Marriage: A Gift from Eden

By Stephen Terry

 

Commentary for the March 2, 2013 Sabbath School Lesson

 

“The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23-24, NIV

Often, Christians refer to these verses as describing the first marriage ceremony. Yet, how one defines marriage has a lot to do with that understanding. Today, marriage is commonly defined as a civil process where two parties apply to the civil authorities for permission to marry. This permission is often granted in the form of a marriage license. Different jurisdictions may have varying requirements to obtain that license, but usually the process is not complicated. Once the license is obtained, the couple must retain an authority such as a civil magistrate or a religious leader to officially perform a marriage ceremony and sign off on the license. Once that is done, the couple must file the completed license with the appropriate authorities to be legally married.

Several things stand out regarding marriage as we practice it, today. First, there is no requirement that the two parties be in love. It is strictly a civil contract between two partners, very much like a business partnership. However, unlike a business partnership, there is no requirement for either partner to be aware of what financial commitment the other partner brings to the marriage. There is also no requirement that the parties even know one another prior to the marriage. These things do not necessarily mean that marriage is a bad idea. They simply mean that some of our assumptions about marriage are just that--assumptions. If we fail to deal with those assumptions prior to marriage, the marriage ceremony will not magically cause those things to align with our expectations. I use the word “magically” because marriage is also considered an ordinance of the Christian church, and as Christians we sometimes tend to look at those ordinances as somehow being like magical incantations. If we do them “right” then we feel everything should proceed to perfection, even though we know that the people participating in those ordinances are not perfect.[1]

In many countries the religious ordinance and the civil contract of marriage are kept separate. The state does not recognize the ordinance as creating any kind of contractual relationship, and the marriage can only be legal if it is performed by civil authorities. However, oddly enough, in the United States, which prides itself on the separation of church and state, civil authority is also granted to religious leaders to perform the ceremony that legalizes the marriage. While this simplifies the process by allowing the religious couple to have a marriage recognized by both the church and the state in one ceremony, it does create other problems. One of those problems is the temptation for the religious authorities to then want to impose their definition of marriage on the civil process. This can result in a narrowing of the purposely broad definition of marriage accorded in civil law. In a country like the United States, in particular, with its multiplicity of faith traditions and cultural perspectives, broader rather than narrower definitions seem to work best to promote harmony within those diversities. While some religious leaders may want to assume a powerful voice to dictate the requirements of the marriage contract, the view the state takes of this asserted self-importance can be seen when many states allow a person to simply purchase a mail-order ordination certificate for a few dollars to become a qualified “religious leader” and able to perform legal marriages within their jurisdiction.

Can these various perspectives distort our understanding of what marriage was in the Bible, or can we, perhaps, still understand a few things about marriage from the Bible? One of the expectations apparent in the sacred text might be that marriage is to last until the death of one of the parties. That expectation is referenced by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans.[2] In Genesis, there is no record of marriage between free persons ending in any other way. But we can find several references to divorce and even a procedure for divorce in the law books of the Pentateuch.[3] Therefore it seems logical that then as now, expectation and reality were not necessarily in agreement. Jesus states that because of the hardness of our hearts things are allowed to happen in this way.[4] Since we can consider that several thousand years passed between the writing of Deuteronomy and the present, perhaps we can also allow that hard hearts may have fractured marriage prior to Deuteronomy as well. When we read of the treatment of Joseph by his brothers, we see no lack of hardness there.[5]

As Christians, we may feel that our faith gives us some kind of moral authority to dictate a definition of marriage that all must adhere to. Certainly there are those that claim that marriage “belongs” to the church based on certain Bible passages such as the one at the beginning of this article. But apparently, belonging to a faith fellowship does not automatically eliminate “hardness of hearts.” The factual context is that Christians as well as non-Christians are experiencing higher divorce rates than one would expect from the lifetime commitment assumptions of the churches.[6] Of course, some religious leaders dispute those figures claiming that those who sincerely practice their faith do not have such high numbers. However, if you exclude those who are getting divorced from those who are “sincerely practicing,” then you can easily provide the data points you expect. So what should we take away from all of this? Is there a Christian understanding of marriage that makes a difference? Or should we just default to things as they are and find relevance in other issues? Can what happened ages ago inform our lives, and in particular, our marriages, today?

One thing that we must admit when we compare the relationship between man and woman before the fall[7] with that of after the fall into sin,[8] we see that things have gone from an apparently equal state to one of dominion and submission. While some advocate this as the natural or even “biblical” relationship between marriage partners, such an understanding might only seem to be the case if we considered sin to be the natural foundation for a relationship between Christians. But why would we do this unless we derived some apparent advantage from such a perspective? When one looks at Genesis 3:16, the verse can be read with more than one meaning. It can be read as though God is commanding men to rule over women, or it can be read as God simply relating what the effect of sin is. If this is a command of God, then naturally it is understandable that men would urge no departure from it, but their eagerness to assert this is suspect. Perhaps it is an advantage not easily surrendered.

As a parallel to this “curse,” we might consider the pain of childbirth in the first part of the verse. If this is a command of God, wouldn’t it be disobedience to interfere with that command with the spectrum of analgesic remedies available today? Few would seriously assert that throughout gestation and birth women be denied pain remediation because “it is God’s command.” Instead, it is seen as right, proper, and Christian to relieve pain and suffering, even in childbirth. Why then can we not see the dominion and submission issue in the same light? Why is it proper to alleviate the result of sin in one instance but not the other? Once we understand our responsibility to do all we can to ameliorate the effects of sin[9] then we can begin to understand the difference between perpetuating those effects as opposed to bringing healing as we are able.

We are all imperfect and suffering under those imperfections. This is why we need the grace that Christ provided through His death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. That resurrection is the promise of a better world to come. In the meantime, if we see even our enemy’s donkey struggling under a heavy load, we are to assist him.[10] Should we do any less with one another? Our imperfections and their effects place a heavy load on all of our relationships, not least the marriage relationship. Should one party seek to place additional burdens on the other by seeking a position of power and control? Should we define our relationships by the effects of sin, or by the grace of heaven? One cannot help but wonder how much better marriage could be if we willingly and with good grace share equally the burdens of life.[11] Perhaps we should expect that the presence of Christ in our lives will bring us back not to the devastating effects of sin after the fall, but instead, ever closer to the harmony of equality and purpose of Eden.

 

 

 



[1] Romans 3:10

[2] Ibid., 7:1-3

[3] Deuteronomy 24:1-4

[4] Matthew 19:3-8

[5] Genesis 37

[6] “Divorce Rates High in Southern, Bible Belt States,” Christian Post, August 25, 2011, www.christianpost.com.

[7] Genesis 2:23-24

[8] Ibid., 3:16

[9] Isaiah 58:6-11, Matthew 25:31-46

[10] Exodus 23:5

[11] Galatians 6:2

 

 

This Commentary is a Service of Still Waters Ministry

www.visitstillwaters.com

 

If you wish to receive these weekly commentaries direct to your e-mail inbox for free, simply send an e-mail to:

commentaries-subscribe@visitstillwaters.com

 

 

Scripture marked (NIV) taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Used by permission. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of Biblica, Inc. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of Biblica US, Inc.

 

 

 

If you want a paperback copy of the current Sabbath School Bible Study Quarterly, you may purchase one by clicking here and typing the word "quarterly" into the search box.