Marriage is a covenant?

[HuntingMan]

True. If marriage is indeed portrayed as a covenant - and so far, I've only found one measly and ambiguous verse in Malachi that makes me think it is.

I was thinking a bit about it. You could maybe look at the covenant between David and Jonathan to start off with.
I mean, if two men could have a covenant between them, simply being something like a very deep friendship, then why wouldnt a marriage be a covenant even moreso ?

Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 1Sa 18:3

​

If we loved our spouse as our own soul, wouldnt the words we bind ourselves to them with be more than this covenant between two men here ?

Just some ideas

 

[Bootstrap]

Marriage was understood as a covenant in biblical times; thus the Bible does not "define" marriage as a covenant, but "assumes" such.

You seem to have an answer to this question - where did you find the above answer?

It is important to understand the cultures as much as it is to understand the languages of the Bible in order to correctly interpret scripture. The writers of the Bible understood marriage as a human covenant with well defined expectations and limitations.

I'm reasonably good at New Testament interpretation, reasonably bad at Old Testament interpretation. In general, understanding ancient cultures and languages requires references to original sources. Can you show me things in literature from the biblical period that points to the correctness of your understanding of the language and culture?

I say this because the culture and language of the Bible are often misrepresented by all sides of an issue. It's like the American Indian in modern times - to Rousseau, the American Indian was the noble savage. Some early American writings made Indians monotheist believers in Manatou. In 1950s American movies it was a dog eat dog world where Indians and Cowboys alike must fight for their own, each had their own nobility, and may the best man win. In the 1970s Indians became new Age practitioners and environmentalists. In Bismarck Germany, Karl May treated the Indians as small nations who must band together to assume their responsibility as one great and noble nation. In East Germany, the American Indians were true socialists.

My point: we often make bald statements about other cultures that prove our own points. We have to be very careful about claims we make about other cultures, and discuss our sources.

Jonathan

 

[Crazy Liz]

It is important to understand the cultures as much as it is to understand the languages of the Bible in order to correctly interpret scripture.

Language and culture are inseparable. That is an important point.

 

[HuntingMan]

Language and culture are inseparable. That is an important point.

Does God define marriage by mans cultural viewpoints ?
If man says two men can marry and if God is against it, will God amend HIS views to accommodate it ?

 

[ShermanN]

You seem to have an answer to this question - where did you find the above answer?

I didn't quote anyone in particular; rather, what I wrote was a synthesis of what I have come to believe after much study.

I'm reasonably good at New Testament interpretation, reasonably bad at Old Testament interpretation. In general, understanding ancient cultures and languages requires references to original sources. Can you show me things in literature from the biblical period that points to the correctness of your understanding of the language and culture?

I say this because the culture and language of the Bible are often misrepresented by all sides of an issue. It's like the American Indian in modern times - to Rousseau, the American Indian was the noble savage. Some early American writings made Indians monotheist believers in Manatou. In 1950s American movies it was a dog eat dog world where Indians and Cowboys alike must fight for their own, each had their own nobility, and may the best man win. In the 1970s Indians became new Age practitioners and environmentalists. In Bismarck Germany, Karl May treated the Indians as small nations who must band together to assume their responsibility as one great and noble nation. In East Germany, the American Indians were true socialists.

My point: we often make bald statements about other cultures that prove our own points. We have to be very careful about claims we make about other cultures, and discuss our sources.

Jonathan

Agreed, sources are important! There are many good sources concerning the various ancient cultures of the Middle East. If you haven't read Dr. David Instone-Brewer's work, particularly "Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible, The Social and Literary Context", I'd encourage you to do so. His information on the cultural context is excellent, though I disagree with a couple of his interpretations of scripture.

David Instone-Brewer devotes the entire first chapter of his book, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible” to discuss the contractual nature of marriage as understood in the Near East in biblical times. I highly recommend this book for further study on this and related issues. For the conclusion of chapter one, Dr. Instone-Brewer writes:

… marriage in the Pentateuch is a contract between two families and between two individuals. This contract was often recorded in a document which included the financial arrangements, the stipulations which could lead to divorce if broken, and the financial arrangements in the event of divorce. Many of these documents have been found dating from the seventh century BCE. The details recorded in these documents, and the language which is used to record them, finds exact parallels in the Pentateuch. The Old Testament speaks of marriage as a ‘covenant’ (tyrb), which was the ancient Near Eastern term for any kind of binding agreement or contract. The correct term for a marriage agreement in the Old Testament is therefor a ‘marriage contract’. Like any other contract, this contained an agreement and penalties for breaking the agreement. The penalty for breaking the marriage contract was divorce with loss of the dowry. (David Instone-Brewer. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. 19.) (emphasis mine)

David Instone-Brewer makes a convincing argument supporting the assertion that; “The correct term for a marriage agreement in the Old Testament is a ‘marriage contract.’” However, does the English word “contract” adequately define a marriage relationship? In English, “contract” is most commonly used as a legal term with its strength in its specificity, clarity, and declared penalties for the breaking of the contract. An ironclad contract is one in which there are no loopholes or means of breaking the contract without penalty. The word “contract” usually applies to tangible and measurable elements of a relationship such as finances, responsibilities, and/or material ownership. The word “contract” also has the connotation of an insensitive, cold, calculating, and business-type relationship. However, marriage is far more than the English word “contract” can define or connote.

The English word “covenant” is a better term for describing the marriage union, though having virtually the same meaning as the word “contract.” Covenant is more of a relational word that often implies a personal commitment of the involved parties to each other that far exceeds the financial, material, or legal aspects of the relationship. The word “covenant” is often biblically used as a broad, inclusive, and non-specific relational vow establishing new “family” ties. Furthermore, although the financial and material aspects of the covenant might be covered by a written contract and enforceable through civil law, the strength of a covenant is almost wholly dependent upon the moral character of the covenantors, the ones making the covenant.

The word “contract” is an integral part of the word “covenant;” but “covenant” is not necessarily implied in the word “contract.” Contracts are specific and legally enforceable covenants, whereas the relational elements of covenants are neither specific nor legally enforceable. For example, mutual love, honor, submission, trust, and faithfulness are all elements of a Christian marriage covenant; but these are intangible, immeasurable attributes that are not legally enforceable due to their ethereal nature.

Anyhow, I recommend Dr. Instone-Brewer's book as being an excellent resource concerning the cultural context of the ancient near east. Beyond that, you're welcome to check out the following:

Beacon Dictionary of Theology. Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1983. Richard S. Taylor, editor.

Hugenberger, G. P. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 52. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1994

Encyclopedia of the Early Church. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992

Lamsa, George M. Gospel Light: Comments of the Teachings of Jesus from Aramaic and Unchanged Eastern Customs. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1936.

Parker, David. The Early Traditions of Jesus’ Sayings on Divorce. In Theology, September/October, 1993. London: SCM Press LTD.

Westbrook, Raymond. Prohibition of Restoration of Marriage in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In Studies in Bible 1986 ed. S. Japhet, pp. 387-405. Scripta Hierosolymitana 31. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986

Frankly, I believe, generally speaking, that the church has so spiritualized the doctrine of marriage that it has become no earthly good. The world romaticizes marriage laying a faulty foundation; and the church spiritualizes marriage also laying a faulty foundation. I'm much more practical, realistic in my beliefs. I believe that marriage is a human covenant, some of which can be considered "holy", even directed and supported by God. OTOH, marriages can be "unholy", forbidden and opposed by God. For example, though a homosexual couple might marry, and a legal/social covenant is made, such a covenant would be evil.

 

[ShermanN]

Language and culture are inseparable. That is an important point.

Agreed, in fact, often one cannot interpret a text and correctly communicate its meaning without understanding the culture, especially idiomatic phrases. For example, on another thread I'm in a discussion concerning the meaning of the phrase "one flesh". I've pointed out how that in both the OT and NT the word "flesh" is sometimes used to communicate family ties. If you are of my flesh, you are part of my family. This can apply to those who are physical relatives and those who are relatives by covenant. Sadly though, the traditional "interpretation" of "one-flesh" is that through sex there is some kind of mystical spiritual bond that is created that is unbreakable except through physical death. However, such is read into the text and context, rather than being drawn from the text or the context.

Concerning the topic at hand, another interesting phrase to study is Paul's use of "bound by law", as in a wife is "bound by law" to her husband as long as he lives. I believe that Paul uses the Greek (Western) word "nomos, law" to attempt to communicate the concept of the Hebraic (Eastern) word "berit, covenant". Of course, in Greco-Roman society, covenantal marriage was only one of five significantly different types/categories of marriage. The most common form of marriage was that among slaves, which was called "tenting together." And considering that approximately 75% of the population of Corinth were slaves, it's likely that a large percentage of the church of Corinth were slaves and thus just able to tent together at the permission of their owners.

The more one understands the cultures of the Bible, the more is likely to understand what the author intended by what he/she wrote.

 

[HuntingMan]

Sadly though, the traditional "interpretation" of "one-flesh" is that through sex there is some kind of mystical spiritual bond that is created that is unbreakable except through physical death. However, such is read into the text and context, rather than being drawn from the text or the context.

I think we surely agree that 'one flesh' doesnt create an UNconditional bond, but one problem I have with the 'family' issue is that it doesnt agree with 1 cor 6:16 and it also seems to present a problem that while I CAN divorce a wife, I CANNOT divorce a family member.
Making it a family issue tends to give an impression, in my opinion, that an unbreakable bond HAS been created by being 'one flesh'.

While Im sure you dont intend it that way, I can see how it could cause those of certain doctrines to use this argument againt your views.

You dont believe that the intent of 'one flesh' is consistent in scripture ?
Say comparing its use in 1 Cor 6:16 to say Matthew 19 ?

 

[Bootstrap]

Does God define marriage by mans cultural viewpoints ?

Certainly many basic aspects of marriage are cultural - in modern American society, the church does not accept polygamy, marriage agreements made without the wife's consent, purchasing a bride, slavemasters who give a wife to a slave then keep the wife and any kids when the slave is freed, and the like. We also have many things that seem definitional to us today that did not exist in the Bible - wedding vows, wedding ceremonies, marriage licenses, marriage certificates, the official statement "I now pronounce you husband and wife".

Like you, I'm inclined to see marriage as something universal and rooted in creation. As far as I can tell, there are zero examples of a marriage covenant between a man and a woman in the Bible. The various biblical agreements I described above are not agreements that we would consider valid in our current culture - and perhaps not in all biblical cultures either (haven't done my homework enough to say for sure).

Other aspects are not cultural, particularly the one-flesh relationship that is rooted in our creation as male and female. I'm inclined to look to these aspects to understand the main thrust of God's intent in marriage. Particularly since Jesus did.

Jonathan

 

[Bootstrap]

Language and culture are inseparable. That is an important point.

And it's hard to grasp exactly how this is true unless you've lived in more than one culture, speaking more than one language.

I was once trying to explain this to a girl in the Ukranian community around Detroit. She spoke Ukranian fluently, but hadn't thought about this connection. I asked her, "how would you tell your mother that you are angry at her"? That was easy, we were speaking English. Then I said, "how would you tell her that in Ukranian?" She looked baffled, she realized she really wouldn't do that.

Jonathan

 

[Bootstrap]

Of course, in Greco-Roman society, covenantal marriage was only one of five significantly different types/categories of marriage. The most common form of marriage was that among slaves, which was called "tenting together." And considering that approximately 75% of the population of Corinth were slaves, it's likely that a large percentage of the church of Corinth were slaves and thus just able to tent together at the permission of their owners.

There was also something like this in Hebrew society.

Hebrews 21:2 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3 If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

Note that the woman in verse 4 is called a "wife". Is there a marriage covenant in this arrangement? Certainly these marriages were not expected to be permanent if the male slave went free.

And speaking of differences in cultural, how about this gem from Exodus 21:

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 "If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her.
9 "If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.
10 "If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11"If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

Does that really say what it seems to? If I buy someone else's daughter as a slave, and I take another woman, I can't reduce the amount of sex I have with the slave I bought?

I'm still working on it, but I often find the Old Testament baffling for deriving a universal, cross-cultural pattern for marriage. The words of Jesus, which point to Genesis, seem like a better starting point.

Jonathan

 

[ShermanN]

I think we surely agree that 'one flesh' doesnt create an UNconditional bond, but one problem I have with the 'family' issue is that it doesnt agree with 1 cor 6:16 and it also seems to present a problem that while I CAN divorce a wife, I CANNOT divorce a family member.
Making it a family issue tends to give an impression, in my opinion, that an unbreakable bond HAS been created by being 'one flesh'.

While Im sure you dont intend it that way, I can see how it could cause those of certain doctrines to use this argument againt your views.

You dont believe that the intent of 'one flesh' is consistent in scripture ?
Say comparing its use in 1 Cor 6:16 to say Matthew 19 ?

I believe that Paul was speaking metaphorically in 1 Cor. 6:16, using the concept of family to denounce Christian men sleeping with temple prostitutes. Paul was in essense saying that these men sleeping with temple prostitutes was especially bad because it was like they were relationally joining the family of God with the family of satan. And what does the family of God have to do with the family of satan!

Concerning the use of "one-flesh" in Mat. 19, such was an allusion to God's original intent for marriage, that through marriage a couple creates a new family.

Concerning words having different intended meaning in different passages, of course they do; just look at any dictionary and the multiple meaning most any word has. The meaning of the word is determined by the text.

Furthermore, by noting that "one flesh" means "family" in Mt.19 as in Gen. 2, it does not imply that marriage is indissoluble, it just means that a family relationship has been established. People read into "one flesh" the concept of the relationship being indissoluble/unbreakable; however, such was not the intent of the phrase. In context, especially in Mt. 19, marriage being indissoluble could not be the intent of the author. Rather, I believe that Jesus was pointing the Pharisees to the divine ideal for marriage to help them refocus their services to the community. They were stuck arguing over proper divorce proceedings and philosophy, when they should have been caught up in helping people move towards the goal of the divine ideal for marriage, that of a monogamous faithful loving life-long familial covenant relationship establishing a new family and relationally linking two seperate families.

 

[HuntingMan]

I believe that Paul was speaking metaphorically in 1 Cor. 6:16,

retracted. The passage is quite literal.

Concerning the use of "one-flesh" in Mat. 19, such was an allusion to God's original intent for marriage, that through marriage a couple creates a new family.

Obviously we dont entirely agree on this point
I believe that becoming 'one flesh' or 'one body' with the harlot shows that it is sex.
In marriage it is consummation.
I dont see any reason to go overboard with any metaphysical intent other than to say that INSIDE a marriage that 'one flesh' is as God created it to be and thus blessed by Him

 

[ShermanN]

There was also something like this in Hebrew society.

Correct, slaves cohabitated in Hebrew culture as well as in Greco-Roman culture and Moses addressed specific issues concerning such.

Note that the woman in verse 4 is called a "wife". Is there a marriage covenant in this arrangement? Certainly these marriages were not expected to be permanent if the male slave went free.

The covenant arragement was that of slavehood. And if a man chose one or more of his slaves to take as a wife, such was acceptable as long as he treated her as a wife.

And speaking of differences in cultural, how about this gem from Exodus 21:

Does that really say what it seems to? If I buy someone else's daughter as a slave, and I take another woman, I can't reduce the amount of sex I have with the slave I bought?

I'm still working on it, but I often find the Old Testament baffling for deriving a universal, cross-cultural pattern for marriage. The words of Jesus, which point to Genesis, seem like a better starting point.

Jonathan

Yes, it says what you think it says. It was a law meant to mitigate the oppression of slave wives and keep a man from taking one of his slaves, making her a wife, and then reducing her to being a slave again. Such was especially evil and apparently a common enough practice to warrent a specific law dealing with it.

Jewish Rabbis actually use this scripture to catagorize the various expectations of marriage within their culture. From this verse they actually enacted civil legislation that instructed men to accomodate the needs of their wives based on the type of work they did. Studying their material is facinating.

Concerning a cross-cultural pattern for marriage, the principles apply, though the specific rules might not. For example, we have outlawed slavery, but we should enter marriage recognizing that we have specific expectations and obligations that we should meet; if we don't, we run the risk of destroying what God intended to be a blessing for us.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Obviously he was speaking metaphorically.
That doesnt make the statement any less true there that the man who is with the harlot IS 'one body' with her...do you deny that he is ?
Obviously we dont entirely agree on this point
I believe that becoming 'one flesh' or 'one body' with the harlot shows that it is sex.
In marriage it is consummation.
I dont see any reason to go overboard with any metaphysical intent other than to say that INSIDE a marriage that 'one flesh' is as God created it to be and thus blessed by Him

I thought a day or two ago you were arguing that Mary and Joseph were 'one flesh' although their marriage had not been consummated.

 

[ShermanN]

Obviously he was speaking metaphorically.
That doesnt make the statement any less true there that the man who is with the harlot IS 'one body' with her...do you deny that he is ?

Yes, he is not creating a marriage covenant with her through having sex with her, and he is not actually creating a new family..

Obviously we dont entirely agree on this point
I believe that becoming 'one flesh' or 'one body' with the harlot shows that it is sex.
In marriage it is consummation.
I dont see any reason to go overboard with any metaphysical intent other than to say that INSIDE a marriage that 'one flesh' is as God created it to be and thus blessed by Him

I don't think "one flesh" is meant to refer to sex at all though they are closely related.

 

[HuntingMan]

Yes, he is not creating a marriage covenant with her through having sex with her, and he is not actually creating a new family..

I have retracted my previous statement about the passage being metaphorical in nature.
The text IS quite literally speaking against real live sexual sin.
There is some metaphor involved (our being Christs 'members'), but it doesnt alter the clear intent of Pauls teaching against literal fornication.

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.
Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
(1Co 6:12-20 KJV)

I am left with no other conclusion than 'one flesh/one body' being sex between a man and a woman, married or not.
One is blessed by God, the other is sin.

I don't think "one flesh" is meant to refer to sex at all though they are closely related.

I understand, Sherm, and I know we dont agree on quite a few points. I generally dont make a big issue of it with you because I know we are both content with our views and I dont want to waste your day or mine grinding gears.
Lets just agree to disagree since neither of us is trying to destroy marriages

 

[HuntingMan]

Actually, the more I look at the passage again, the more I remember why I changed my views about what 'one flesh' is before.
The passage is VERY clearly teaching against literal physical sexual sin.

All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them.

Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
Flee fornication.
Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
(1Co 6:12-20 KJV)

Im going to retract my earlier statement that there is any allegorical intent (intent, not content) to this passage.
It is VERY clearly speaking against committing LITERAL fornication/sexual immorality, which we know that the Corinthians were renowned for.

Ignoring the meaningless chapter break, we see that 7:1 continues right long the very same discussion, literal fornication, not in any allegorical manner at all.

Given the passage above, the preceding text, and the text afterward, I see no reason to believe that this is doing anything other than condemning literal sexual immorality, showing that 'one flesh' is making oneself 'one' in body with a harlot.

The only metaphor in the passage is that our bodies are the members of Christ, concepts such as our bodies being a 'temple', etc...but there is no conflict presented therein in teaching against the PHYSICAL uniting of our bodies to a harlot.

 

[Crazy Liz]

An interesting and well-known hermeneutical problem with 1 Corinthians 6 is the Greek form of the possessive adjective "your" used with the noun "body." IIRC, there's only one occurrence of "your bodies" in the chapter. All the other occurrences use "your" (plural) "body" (singular). The use of "body" and "members," as well as the use of "body" and "flesh" and "body" and "spirit" point to a bit of wordplay that makes extracting a single intended meaning from the chapter difficult and probably contraindicated. Certainly the often-quoted "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" in that chapter cannot mean individual human bodies, because the verse containing this phrase is one that uses "your" (plural) "body" (singular). That verse is certainly referring to the whole church as one body.

I don't know if this makes any difference to anyone's interpretation of "one flesh," but it is worth noting that the body being protected in this passage is primarily the collective body, not the individual body.

 

[HuntingMan]

interesting assertion.
Lets look at the Greek, shall we ?
(see the attachment)

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

kollwmenos
"one being joined"
vp Pres Pas Nom Sg m
Singular, masculine

​

Call me crazy, Liz, but that looks like its speaking INDIVIDUALLY to me, not collectively.

So Paul is speaking COLLECTIVELY to the Corinthian CHURCH (to a group) telling them not to join themselves (individually) with harlots....is that somehow confusing?

The only metaphor in the passage is that our bodies are the members of Christ, concepts such as our bodies being a 'temple', etc...but there is no conflict presented therein in teaching against the PHYSICAL uniting of our bodies to a harlot.

edited....I misunderstood the intent of the post.

 

[Bootstrap]

retracted. The passage is quite literal.

Obviously we dont entirely agree on this point
I believe that becoming 'one flesh' or 'one body' with the harlot shows that it is sex.
In marriage it is consummation.
I dont see any reason to go overboard with any metaphysical intent other than to say that INSIDE a marriage that 'one flesh' is as God created it to be and thus blessed by Him

I agree with you. This is the simplest explanation that covers these passages.

Jonathan