Is Modern Marriage Unscriptual?

wearewatchingyouman

So as far as we know Jesus was never married. I've often wondered why this was. Was it because of a personal belief? Was he just not interested in sex? Was fornication defined differently back then than it is today? Was he indeed married and this fact covered up? I've been meditating on Matthew 5:33-38 the last week:

33 “Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times: ‘You must not swear without performing,+ but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’*+ 34 However, I say to you: Do not swear at all,+ neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet;+ nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.+ 36 Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37 Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no,+ for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.+

A vow is defined as: To solemnly promise to do a thing.

As far as I can tell from this scripture Jesus is telling his followers not to take any vow. That of course would include marriage vows, and even means that the modern marriage ceremony is "from the wicked one".

What say you?

wearewatchingyouman

Just so we're clear - I'm not saying marriage is unscriptual, because obviously it is rooted in both the OT and NT. I'm saying that according to the bible the way marriage is performed today, including by Jehovah's Witness', seems to me to be in direct conflict with Jesus' instruction in Matthew 5.

humbled

Modern marriage =vows? Not always.

While some churches call the bans of marriage "vows", marriages are mostly civil/social contracts both now and in Jesus' time. Even now the spiritual aspect certainly is part of the desired privilege of marriage that same sex couples seek but the social/civil benefit of having legal recognition if paramount: rights of a spouse confers so many practical protections.

Sex was an implied contract of "one flesh" that has long formed a part of a marriage celebration.(Children do not ask to be born yet--who will care for them? Who will claim them?) But it was not necessary(and I understand still is not) for a rabbi to officiate a wedding for it to be legitimate. A dear friend may bless the union. There were witnesses needed, in the main, to note that the couple did indeed go alone into the marriage chamber--the assumption being that two healthy people so attracted to each other would indeed become "one flesh" if left alone for a little while .

Personally, marriage vows that bind you tighter than the personal commitment to one's spouse are bad. They set you up for hypocritical and disfunctional union in the same way as a JW baptism.

Yep--let your yes mean yes. And for goodness sake--somebody take care---lovingly--of the children.

Edit: Sorry, missed your clarifying post--but I agree that the JWs confine two people as much as join them. Not good. Small wonder--that's what their baptism means. They don't let you work out your own marriage or" your own salvation with fear nd trembling".

prologos

interesting point, so

have all Christian religions, [true or not] change the wording to fit - from "I do" to " yes"

the husbands can be truly called "YES men"

FlyingHighNow

My therapist told me that marriage originally was a contract between a man and woman to come together to have and raise children. She said it was not considered a forever thing. She's a Dominican Catholic nun, in addition to being an engineer and doctor of psychology. She's also very learned in the history institutions like marriage. Marriage has evolved over time.

wearewatchingyouman

While some churches call the bans of marriage "vows", marriages are mostly civil/social contracts both now and in Jesus' time.

This is still kind of my point. Yes, modern marriages are mostly civil/social contracts. A legal document under the power of the State binding two people together. Otherwise known as a written vow, or a written promise to do what you say you're going to do. The State, according to JW's and many Xtians, is under the power of who? The wicked one of course. So yet again we're at a point where modern marriage is an institution "from the wicked one". Just because it offers protections within Satan's civilization doesn't make it any more in line with Jesus' teachings. Correct?

humbled

Marriage seems to be humanity's way of getting people to be responsible for their "significant other" and offspring, WAWYM.

Marriage seems at its core to be a way to sort out"who's watching the kids" as FHN said.

Being a fatherless child was a problem w/o government subsidies.

Being "used" then discarded w/o ceremony has indeed a problem for women.

Jesus seems to be concerned about failing to truly acknowledge responsible family connection:"Corban"let children ignore the welfare of an aged parent. The woman at the well had not made a claim to a husband but was yet "shopping" herself around--no mention of children.

I don't know what to think of marriage these days. I mean that.

Bella15

Thanks Dominican Catholic nun ;) that explains ME ...lol!

Band on the Run

We have to remember that the concept of marriage as a love state is very recent. Women married and became the husband's property. I always wanted to be a princess. After reading historical accounts, thank God I come from peasant stock. Dower and curtesy governed marital rights. The husband gained almost everything. Modern trust law was developed so that great lords could protect their married daughters. I saw Chinese bound shoes at a museum. These women could not walk. I expected doll size shoes. No way. Ugh.

It does not say Jesus was single. He could have had a wife. What was a nice Jewish boy of thirty doing not being married? What was a nice Jewish boy carpenter doing leaving his family with more work?

wearewatchingyouman

What was a nice Jewish boy of thirty doing not being married?

Well, if you ask Elton John......

Is Modern Marriage Unscriptual?

Share this