The Future of Marriage
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Marriage has been part of mankind’s history since his beginning, but some are determined to change it from God’s original plan while others want to do away with it altogether. It has already been abused for several centuries in various ways, but will those who practice evil succeed in destroying it altogether? No human being knows the answer to that question, but one thing is certain: it is simply one more assault upon God and the Bible to add to all the others.
God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden before sin even entered the world. Not much is older than sin but marriage is. When God created Adam, He brought all the animals to him in order that he might name them and discover that he could not find a suitable companion from among them (Gen. 2:18-20). The Lord performed surgery on Adam, taking one of his ribs and making it into a woman. Adam immediately recognized that she was a companion comparable to himself. He proclaimed: “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:21-23).
God created both Adam and Eve by means of a miracle. Moses’ comments concerning the completed process: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). This assessment tells us several bits of information:
1. God created Eve for Adam that they might be married—that is to say, to be husband and wife (1 Cor. 11:8-9).
2. The man and the woman form a new family unit (as shown by the fact that, since the time of the first couple, they leave father and mother).
3. A marriage between a man and a woman is authorized by God, but He did not authorize any other arrangement.
Sin does not enter the world until Genesis 3:1-7; marriage came first. But just as mankind did not honor God as his Maker, neither did he respect God’s plan for the home. From the descendants of Cain came the first aberration of marriage—polygamy. Lamech, the seventh from Cain, “took for himself two wives” (Gen. 4:19). It looks as though the world survived a few hundred years before marriage was perverted to include more than one mate. Solomon illustrates the principle, “In for a penny, in for a pound,” by having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). And there was just as much authority for number 1,000 as number 2—namely none.
Divorce was the next modification that man introduced into God’s system. We do not have particulars regarding the very first one, but it was widespread enough—even among the Israelites—that God gave a command concerning it in the law He gave through Moses. A man was allowed to put away his wife if “he found some uncleanness in her.” In the Old Testament this same word is generally rendered “nakedness,” and in most cases (but not all) sexual activity is implied.
However, by the time of Jesus, one rabbinical school of thought had re-defined the Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 24:1 to include just anything that might upset the husband. That this loose view was wrong can be seen by the fact that the word that the translators of the Septuagint chose to render the Hebrew word is one with a definite sexual content. The three cognate forms of the word used in the New Testament are found in five verses. Once [809 in Strong], it refers to our “unpresentable parts.” A related word [808] is used twice; one of those is in a passage dealing with homosexuality, where it is said that men were working with men “what is shameful” (Rom. 1:27). The other is in Revelation 16:15, in which the Christian is encouraged to watch and keep his garments, “lest he walk naked and they see his shame” [808].
Because the loose view of “uncleanness” was so popular at the time of Christ, they asked Him for His opinion. Jesus did not endorse them. What He did was to emphasize respect for marriage as God intended it. He upheld the following in Matthew 19:3-9:
1. Jesus asked them if they had not read that God made them male and female at the beginning. This was the pattern that God established. He did not create another man for Adam or four women. He did not begin with one woman and add another one to her. He did not create a “starter” group of five males and females to intermingle at their desire. The pattern for marriage is one man and one woman; nothing else has ever been authorized.
2. In verse 6, Jesus tells us that God joins a man and a woman together (since marriage is His institution), and they are to remain together as long as they live here on earth. However, in saying, “Let not man separate,” Jesus recognized that many marriages would not last. God created man with free will, the very thing that enables man either to walk out on a marriage or to fail to take the promise of exclusiveness seriously.
3. Since a husband or wife may sabotage a marriage (although the mate is neither at fault nor in agreement with such behavior), the one who is guiltless may put away that mate who has sinned, according to the Lord, but that is the only reason one may leave the marriage (v. 9). The guilty mate is not authorized to ever marry again. If both parties simply agree to leave a marriage, neither can marry again.
Although many view these teachings as harsh or severe, nevertheless, God designed it to work precisely this way. To allow for divorce for any cause would be to say, in effect, the institution of marriage need not actually be respected. God does not put it into the hands of men who would twist it and contort it to serve his own interests and whims.
God’s standard will be the only one that is valid despite whatever man does to change and destroy it. If marriage were outlawed tomorrow, a man and a woman previously unmarried (or divorced because of a spouse’s adultery) would still be entitled to be together. If men attempt to change the definition of marriage to include more than one wife or husband, or if the government allows two (or more) of the same sex to marry, they will remain unmarried so far as our Creator is concerned. God’s law will stand whether man accepts it or repudiates it. No amount of wishful thinking and political correctness can change God’s law.
As this article is published, the Supreme Court is deliberating over the concept of homosexual marriage, which, as already shown, is nothing more than a farcical misnomer. No one knows the outcome, but no one would be surprised (outraged, yes, but surprised, no), if they turn their robed backs on the Word of God (our nation’s foundation) in favor of the popular culture.
If they do make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land (either now or in a few years), they will have to give an account to God for such a decision—just as the seven who came forth with Roe v. Wade will for the blood of 50,000,000 innocent children who were killed in the womb (and some of them after being born). To change the definition of marriage as provided in the Bible will forever redound to their shame.
Bring On Polygamy!
One of the arguments that has been used against homosexual marriage has been that it would open the door to polygamy (and who knows what else). An article by Jillian Keenan, posted on April 15, 2013, begins this way:
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
We can only hope.
Yes, Jillian says that after homosexual marriage is achieved, people should not give up the fight for polygamy! She claims: “Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex positive choice.” Anyone who thinks that our founding fathers put polygamy or same sex couples into the constitution is just nuts. Anyone who has taken the time to read it would know that such thoughts are lunacy. But then abortion was not there, either; so who knows what might happen?
Included in the article is a picture of two sisters who are married to the same man, along with their children. They claim this is part of their faith, but whatever faith teaches such a hideous doctrine is of the devil since it contradicts both the Old and New Testaments. Leviticus 18:18 teaches: “Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.” In the New Testament, Jesus cites one man and one woman (Matt. 19:3-9). Furthermore, Paul gives commands to the husband and the wife who are married—not a man and his wives or a woman and her husbands (Eph. 5:22-25).
Furthermore, the husband and wife are compared to Jesus and the church. Note that the Lord is not a polygamist; He has but one glorious church, holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:26-33). Therefore, no authority exists for sisters Valerie and Vicki to be married to the same louse. The reason polygamy was outlawed (besides being against Christian principles) was that it is bad for families, and it is bad for society. The evils of it persuaded people to make it illegal.
The Goal of Homosexual Marriage
Do all homosexuals believe as the woman who is about to be quoted does? Perhaps not, but her perspective is undoubtedly shared by many. The following excerpt was taken by a speech made on May 19, 2012 to those gathered for a Writer’s Festival in Sydney, Australia. It was reviewed on The O’Reilly Factor on Wednesday, May 1, 2013. The speaker is Masha (not Marsha) Gessen, an openly avowed lesbian who advocates marriage for homosexuals:
It’s a no-brainer that we should have the right to marry. But I also think, equally, that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. So [enthusiastic applause from the audience] that causes my brain some trouble, and part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. You know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
So, Masha, do we understand you correctly that you are fighting for the rights of homosexuals to become part of an institution that you don’t think should exist? No wonder her brain is having trouble; how convoluted is that? Although her position is rather difficult to comprehend, nevertheless, a rational response to this insanity might be beneficial.
1. Who said that the institution of marriage should not exist? God created us and gave marriage to be between a man and a woman. Masha is denying the Bible’s teaching and the God Who gave it to mankind. Although she has the freedom to do so, she is wrong and should be challenged in her views.
2. How can homosexuals have the right to marry, since they don’t even have the right to be homosexuals? Masha was born into a Jewish family but evidently gave up religion since Genesis defines marriage, and Leviticus condemns homosexuality.
3. Why should lying bother her, since she is already violating that which is against nature and is also vile, according to the inspired apostle Paul (Rom. 1:26)? She has also implied that the Scriptures are false and that God does not exist; so why is being deceptive wrong, if it is? By whose standard is lying wrong? It cannot be God’s standards; she has already repudiated them. Like marriage, telling the truth must simply be some convention of men. Perhaps we should do away with it, too.
4. If Masha feels compelled to lie about homosexual marriage in order to win people over to it, then maybe she is fighting for the wrong things. If one cannot argue for something based on the truth, that should serve as a clue about its worth.
5. So what is Masha going to do with marriage when homosexual marriage is accepted all over the world? Apparently, she means that homosexuals and others are going to continue to push for broader and broader definitions of marriage until it loses its meaning altogether or enters into such a state of chaos that either all of the courts are tied up or the thing is banished altogether—with no one having any legal rights that a spouse now enjoys.
Those who believe in marriage as the Bible defines it have already clogged up the courts with messy divorces. If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, then the courts will have additional cases to adjudicate because few homosexual couples stay together for a long period of time. Now add to the mix polygamous marriages. Won’t those property settlements be interesting? And who wants to be the first judge to have to deal with ten people breaking up their group “marriage”? Apparently, this is the goal of some homosexuals. Although many are claiming that they want the same rights as heterosexuals, they really want to destroy marriage for everybody!
6. So Masha and those of her ilk are telling everyone that marriage will not change when they know of a certainty that it will. Masha should not have attacks of conscience over this point because everyone already knows that to be the fact of the matter. But many liberals just like to pretend that it isn’t so, and some conservatives are foolish enough to buy into the lie—or just look the other way.
Why Homosexual Marriage Will Probably Become Law
Although several states’ voters have rejected homosexual marriage, it will probably eventually be legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court who has long since given up the values upon which this nation was founded (not all members, of course). It may not be in the decision to be rendered in June, but there will be another case—and another—and another.
The entertainment media promotes it; the news media agrees, and our current president does also. Just two weeks ago, a 34-year-old basketball player, who averaged a point a game, announced that he was a homosexual. On Monday, April 29, Obama told the player, “I couldn’t be prouder.” Isn’t that special? Yes, and the man is already slated to appear at a Democratic National Committee Fundraiser with Michele Obama on May 29th. As columnist Matt Barber asked, “If we can’t be proud of sodomy, what can we be proud of?”
If marriage fails, can the country be far behind (Pr. 14:34)? A half-century ago, few would have imagined that the United States of America would have such moral corruption at the highest echelons, but it does now—and overtly so. Only Christians can take this country back to where it was by winning the ideological battles we are currently losing. The truly courageous will stand up for Jesus and the truth of God’s Word. Now would be a good time to do so.