CLAIM:
Marriage isn’t necessary these days. It’s just a piece of paper. Why involve the government?
REBUTTAL:
The claimant nicely broke the matter down into three points, so let’s use them:
Marriage isn’t necessary these days.
The statement suggests that at one time, marriage was necessary, but now things have changed. Has marriage changed? No, it hasn’t. Its author, God, and what he says about marriage, have not changed (Isaiah 40:8; Malachi 3:6; Matthew 5:18; Hebrews 13:8).
What has changed, then, is our culture. To declare that something once deemed necessary is no longer necessary implies that we have moved on to something better. Have we?
First, let’s acknowledge that in the Bible, some things do become obsolete. I will provide three examples, but there are more:
- Food Sacrifices: The first recorded food sacrifices in the Bible are those offered by Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-4). These sacrifices were made even before God officially commanded sacrifices in the Old Testament (Leviticus 2:1; Numbers 28:2). In the New Testament, we are told such sacrifices are no longer necessary (Hebrews 9:12-15; Hebrews 10:4-18).
- Sabbath Worship: In the Old Testament, the command was to rest on the seventh day (Exodus 16:23-30; Numbers 15:32-36). In the New Testament, this stringent understanding of Sabbath observance was suspended (Mark 2:23-28; Colossians 2:16-17).
- Dietary Laws: In the Old Testament, certain foods were forbidden to eat (Leviticus 11:1-47; Deuteronomy 14:3-20). In the New Testament, these laws no longer applied (Mark 7:18-19; Acts 10:9-16).
The argument, therefore, is that as these laws or customs go out of practice, so also should be the case with marriage. The logic fails in numerous areas. I will name a few.
- Cultural Practice: Some Old Testament rituals represented cultural practices, such as the method of sealing an agreement (erecting a stone pillar [Genesis 31:43-50] and the sandal exchange [Ruth 4:7-8]). What seemed peculiar in one culture was normal in another, and over time, the practices changed. Contracts became less symbolic and more “ironclad” with claims, conditions, and consequences spelled out.
- Prophetic Significance: The sacrifices, laws, and worship practices of the Old Testament pointed prophetically to eventual fulfillment in Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:17-18; Galatians 3:23-25; Hebrews 8:6-13; Hebrews 10:1-14). Once the fulfillment had come, the practice was no longer needed.
- Enduring and Deeper Value: Many practices and rules established in Old Testament times continued into New Testament times and remain in effect to this day—for example, ordinances against murder (Exodus 10:13), adultery (Exodus 10:14), and stealing (Exodus 20:15). Instead of these values shrinking in prominence, the New Testament points to them expanding with a deeper understanding. Murder is expanded to forbid hatred (1 John 3:15). Adultery is broadened from the deed to include the thought (Matthew 5:28). Stealing is expanded to include manipulation and exploitation (1 Thessalonians 4:6). There is an enduring and deeper meaning to some Old Testament laws that have expanded in this New Testament era.
As society and cultures change, marriage remains throughout the Old Testament and New Testament times. This is what we are told at the establishment of marriage in the Old Testament:
The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
Jesus reinforced the continuation of marriage thousands of years later (Matthew 19:5), as did the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:31) approximately 25 years after Jesus. For thousands of years, societies in general and the Church explicitly have held fast to marriage.
As Christians, we can find nothing in God’s word to suggest that marriage would become obsolete. God’s word speaks of marriage as a good thing for people for companionship, chastity, and bearing children.
Admittedly, this marriage trifecta of companionship, chastity, and bearing children can also be achieved without marriage. The Old and New Testaments frequently mention companionships outside of marriage (David and Jonathan [1 Samuel 18:1; 2 Samuel 9:1-7]; Ruth and Naomi [Ruth 1:16-17]; and Jesus and his disciples [John 15:12-15; John 19:26-27]).
The Scriptures speak of chastity as being possible and expected outside of marriage. Christian men would interact with women with the expectation of chastity (1 Timothy 5:2). For those who could practice it, celibacy was a lifestyle choice, in part because they had the will to remain chaste in their single state (1 Corinthians 7:7-35).
The Scriptures also speak of children born outside of marriage (Genesis 38:13-18; 2 Samuel 11:2-5).
The point is that even though it was possible to have companions, live a chaste life, and bear children outside of marriage, God’s word consistently supported the marriage relationship. Marriage is not what has changed.
It is Just a Piece of Paper
This line is used so commonly that it is often the default argument used by people against marriage. I suggest that this is a prime example of what is known as a “bandwagon fallacy.” The 12th-century Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, rightly observed in his “Guide for the Perplexed”:
Truth does not become more true by virtue of the fact that the entire world agrees with it, nor less so even if the whole world disagrees with it.
When you sign a contract to finance your home and to secure the home’s title, it is more than just a piece of paper. Such “pieces of paper” mean something. They carry with them obligations, rights, and protections. The “piece of paper” is not the essence of home ownership or financing. The essence is what the paper describes, and the esteem with which the paper is honored.
One might argue that issuing marriage licenses is a societal invention. I suspect that is true. Scripture is not clear about the type of secular licensing involved in marriage in biblical times. What was clear was the honor and respect due to marriage in biblical times, and secular licensing appears to have been created to both protect and venerate that honor and respect.
Why involve the government?
Typically, bringing the force of secular government into the mix reflects that something was going wrong or the potential of abuse had become apparent. In the context of marriage, society has an interest in the ownership of property, the division of assets, and the exclusivity of a relationship. Experience has shown us that biblical mandates such as thinking of others ahead of ourselves (Philippians 2:3-5) and being willing to suffer for doing good (1 Peter 3:17) are not how people typically operate, even among professed Christians (Matthew 24:12). When Jesus gave his instruction on paying taxes (Matthew 22:21), he acknowledged that there was a domain in which government operated, and we are to respect that (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1).
The government has demonstrated that it can certainly be fickle in its view of marriage. The government can choose to issue marriage licenses or not. The government can choose to redefine marriage. The government can decide to either favor or discourage marriage. How the government does this, of course, requires some flawed logic and disloyalty to the One it represents (Romans 13:1-7). When people reject marriage, they are displaying the fickleness of a government which feels no obligation to any higher authority than itself.
Christians, however, have no wiggle room on this. Not only has the institution of marriage endured throughout the entirety of the Old Testament and into the New Testament, but it is also used as a comparative illustration for God’s enduring relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:21-23). Marriage is so much more than just a piece of paper or a government-regulated institution. It is God’s design for the well-being of people.
So, What Has Changed?
Marriage has not changed. What has changed is how society views companionship, chastity, and bearing children. Emory University Professor John Witte, Jr., keenly observed that the earlier “ideal of marriage as a permanent contractual union designed for the sake of mutual love, procreation, and protection is slowly giving way to a new reality of marriage as a ‘terminal sexual contract’ designed for the gratification of the individual parties.”1John Witte, Jr., From Sacrament to Contract, Second edition: Marriage, Religion, and Law in the Western tradition (1st ed.). (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997), 209.
We have developed into a me-centric world. No longer do people want to ask, “What would God have me to do?” but instead are asking, “What do I want to do?” and object to anything that defies such independence.
Such defiance dates to the fall into sin (Genesis 3:1-7) and is repeated throughout Scripture (Genesis 8:21; Genesis 11:1-9; Acts 7:39; Romans 8:7). Even the enduring institution of marriage, established for the benefit of God’s people, eventually is seen as an obstacle for a faux reality of freedom and independence.
Marriage itself has not changed, but our attitude toward the trifecta of marriage has changed. We have exchanged God’s interest in chastity for our good in exchange for pornography and sexual freedom solely for our pleasure. Electronic thumbs-ups, AI chat friends, and social isolation have replaced the lifelong companionship between spouses. Children produced within the marriage relationship have become a commodity, to be subcontracted to others, created in a laboratory, or conceived and disposed of at will.
Marriage remains necessary. We may convince ourselves that it is obsolete, but the notion is a fantasy. God established it at the beginning of time. He reinforced it throughout the pages of Scripture. It is to endure as the exception to our natural inclinations of rejecting God.
0 Comments