What is Marriage 8B: Discussing Dichotomies
What is marriage? What is modern marriage? What is my marriage, or your marriage, or the marriage in deepest Brazil? What is man, and what is woman? Why are we here, and to Whom are we accountable?
Andrew has written his latest post in our ‘marriage’ exchange, and in it he takes us back to the beginning of the discussion. Asking questions about the very nature and root of this thing we call ‘marriage’. He brings up in his post the issues of ‘historical, philosophical and contemporary realities’ and, in a private communication, challenges me to add the ‘religious’. Challenge accepted :)
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
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 shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 2:22-25
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
Andrew peruses our discussion and looks out at the modern world, and no doubt at his marriage and that of the others around him, and asks (sort of, I edited a bit to make it come out in this format) five questions:
Is [marriage] merely adapting to societal changes, or is it, at its core, a dynamic entity that evolves as humanity does?
Does [] digital intimacy enhance the marital connection, or does it introduce a layer of complexity previously unimagined?
[In a] melting pot of cultures [do we need] to rethink and redefine what it means to be married[?]
How do we balance the pursuit of personal goals with the commitments and compromises that marriage entails?
Are we witnessing a redefinition of marriage, or [] a reassertion of its timeless essence, dressed in contemporary garb?
Marriage is real
To which I would answer, from the historical and philosophical and particularly religious perspective, ‘Marriage is Real’.
Let us take an element, such as gold. (I was going to use ‘aluminium’, which has an interesting history, but then I would have to keep trying to spell it for the rest of the post!). Has gold changed over the years?
Certainly how we view gold and how we use gold has changed. To Adam, in the garden, gold was probably a pretty useless thing. Something to stub one’s toe against. Something to be cleared out of the way of some plant trying to grow. (NB Adam was told to tend and keep the garden even before he sinned. And there was gold there! So maybe gold was a good choice after all.)
But then someone (maybe Eve!) noticed that gold seemed kind of pretty, and one of her grandchildren, wishing to give his grandmother a gift for her birthday, found some gold, cleaned it up a bit and polished it. And then, soon, every girl wanted some gold as a gift. And all of the men had to scurry about and learn new and better ways to clean it up, and polish it, and if you put it in a hot fire you could…
So gold, which had been there from the beginning, became all new and shiny and used in rings and necklaces and money… but was it still gold? Hopefully, there is no one among our audience so ignorant of basic physics and chemistry as to think that Eve’s grandson created some new metal, some new element.
But that was the next challenge that gold faced! Hundreds or even thousands of men sat in dusty laboratories for day after day attempting ‘alchemy’… the chief pursuit of which seemed to be turning something, anything, into gold. How about lead? It was much easier to find and work with. If only we could turn it into gold!
Throughout history the uses of gold have changed and developed. We now use it in some kinds of electronics, I understand. But despite the best efforts of the alchemists, lead is still lead, it isn’t gold. Like gold, marriage doesn’t change… we only change how we use it. We pervert it, deny it, ignore it, celebrate it, rejoice in it… but we don’t change it. We can’t change it.
Dichotomies
Each of Andrew’s questions seems to be of basically the same form. They present two possibilities. Is marriage X or Y? Does it do A or B? Each of these dichotomies is interesting and poses its own challenge as we look at the question ‘What is Marriage’? Let’s take them one at a time:
Is [marriage] merely adapting to societal changes, or is it, at its core, a dynamic entity that evolves as humanity does?
The core question here revolves around two words: adapting vs evolving. Does marriage ‘adapt’ or does it ‘evolve’? Those words evoke another question, one revolving around the level of the thing we are examining. Because individuals ‘adapt’, but lineages ‘evolve’. When the Darwinians say that ‘mankind evolved’, they do not mean that ‘a man’ evolved. They do not mean that some individual organism climbed up out of the primordial soup and first developed gills to breathe in the water and then arms and legs to walk on the land. What they mean is that some organism formed itself in the soup, and its great…grandchildren developed gills and their great… grandchildren developed arms and legs and their great…grandchildren cheated on their admission papers and got admitted to Harvard.
And the word ‘adapt’ can be used at that level as well, becoming basically a synonym for ‘evolved’. But we usually use the word ‘adapt’ to speak at the level of the individual. The cheater, on admission to Harvard, had to ‘adapt’ to living in the dorm, where he didn’t have his mommy to wash his clothes.
But the answer as far as marriage is concerned is… ‘no’. It didn’t adapt or evolve, any more than gold did. People in marriages did different things. Some better things, some worse things, some righteous things, some evil things. But marriage is. It was from the beginning, and it will be at the end.
Does [] digital intimacy enhance the marital connection, or does it introduce a layer of complexity previously unimagined?
Meanwhile, his second question is not a dichotomy at all. You can replace the ‘or’ with an ‘and’, and indeed you can add a few more ‘ands’. Like almost everything in life, technology can be used positively or negatively or both by married couples. Like everything else in life, it needs to be taken captive to Godly goals.
[In a] melting pot of cultures [do we need] to rethink and redefine what it means to be married[?]
What it means? Absolutely not. How to carry it out? Obviously. I think Andrew’s history is a bit naive here, but certainly there are a lot of couples facing issues of cross-culturing. But it is the foundational definitions of marriage that need to come to their rescue… not be redefined or rethought.
We need to do a lot of thinking, and a lot of reading, and a lot of praying, and have a lot of sex… but we shouldn’t be ‘rethinking’ what marriage is or attempting to ‘redefine’ it.
How do we balance the pursuit of personal goals with the commitments and compromises that marriage entails?
He lost me at ‘personal goals’. We don’t do ‘personal goals’ in marriage. When we become one flesh, we have ‘joint goals’. And once we become Christians, we have ‘His goals’. So, for any married couple, there are no ‘personal goals’, and for the Christian married couple that goes double.
This may well be one of the greatest problems in modern marriage: that each person comes in with ‘their goals’ (along with ‘their truth’). What utter balderdash. When two oxen are plowing they can’t each have ‘their goals’. They have to pull in tandem, and they have to follow the orders of the guy behind the plow.
Are we witnessing a redefinition of marriage, or [] a reassertion of its timeless essence, dressed in contemporary garb?
Yeah, no, what? Marriage cannot be redefined any more than gold can be redefined. We might learn more about it (although I am sceptical when it comes to marriage. Gold, sure. Quarks, leptons, that kind of thing. Marriage… not so much. See ‘new under the sun’ above.) but it can’t be redefined. It was created by God and has been lived out over thousands of years. If it’s dressed in contemporary garb I would recommend taking some clothes off.
Definition
It has been a while since I last posted my definition of marriage, and I think it is vital to this post:
Marriage is a permanent covenant to exclusive sexual union between a man and a woman that has been and is being consummated. It was created and ordained by God for the purpose of producing a Godly seed, in order that man should take dominion; to which end the woman is his helpmeet, and their children are arrows.
If you were to look at the words ‘marry’ and ‘marriage’ in the Hebrew Scripture (that is to say if you were to look those English words up and see what Hebrew words underly them in the translation, KJV) you discover something interesting. The concepts of ‘marry’ and ‘marriage’ are so fundamental to nature (as I read it) that they don’t even get their own words! I found five examples (listed below) and in every case what was there wasn’t a definite noun or verb (ie ‘marry’ or ‘marriage’) but a more fundamental one… such as ‘woman’ or ‘be’ or a very specific one ‘the duty of a brother to have sex with his deceased brother’s wife’.
We make a great fuss nowadays about the form of marriage. We speak of ‘legally married’ and ‘a church wedding’ etc etc. But historically, it was not so, often. In French when you say ‘his wife’ you might as well be saying ‘his woman’… they are the same word! You might say that marriage is an institution so rooted in reality that it doesn’t even need its own word!
Conclusion
“Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.”
– GK Chesterton
I could say that all of Andrew’s questions are best answered by saying, “Marriage is real”. But perhaps it is better to say that you can’t begin to answer them until you understand that marriage is real. We didn’t create it, we didn’t invent it, we can’t change it, we can only live it out. It has a definition which doesn’t depend upon the day or the hour. It has a vital morality which exists despite the depravity of the age or the family. It is a part of a reflection of God Himself, we cannot arrogantly expect to be able to redefine the image.
It is not our job to redefine marriage, or to adapt marriage, or to (God forbid!) evolve marriage, but to live marriage. To play our role, and play it well. To glorify God, and not ourselves.
Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 9:9
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Ephesians 5:31-33
Links
What Is Marriage #1A
·
JUNE 27, 2023
What is Marriage #2A
·
JULY 4, 2023
What is Marriage? 3A
·
JULY 11, 2023
What is Marriage #4A
·
JULY 19, 2023
What Is Marriage #5A
·
JULY 25, 2023
What Is Marriage #6A
·
AUGUST 2, 2023
What Is Marriage #7A
·
AUGUST 9, 2023
What is Marriage #R1B (Von) A bit of a discussion deeper into covenant
What is Marriage R2B (Von)View from a Height, a reply to Ryan regarding covenant.
Patriarchy Discussion
and I are discussing patriarchy. I’m in favour and think it inevitable. J.S… not so much.The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Laying some foundation.
The Blessings of the Breast and the Womb: The role of pregnancy, lactation, and raising children in the inevitability of patriarchy.
What is Marriage: Adding the issue of marriage, and discussing meritocracy and inheritance.
Not in the letter exchange, but on subject:
The Feminist Problem with Patriarchy: Some logical issues that feminists have when discussing patriarchy.
Not part of the discussion, but related:
Single Income Lots of Kids: The old lifestyle that contrasts with the modern perversions.
Does the Stereotypical Woman have a Vagina? Is it ‘prejudice’ to say women were designed to bear children?
Misogyny and Agency: Is it misogyny to say that women are human beings with agency?
Gender Roles: Should you be judged on how well your fulfil your gender roles?
The Modern Problem with Math: When it comes to kids, modern people can’t count.
INCHEL: Involuntarily Childless Women
Generational Wealth: The Foundation
Rights, Wrongs, and Affirming Gender
Depopulation Solutions: Can we solve our fertility crisis?
Problem with Patterns of Patriarchy
Fundamental Contradictions
Delphic Penumbra
Marry and Marriage: Hebrew Scriptures
Gen 38:8 And Judah H3063 said H559 unto Onan, H209 Go in H935 unto H413 thy brother's H251 wife, H802 and marry H2992 her, and raise up H6965 seed H2233 to thy brother. H251
H2992 (Strong)
יָבַם
yâbam
yaw-bam'
A primitive root of doubtful meaning; used only as a denominative from H2993; to marry a (deceased) brother’s widow: - perform the duty of a husband’s brother, marry.
Total KJV occurrences: 3
Num 36:6 This H2088 is the thing H1697 which H834 the LORD H3068 doth command H6680 concerning the daughters H1323 of Zelophehad, H6765 saying, H559 Let them marry H1961 H802 to whom they think best; H2896 H5869 only H389 to the family H4940 of the tribe H4294 of their father H1 shall they marry. H1961 H802
H802 (Strong)
נָשִׁים אִשָּׁה
'ishshâh nâshı̂ym
ish-shaw', naw-sheem'
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: - [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.
Total KJV occurrences: 780
H1961 (Strong)
Deu 25:5 If H3588 brethren H251 dwell H3427 together, H3162 and one H259 of H4480 them die, H4191 and have no H369 child, H1121 the wife H802 of the dead H4191 shall not H3808 marry H1961 without H2351 unto a stranger: H376 H2114 her husband's brother H2993 shall go in H935 unto H5921 her, and take H3947 her to him to wife, H802 and perform the duty of an husband's brother H2992 unto her.
הָיָה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.
Total KJV occurrences: 3502
H1166 (Strong)
Isa 62:5 For H3588 as a young man H970 marrieth H1166 a virgin, H1330 so shall thy sons H1121 marry H1166 thee: and as the bridegroom H2860 rejoiceth H4885 over H5921 the bride, H3618 so shall thy God H430 rejoice H7797 over H5921 thee.
בָּעַל
bâ‛al
baw-al'
A primitive root; to be master; hence (as denominative from H1167) to marry: - Beulah have dominion (over), be husband, marry (-ried, X wife).
Total KJV occurrences: 15
Exo 21:10 If H518 he take H3947 him another H312 wife; her food, H7607 her raiment, H3682 and her duty of marriage, H5772 shall he not H3808 diminish. H1639
H5772 (Strong)
עוֹנָה
‛ônâh
o-naw'
From an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together; (sexual) cohabitation: - duty of marriage.
Total KJV occurrences: 1
Psa 78:63 The fire H784 consumed H398 their young men; H970 and their maidens H1330 were not H3808 given to marriage. H1984
H1984 (Strong)
הָלַל
hâlal
haw-lal'
A primitive root; to be clear (originally of sound, but usually of color); to shine; hence to make a show; to boast; and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; also to stultify: - (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine.
Total KJV occurrences: 165