The Nature of the Biblical Marriage Contract and Christian Couples Who Decide Not to Have Children

"How is a raven like a writing-desk?" Two seemingly dissimilar things. What exactly do they have in common, and do their dissimilarities outweigh their commonalities? 

It's common to hear certain feminists argue that marriage is a form of prostitution. Of course, I would argue that modern marriages sometimes are. This is because there is no essential difference between someone who exchanges romantic intimacy for material resources or protection as a prostitute and someone who does it as a wife.

If one argues that it is the length of the agreement, I would simply ask how the length of the agreement has anything to do with it. There are "sugar daddies" who expand their relationships out, and sometimes make them permanent. This is also would negate the idea that marriage is monogamous whereas prostitution is not, since prostitution can be had between two individuals who do not have sex with anyone else. Likewise, the fact that our culture produces people who have had multiple partners in their lives, evidences a lack of understanding the term "monogamy" (a phrase often used now to refer to having one partner at a time, rather than one partner for life.

If one argues that feelings are involved, does this mean that one's marriage becomes prostitution when the bodily chemicals that we call emotions stop churning in our bodies? And if a prostitute and her john have emotions involved in the exchange does that make prostitution any less prostitution?

Indeed, our culture wishes to place emotions as the deciding factor between them, but does that mean that when one's feelings are into it one day, it's a legitimate marriage, and the next day when the feelings are absent, it's prostitution? Is one only married, then, when one "feels" like he or she is married?

The ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaty provides the basis for an understanding of marriage in the Bible. In that relationship, the stronger entity (i.e., an empire or larger nation/city/tribe) enters into a covenant with the weaker entity (a smaller nation/city/tribe) that if the weaker entity that needs protection will pay tribute to the larger entity, then the larger entity will provide protection from others who might want to destroy or plunder it.

The marriage contract, in the ancient Near East, is a suzerain covenant. The covenant is that the woman (i.e., the weaker party in need of protection) will pay tribute (i.e., sex that leads to the bearing and raising of an heir) to the man (i.e., the stronger party that can provide protection) in exchange for protection against chaotic elements and forces (e.g., other men seeking to take advantage of her, starvation, homelessness, etc.).

The biblical model is that the tribute is sex that leads to children, not just a single heir. It looks toward a quiver full, many sons and daughters, etc. even though God may grant only a couple, one, or even no children to the couple. It's foundational understanding is the creation mandate in Genesis 1.

In other words, what makes marriage in the ancient world, and especially the Bible, distinct from prostitution isn't that it's monogamous (polygamy was possible under the Old Covenant understanding), or a longer duration, or has more feelings involved than the other, but that the woman is making a deal to become a mother and the man is making a deal to become a father; and this is the understanding of the contract that is being made, even if God does not give any children to the couple by His choice, not by theirs.

What does this say of Christian couples who decide they want to get married but do not wish to have children? I would argue, as Augustine once argued, that this relationship is one of prostitution, not marriage. It's still a contract, but it isn't a marital contract. It's one of prostitution because its goal is an exchange of romantic intimacy for protection from the elements (money, shelter, food, etc.).

Changing the primary purpose of the sexual act has not only led to the confusion of gender roles (why can't men and women just do the same things if children are not involved?), the confusion over what is a legitimate sexuality (i.e., homosexuality), confusion over sexual identity (i.e., transgenderism), sexual promiscuity without the result of family (i.e., birth control), but also a distortion concerning the nature of marriage itself.  Understanding the purpose of the sexual act reorients us to understand every relationship related to it.

So these particular feminists are right to argue that modern marriage, which divorces children from being the primary tribute paid within the contract, and merely pursues an exchange based on romantic intimacy as the tribute, is, in fact, prostitution.

One cannot make that claim of the biblical view of marriage however, as the primary purpose of the sexual act is to have children, raise godly offspring, and fulfill the mission of the image, which is to co-create with God in His purpose to fill up the earth with His covenant people.

How is a raven like a writing-desk? They have a superficial connection, but in reality, they're as different as night and day in their primary characteristics. A bird doesn't make for a good writing platform, and a desk just doesn't fly. Neither does the claim that biblical marriages are prostitution. One cannot say the same of an unbiblical one, however, and Christians need to repent of entering into a contractual relationship that is anything less than a biblical marriage.