Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Joseph and Marriage

With the upcoming elections, one issue that is being debated is marriage and whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized. Here's a thought during this Christmas season—Joseph is the ultimate example that God created marriage for a man and a woman, and that a family is meant to have both a mother and a father.

Mary was a virgin, impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Joseph didn't have to be there for biology's sake. But, God didn't leave Mary on her own to raise her child. He didn't have her stay with her parents or move into her cousin Elizabeth's home. And he didn't have her team up with another woman to raise Jesus, either. He provided for her through the care of a husband, Joseph. Doesn't this show that is the way God intended a family to be? A family should have both a mom and a dad.

Joseph was the man of the house. He took Mary to Bethlehem to be registered. He, along with Mary, took Jesus to be presented to the Lord. He was warned by angels to flee from Bethlehem and King Herod by taking Jesus and Mary to Egypt. Later, he again followed the direction of an angel and took his family to live in Nazareth. We can speculate that he trained Jesus in his craft, carpentry, too.

Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. But since it was important enough to God that Mary, the mother of His son, be married to a man, we should take our cue from this example. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Lisa G.


Ebenezer Erskine said...

I like what you have to say here, you may have an ally in my blog. Please come and check out my mission, I think you will be in agreement.

Rhea said...

Interesting take on Joseph...I don't ever recall anyone talking about Joseph and marriage like this....I like it :-)

Anonymous said...

I can certainly following your argument, and it is an interesting one that I haven't heard before. However, I must strongly disagree on two points.
First, I would say that even if a correct interpretation of God's intention, this does not carry over in any respect to the law of the United States.

The fact is that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, requires equal protection under the law of all U.S. citizens. Right to marry thus cannot be denied to one class of citizens based any more than it can be denied them based on race. This is why the medieval anti-miscegenation laws were correctly overturned. Likewise, taken in conjunction with the Court's more recent ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it is inevitable that the equal protection clause will be extended to gay marriage. This is only proper, regardless of anyone's view on what God may or may not have to say about it.

Secondly, I must disagree with you on a spiritual level. The customs of Joseph's time were vastly different than the modern era, and it would be absurd to take the acknowledgment of these customs as some sort of spiritual endorsement on God's part. Take for instance Jesus's exhortations that slaves obey their masters in Ephesians 6:5. I don't know anybody that would take this to be God's endorsement of slavery.

Better to just accept people with the love of Christ than comb through the Bible for technicalities.

Alan said...

Welcome to my blog. You are wrong, this does carry over in respect to the law of the United States. We are to obey our leaders; however, if the laws of the land contradict the law of God, God wins and we are obligated to speak out against and, if necessary, violate the man-made laws.

The customs of Joseph's time? Your second point is illogical. Making something God allowed, slavery, analogous to something God commands, marriage being one man and one woman, is fallacious. You could argue for the analogy between slavery and bigamy but not what you have proposed. Like I said, welcome, and I hope to speak with you again.

In Christ