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.
