is the same thing as true marriage. Therefore, making love to
or living with someone before legal marriage would be greatly offensive
to them.
We are supposed to be at peace with all men, as far as possible The exception to the rule about making love is in the area of kissing
and cuddling. Although the way that dating couples do this is indeed a
form a making love, it seems to be quite acceptable. Although people
may not say that dating couples are married, neither would they say that
this form of making love belongs solely to marriage.
Even if we have found our partner of the opposite sex, and we are feeling
fulfilled in our relationship, we still ought to seriously consider whether
it would be best to get legally married as soon as possible, and whether
this is commonly delayed too long, for inadequate reasons.
Living together and making love are not
the only things that we desire from marriage, but they are some
of the things that we desire. They are in themselves strong and pure desires
and it is not good to frustrate them unnecessarily. The church in the past
has been plagued by a teaching that has no foundation in scripture but
rather was derived from certain Greek philosophies. It taught that all
sensual pleasures (including eating, drinking and making love) are inherently
sinful. Despite our claim to have been liberated from this teaching, we
still seem to believe that there is some kind of virtue in suppressing
our sexual passions during our youth.
People may say that there are things that they want to do first (travelling
the world, for example) that would miss out on unless they delayed getting
married. First of all, you can only ever have missed out on something if
you wanted to do it. If you wanted to be married, and you didn't
get married, then you missed out on being married. It seems obvious that,
all other things being equal, it is better to miss out on something you
want less than to miss out on something you want more. If it is really
true that doing this thing, whatever it is, is more satisfying than being
married, then I suppose that there is nothing wrong with giving priority
to it, but this is not always the real motive. Often, it is rather, that
they want to be able to look back with pride on their achievement. One
the other hand, the opportunity to make love while we are in the prime
of our lives is one that is never going to come by a second time,
and it would be a folly to miss it for no good reason. If we are wise,
we will give the highest priority to the things that bring the most happiness.
People may say that marriage would interfere with their education, but this does not have to
be the case, for students do not necessarily get less time to pursue their personal lives than
working people do. But even if it were to interfere with our education, we should remember that
making love with our marriage partner is the Divinely laid
down preventative of sexual immorality It may be that married people sometimes have to
spend time living separately if they are set on studying in different places
at the same time, and this may indeed put pressures on them. This may be
a grounds for delaying our education, compromising on where we study or
even sacrificing it, if it relieves temptation. We tend to give far too
much importance to academic achievements anyway - anyone would think we believed that
it was God's purpose for putting us in this world. But the pressures of
living separately are not grounds for delaying legal marriage, because
this does not relieve temptation: even if they were not married, they would
still have the same passions: they would still want to be married;
they would still want to make love. So, not being married does not
relieve any pressures at all. If being legally married will do them some
good, and it won't do them any harm, then surely it is the logical
thing to do.
People may be unwilling to get legally married, until they have acquired a certain standard
of living. There is no doubt that there are indeed big financial difficulties facing young
couples, but should this really be considered grounds for delaying marriage?
First, there is the issue of happiness. The disadvantage they may face
is a lower standard of living, but they will have the advantages of being
able to live together and to make love. Surely, these things bring far
more happiness than money could buy. Furthermore, there is no guarantee
that their financial situation will ever improve. Even if they do consider
their present financial situation to be adequate for marriage, there is
no guarantee that it will remain this way.
Then there is the moral issue: that is, is there a reason why people ought to have acquired a certain standard of living before they get married? There does seem to exist, a belief that two people
have not proved themselves worthy to experience marriage until they are financially independent. But I cannot see how it makes any more sense to say that the pleasures of marriage should be reserved for the financially independent, than it does to say that the pleasures of friendship should be reserved for the financially independent. Being married, in itself, does not require any extra resources. If they had children then it may be a different matter, but merely being married doesn't make the slightest bit of difference: there are still two people, who require the same resources, and who have the same ability to generate resources. On the other hand, people who go to the cinema (for example) do take up more resources than they would if they did not. Marriage could only make a difference if the real issue is over whether people ought to live with their parents until they are financially independent, and remember that
even if a couple do not live together, they are still no worse off than they would be if they were not married. But what about the principle of having the first responsibility for the welfare of your own household as taught in
If you do choose early marriage you may well earn the disapproval of
those around you, for nowadays the very thought has been socially stigmatised.
If you want people to admire your strength of character and Spirituality,
then early marriage is certainly not the option to choose. However we must
make a stand against society, when the bible gives us such compelling reasons
to do so:
The bible declares that it is good to be married and
bad to be single, and the only reason that so many people are prepared to remain (legally) unmarried for so long, is that they date instead; there would be far fewer people willing to put up with it, if it meant being single. It is true that the bible also teaches that there are ways in which singleness is good, and that it can be used for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but according to Jesus, this should only be grounds for choosing not to marry for those who have been specially gifted to live the single life If you have any criticisms about this book please do send
them, whether they are to do with spelling, grammar, style, logic, use of scripture, content,
layout or whatever.
Courtship
Deciding
Marriage
