ECCLESIOLOGICAL ETCHINGS
June 30, 2026
If I see another post calling for “a return to Biblical marriage,” I am going to scream. And it can be loud and annoying. Let’s be very real here. No one, and I feel pretty confident that includes anyone reading this, does not want Biblical marriage. You may want what you’ve been told is Biblical marriage or what you assume to be Biblical marriage, but unless you are a misogynistic jerk who does not believe women have value, then you are not seeking Biblical marriage. First, and everything hinges on this, women were property. First, they were property of their fathers, and then upon marriage, they were property of their husbands. You may remember that in the Ten Commandments, the document Texas is requiring in public school class rooms, it says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife…” A wife scores just below a house in regard to importance in regard to possessions. Second is not bad, unless you find it deeply troubling that she is even on the property list. And I hope you do. But that is Biblical marriage, and sadly, there are some churches really pushing to reclaim that kind of family structure.
A married man could rape a twelve year old, and as long as she had not been betrothed (promised by her father) to another man, then all the rapist had to do was pay a fine to the father of the girl, marry her, and promise never to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). This is exactly what most people want and would define as Biblical marriage. That’s sarcasm in case you had not noticed (I apologize for anyone who finds that to be triggering). And FYI, in cases of adultery, women were always the guilty ones, never the men.
And even though 1st Corinthians 7:4 makes it sound equal, it really was not. It says, “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” Yet who was considered head of the household, and who was to make all the important decisions? This passage might have been a step in the right direction (maybe), but you may not be surprised that many churches emphasize the first part of that verse, while suggesting that the second part means the wife is to serve and provide pleasure for the husband.
I could write another sixty paragraphs with these kinds of examples, but hopefully I’ve made my point. Unless you are a strong supporter of polygamy, and despite what some might say, the New Testament does not denounce polygamy. Only for leaders (1st Timothy and Titus), and it is thought that church leaders should have only one wife as there would not be enough time to care for a second wife because of all the church work.
At the end of the day, every generation has chosen what defines Biblical marriage. Alternatively, a more fitting question might be: what does a marriage look like that honors God? I don’t believe there’s a single answer, but it’s crucial for individuals to acknowledge upfront that they’re consciously excluding certain Bible passages that have very clear expectations of marriage. By starting there, people can engage in honest conversations. The problem lies in that many individuals are silenced when someone says, “Well, I just believe in Biblical marriage,” without realizing that without transparency about what’s included and what’s excluded, such a statement becomes nonsensical in today’s culture.
Provide me wisdom and a willingness not to be silenced by those who, with broad statements, are seeking to demonstrate their superior knowledge on matters associated with the Bible and faith. Be gracious to me, Holy God, as you always are. And give me the courage to push back with good questions that pursue, above all things, truth. Amen.
