Many Malaysian couples are 'living together' to have a marriage test-run. How then shall we live as citizens of God's inaugurated Kingdom? Wrote this letter to a fren.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for the interesting views you shared with us, and for the precious time spent in typing out the post.
In a certain sense, cohabitation seems attractive because it is free from the external prop of traditional act of going to the church, repeating the vows of the preacher, etc.
In my humble opinion, true marriage is not only a spiritual union (although it is nothing less), biblical marriage is also a physical union of a male and female, in a permanent, intimate relationship as husband and wife. Therefore the perceived dichotomy that a spiritual union is not a physical union is illusory and perhaps, more influenced by Platonism than by Scripture. God is concerned about the body as well as the spirit – the entire creation is good.
Perhaps it helps to distinguish the forms of a wedding ceremony and the biblical institution of marriage… Since the Bible says nothing about exchanging vows before a preacher in a church, I don’t see any real objection if the marriage vows were exchanged without a ring, behind a preacher in a garden or beach. In the Chinese culture, we exchange cups of tea - this does not make the marriage any less legitimate. For that, I think we are largely in agreement. The forms of a wedding ceremony are not really that important. In fact, one may argue that the huge fortune spent on a wedding ceremony nowadays is overkill.
But what should not be disputed is the institution of the marriage itself as God-ordained foundation for human society, before He ordained the state or the church. And to my mind, cohabitation challenges that by providing an ‘alternative’ where couples could taste sexual and emotional closeness of marriage, minus the permanent commitment. It is easier to break cohabitation than getting a divorce. The only way the two lovers would ever get ‘united’ by God is through marriage. That’s in His word, and we are not wise enough to judge otherwise.
Of course, marriage is more than just two star-struck lovers having the good intention to live together. The road to perdition is littered with good intentions. Biblical marriage involves the family (“The man shall leave his parents”) and the community as well, which is why relatives are normally invited to witness the wedding.
The community offers married couples certain protection and responsibility, and cohabitation ignores this communitarian dimension in favor of an unbiblical individualism. Legislation on marriage is not meant to pour cold water on romantic passion, and should not be viewed as some man-made rules to be broken in the name of liberty.
Since God is concerned with both spiritual and physical aspects of a marriage, it is only natural that this permanent relationship be protected and its protection be enforced by law. (Hebrew 13:4) Physically going down to the courthouse to get a marriage license has the benefit of such protection and community recognition that a person (especially the female partner) involved in cohabitation does not.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for the interesting views you shared with us, and for the precious time spent in typing out the post.
In a certain sense, cohabitation seems attractive because it is free from the external prop of traditional act of going to the church, repeating the vows of the preacher, etc.
In my humble opinion, true marriage is not only a spiritual union (although it is nothing less), biblical marriage is also a physical union of a male and female, in a permanent, intimate relationship as husband and wife. Therefore the perceived dichotomy that a spiritual union is not a physical union is illusory and perhaps, more influenced by Platonism than by Scripture. God is concerned about the body as well as the spirit – the entire creation is good.
Perhaps it helps to distinguish the forms of a wedding ceremony and the biblical institution of marriage… Since the Bible says nothing about exchanging vows before a preacher in a church, I don’t see any real objection if the marriage vows were exchanged without a ring, behind a preacher in a garden or beach. In the Chinese culture, we exchange cups of tea - this does not make the marriage any less legitimate. For that, I think we are largely in agreement. The forms of a wedding ceremony are not really that important. In fact, one may argue that the huge fortune spent on a wedding ceremony nowadays is overkill.
But what should not be disputed is the institution of the marriage itself as God-ordained foundation for human society, before He ordained the state or the church. And to my mind, cohabitation challenges that by providing an ‘alternative’ where couples could taste sexual and emotional closeness of marriage, minus the permanent commitment. It is easier to break cohabitation than getting a divorce. The only way the two lovers would ever get ‘united’ by God is through marriage. That’s in His word, and we are not wise enough to judge otherwise.
Of course, marriage is more than just two star-struck lovers having the good intention to live together. The road to perdition is littered with good intentions. Biblical marriage involves the family (“The man shall leave his parents”) and the community as well, which is why relatives are normally invited to witness the wedding.
The community offers married couples certain protection and responsibility, and cohabitation ignores this communitarian dimension in favor of an unbiblical individualism. Legislation on marriage is not meant to pour cold water on romantic passion, and should not be viewed as some man-made rules to be broken in the name of liberty.
Since God is concerned with both spiritual and physical aspects of a marriage, it is only natural that this permanent relationship be protected and its protection be enforced by law. (Hebrew 13:4) Physically going down to the courthouse to get a marriage license has the benefit of such protection and community recognition that a person (especially the female partner) involved in cohabitation does not.
Comments
I have some thoughts on it. These notions are just to throw a spanner into the works and give some alternative views on marriage to what I'm sure most people on this list are familiar with.
Firstly, if someone "cohabits" with the intention of getting married then what exactly does that mean? If they intend to get married, doesn't that mean they intend to stay with each other forever? But isn't that all marriage really is? An intention to stay together, devote to each other's love and persevere against inevitable difficulties that arise through the relationship? So if two people cohabit with the intention of staying together forever, all marriage has left going for it is the elaborate ceremony and legal implications. So, if two people cohabit with the intention of staying together through thick and thin, marriage runs the risk of becoming rather redundant.
So, if two people intend to stay together forever and devote their love to one another, the only thing marriage does any differently is require ceremony and legal documentation. Yet even the ceremony does not have to be forgone simply because a couple chooses not to marry. They can still hold a ceremony te celebrate their love for eachother. So all that's left of marriage is formal legality.
So what is marriage REALLY about? The original purpose of marriage in almost every culture, from what I can tell, was to ask for someone's permission to be together. In almost every culture, marriage in some way
asks for somebody's permission, whether it is the wife-to-be's father, some kind of tribal counsel or, as today, the government and state. Now I for one thoroughly dislike the idea that the government or state or indeed *anybody* should have any say on whether two people should be permitted to love one another. Regulation of love is a profoundly suspicious concept. If looked at from this angle, marriage can take on the appearance of a very elaborate control mechanism. Perhaps this is why Marriage is often more popular among the parents than the actual couple.
The most common incentive to obtain legal marriage is of course, legal binding and obligation. Now, I may be a bit of an idealist on this but since when has a loving relationship got anything to do with obligation?
Indeed, I think putting a layer of obligation onto a loving relationship taints its purity. One runs the risk of creating a relationship where no longer does the couple remain together because they want to be
together... but because they have to be together for reasons other than love. It seems to me that a relationship that is tied together solely by
love is a far greater display of sincere devotion than one tied together by a set of external obligations.
So really, how does marriage make a relationship any more holy than a relationship of two people who have informally dovoted their love to one another? Indeed, the only difference marriage has is its legality... but
I find it hard to determine a positive reason to bring legality into a relationship. Does God really bless marriages and not non-married relationships merely because of the legal formality? Or was this idea
just a construct to give the earlier church-run state more power? I think Christians everywhere need to give this much more thought.
For those who think that "cohabitation is just plain wrong", please try to at least think of a cogent reason of WHY. As the original email states, cohabitation and such related subjects are not directly confronted by the Bible. Rather it's possible that it is more of a
product of the early church making up its own pharisee style laws. If the Bible is the ultimate truth, it must have reasons for each of its laws. If you can't understand why a law is obeyed by the church, there's
a chance the church may be misunderstanding what that law is trying to teach. Obeying the Bible should never involve shutting the mind to reason, but opening the mind and trying to understand your God and His
purposes. If anyone DOES have positive arguments for marriage andagainst non-marrital relationships then please provide them; if Christians wish to understand eachother and their God, more authority must be provided than mere Christian tradition.