To best view our site, we recommend the newest versions of Firefox for the PC and Camino for the Mac.
The Covenant of Marriage
Genesis 2:18-25 and Malachi 2:10-16
Editor’s Note: The following are excerpts of the first in a series
of sermons on biblical marriage delivered at Park Street Church, Boston, by
Dr. Gordon P. Hugenberger, Senior Minister, and Ranked Adjunct Professor of
Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell.
I
am not a faithful reader of comic strips, but I do enjoy one—Joe Martin’s
Mr. Bóffo. I particularly like the series he titles “Persons Unclear
on the Concept.” In one strip, for example, a man rushes to the door in
order to fetch the mail. After glancing at a few letters, he calls out, “Oh
honey, look. It’s from the IRS. I wonder what we won!” “Persons
unclear on the concept.”
It is arguable that never before in the history of mankind have more persons been less clear on the concept of marriage. There is heartening news that the divorce rate in America has begun to level off. Nevertheless, a study from Rutgers University entitled “The State of Our Unions: The Social Health of Marriage in America,” concludes that the institution of marriage is continuing to weaken, with a smaller portion of the population getting married than at any other time in our nation’s history. In fact, since 1970 the rate of marriage has declined by one third. Perhaps even more worrisome is the discovery that fewer married couples than in any previous study report being “very happy” in their marriage. What makes this level of unhappiness surprising is that since 1969, when no-fault divorce was instituted, the rate of divorce has tripled. The population of married persons has been reduced by a vast number of unhappy marriages, and yet those who are still married are less happy than ever.
What is Marriage?
These downward trends are not simply a reflection of the age-old problem of the disparity between theory and practice. Of course, that problem still exists, but in our day it has been greatly compounded by the fact that we have lost our grip on the theory itself. Even within the Christian community often we are as confused as everyone else about what a marriage should look like. We are “persons unclear on the concept.” We need to go back to the drawing board and ask the most basic question: “What is marriage?” This has become a highly politicized question, of course. Supreme Judicial Court justices, gay rights activists, and even some prominent church leaders have argued for expanding the definition of marriage to include persons of the same gender. Others object that even same-sex marriage does not go far enough. If we reject traditional cultural and religious values as guides for our social norms, why should our government be prejudiced in favor of monogamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual? Why not recognize polyamory or group marriage, where several people live together in an “intimate and meaningful” relationship?
How is it possible that we have come so far from the biblical view regarding marriage? What has become of the excitement for marriage in passages such as Proverbs 18:22, ”He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD,” or Ecclesiastes 9:9, “Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this fleeting life, for she is your greatest consolation in life for all your earthly toil”? These attitudes reflect a radically different theory of marriage. What is marriage? Is it just a manmade concoction with which people may tinker? Or is it, in fact, a divinely mandated ordinance?
Malachi 2:14 explicitly affirms: marriage is a covenant. Here Malachi responds to those who are complaining that their prayers seem to bounce off the ceiling. Through the prophet, God tells his people, “You ask, ‘Why?’ It is because the LORD is acting as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.” The quickest way to destroy communion between heaven and earth is to destroy communion between a man and his wife. Likewise, Proverbs 2:16-17 and Ezekiel 16 identify marriage as a covenant in explicit terms, while 1 Samuel 18-20 and other texts do so by implication.
What is a Covenant?
Common usage of “covenant” is greatly influenced by modern legal parlance. In property deeds, covenants are those clauses that limit the use of land. In Great Britain covenants are certain promises made to the government with respect to contributions to charities. In biblical use, however, a scholarly definition of “covenant” is “an elective (something chosen, rather than natural), typically family-like relationship of obligation established under divine sanction.”
It is helpful to compare this definition of “covenant” to that of a “contract.” A “contract” involves a relationship of obligation between individuals and, sometimes, involves privileges as well. The relationship is conceived, however, in linear or horizontal terms between two parties. In contrast, a covenant is not a linear relationship; it is a triangular one. It adds a third party to the arrangement, and the third party is God. He is the witness to the covenant commitment at its inauguration. He is also the witness to the performance of the stipulations of the covenant, assessing the fidelity of the partners to their vowed obligations. A covenant is a triangular relationship with God as the witness, as Malachi 2 says, and the one who enforces the terms of the relationship.
In the Bible and the ancient Near East, covenants were used for relationships or obligations that would not be judicable in a human court. For example, if you wanted to promise not to covet, you would be unable to do so in a contract. No human court could ever decide whether you were guilty or innocent of breech of contract; only God could decide. So covenants would be used for relationships where the obligations involved not only outward acts, but also matters of the heart.
The Bible describes God’s relationship with his people as a covenant. In this case, God acts at two apexes of the triangle: he is both the witness and the partner in his covenant with his people. In a marriage covenant, he is only the witness, the one who holds husband and wife accountable to their covenant vows. Should one partner prove unfaithful, God sees to it that any harm brought to the other will recoil on the offender.
The Roles of Wife and Husband
In our day a number of scholars have accepted this understanding of covenant, but debate whether the marriage between Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 could be so dignified. They say that this marriage cannot be covenantal because, among other problems which prohibit that identification, there are too many features denigrating to women.
For instance, one objection is that the passage indicates the wife has been created to “help” the husband. In verse 18: “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” This is misunderstood, however, as if it were a license for an abusive tyranny of the husband over the wife. Eve is not created to be Adam’s lackey or slave; she is created to be his wife, his partner. The help that is envisioned is defined by the context. Eve is not created to help Adam rob a bank or to fetch his slippers—for that, a dog would have been fine. Rather she is created to help her husband obey God’s commands. Period.
In particular, think of the creation ordinance in chapter 1:28: “Be fruitful and increase in number. Fill the earth and subdue it.” Obviously, Adam cannot do that alone. He needs a bride not only for the sake of rearing offspring, but also for the sake of subduing the earth and functioning as a vassal of the LORD, who is sovereign over all. Another command with which Eve is called to help is found in Genesis 2:15, where Adam is told to “work” the Garden of Eden and “take care of” it. The Hebrew word rendered by the NIV as “take care of” is better translated with its customary meaning, “guard.” The next appearance of this word bears the same meaning: “After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24). The text suggests an analogy between Adam’s calling to “guard” the garden from any threat, including the defiling presence of Satan, and that of the cherubim angels, who were subsequently called to “guard” the garden from the defiling presence of the fallen couple. Given Eve’s calling to help Adam obey God’s commands, including the command to guard the sanctity of the garden, her mistake in Genesis 3:2 is not in interacting with Satan, but in failing to condemn him and consign him to God’s judgment.
In any case, if the postmodern is offended by the wife’s role in Genesis 2, there is equal reason to be offended by the husband’s role. Why should the husband need the wife’s help in order to obey God’s command? According to the postmodern myth of self-sufficiency, you are not ready for marriage until you are so independent that you do not need anybody. In his 1999 bestseller, For Common Things, Jedediah Purdy observes that to the self-absorbed postmodern, “believing in nothing much, especially not in people, is a point of vague pride, and conviction can seem embarrassingly naïve…. We imagine perfect self-sufficiency, the need for no one else in making our lives complete” (p. 6). While Purdy is not writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, his analysis of the spirit of postmodernism is trenchant. The postmodern is convinced that marriage can, and should, wait at least until after personal goals are met and career and financial independence are well established. At that point, life is sufficiently self-fulfilled that there is little need for anyone else.
This ideal of independence, however, is far from the scriptural norm. Before there was sin, Adam enjoyed perfect fellowship with his heavenly Father, the Creator of the universe. Although nothing was deficient in his spiritual relationship with God, it was not enough. That was not his opinion; that was God’s opinion. Long before the Fall, Adam had perfect self-esteem and self-worth; he was neither struggling with inferiority nor needing to get his act together and find himself. Even then, God said of Adam, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” In biblical terms from Genesis to Revelation, the ideal for humankind is not independence; it is interdependence. What is true for all of our relationships is certainly true for marriage.
“Naming”— Asserting Dominance?
A second objection to the identification of the marriage of Adam and Eve as a covenant is that Adam has the temerity to name Eve. In Genesis 2:23 Adam says, “she shall be called woman [‘ishshah], for she was taken out of man [‘ish].” The Hebrew word ‘ishshah, which appears here, may be translated either “woman” or “wife.” Likewise, the Hebrew word ‘ish, may be translated either “man” or “husband.” English versions favor the translation, “woman out of man,” because it yields a rhyme, which mirrors the rhyme in the Hebrew. This text is about the relationship of marriage, however, not the relationship between men and women in general. Accordingly, a more accurate translation would be “she shall be called wife, for she was taken out of husband.”
In Genesis 3:20, after the Fall, Adam gives his wife another name, “Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” The Hebrew word “Eve [chawwah]” is related to the word for “life.” Some scholars suppose that it is denigrating to women for Adam to determine his wife’s identity, as seems to be implied by the act of naming. Should she not define herself? Is this not an infringement on her autonomy? To accept the validity of these objections, however, is to misconstrue the significance of naming. In Genesis 1, God gives names to many aspects of creation, for example, the light, which he calls “day.” In Genesis 2, in imitation of God, Adam gives names to the animals. Although in some cases the act of naming may imply an exercise of authority, the characteristic use of naming in the Bible is the acknowledgment of a covenant, which (re)defines the relationship of each of the parties to the other. This use is the best explanation for its significance in both Genesis 1 and 2.
Often in the Bible, when individuals enter into a covenant relationship, they give their partners new names. This occurs in political contexts, for example, where relationships were typically formalized by covenants. In 2 Kings 23:34, when Pharaoh Neco establishes Jehoiakim as his vassal, he renames him Eliakim. The changed name indicates that they are now in a covenant relationship. Similarly, in 2 Kings 24:17, when Nebuchadnezzar establishes Mattaniah as his vassal, he renames him Zedekiah.
The same practice is observed in religious contexts. When God renews his covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, he gives him a new name. “No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5). In the same chapter, “God also said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah’” (Genesis 17:15). Later in Genesis, when God renews the covenant with Jacob, he says, “Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel” (Genesis 35:10; cf. 32:28).
It is important to stress that it is not always the superior party who gives a new name to the inferior party. After the Angel of the LORD comforted the runaway Hagar and extended to her the material promises of the Abrahamic covenant (“I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count”), Hagar responded by giving the LORD a new name: El-Ro’i, “the God who sees me” (Genesis 16:13). A new name often signals the recognition of a new relationship, created by a covenant, but it need not signify either inferiority or superiority. When Adam names Eve, he is not vaunting himself over her. He does not call her “nag” or “the old lady” or some other demeaning epithet. Rather, he calls her “wife” at their marriage and later “Eve,” that is, “the one who will bring life,” when their marriage is renewed after the Fall.
Co-equal—In the Image of God
A third objection to the identification of the marriage of Adam and Eve as a covenant is the description of Eve’s creation. To some readers the fact that Eve is made out of the rib of Adam is an affront to modern sensibilities. It implies that her worth is merely derivative and that she is inferior to Adam, since he is the source of the material God used to create her. This line of interpretation, however, almost certainly misunderstands the intention of the text. If Eve is inferior to Adam because she was made out of his rib, then Adam must be inferior to the dirt because he was made out of the soil. Obviously, the biblical text intends no such thing.
Whatever the intention of the remarkable mode of Eve’s creation, it is unlikely to contradict the co-equality of the man and the woman that is emphasized so clearly elsewhere in Genesis 1-3. For example, the purpose for Eve’s creation is made explicit in Genesis 2:18, “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for [or corresponding to] him.’” The mode of Eve’s creation underscores the point that here is one who, unlike any of the animals, is supremely qualified to be the kind of partner that Adam needs. Animals can be of help in other respects, but she alone is a “helper suitable for him” or “corresponding to him.” Being made of the same substance, Adam’s own rib, only Eve is his equal in nature and worth. Indeed, the same point is made earlier in Genesis 1:27, where it says, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them.” Man and woman are equally and exclusively those who bear the image of God.
Not only does Eve’s origin underscore the coequality of man and woman, it also stresses the profound unity of marriage and provides the basis for the controlling paradigm of a relationship where the two “become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23 offers an obvious allusion to Eve’s mode of creation: “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman [wife], for she was taken out of man [husband].’” To whom does Adam address this affirmation? If it had been to the woman, he would have said, “You are now bone of my bones…” rather than “This is now bone of my bones….” Clearly these words are addressed to God, the only other person in the context. If they are read superficially, however, they come across as an inane observation. God hardly needs to be informed about the origin of the woman since he is the one who made her!
Wedding Vows—A Covenant-making Formula
As it turns out, Adam’s words are a covenant-making formula, which has
close parallels elsewhere in the Bible and the ancient Near East. For example,
this is virtually the same thing that all Israel said to David when they recognized
him as king at Hebron: “Behold, we are your bone and flesh” (ESV 2
Samuel 2:1). Since these Israelites were not from the tribe of Judah, David
was not, in fact, a close relative. By this solemn declaration, however, they
were pledging their loyalty to David and redefining their relationship. Henceforth,
they would be as inseparably attached to him as his own arms and legs. According
to 2 Samuel 5:3, David subsequently ratified and formalized this commitment
in a covenant; earlier their words were spoken only to David, now their promises
were made before God.
Were there any wedding vows in the marriage of Adam and Eve? In Genesis 2:23,
the words spoken by Adam in the presence of God are his vows. “This is
now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” is a shorthand way of saying
something like, “God, I hereby commit myself to love and care for this
woman as I would love and care for a part of my own body, my own flesh. God,
hold me accountable to this solemn promise. Should I ever prove unfaithful to
her, may it hurt like taking a rib out of my body, only this time without the
benefit of your miraculous anesthesia!”
Although Eve was the only wife ever created out of her husband’s rib, in
Genesis 2:24 Moses makes clear that Adam’s remarkable commitment to love
his wife is one that applies to every marriage. “For this reason a man
will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will become
one flesh.” We need to appreciate how astonishingly unique and radically
counter-cultural this verse is. If we did not believe in divine inspiration,
this verse would be inexplicable in its historical context. Nowhere else in
the ancient world is there a comparable statement regarding the primary obligation
of the husband to love his wife. If words like these were found in any other
ancient source, they would apply to the wife, not to the husband: “For
this reason a wife will leave her father and mother and cleave to her husband….”
The first requirement in Genesis 2:24, that the husband “leave his father and mother,” should not be limited to a literalistic reference to a change in domicile. Neither should the second obligation, to “cleave to his wife,” be understood literalistically as mere physical attachment. The fact that both terms, “leave” and “cleave,” are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts provides significant support for the identification of biblical marriage as a covenant. The word “leave” is often used with respect to Israel’s loyalty to God. For example, the LORD warned Moses that after his death the people “will leave me and break the covenant I made with them” (Deuteronomy 31:16). Of course, this infidelity was nothing new. Despite God’s deliverance of his people in the Exodus, they “did not leave the idols of Egypt” (Ezekiel 20:8), as they should have.
The Biblical View of Marriage
With respect to marriage then, what is required of a husband is an emotional leaving of his parents, not just a physical leaving. In the context of the modern world, with its weakened family ties, this may not seem like such a big deal. Many young men gladly leave their parents, literally and emotionally, and for far less cause than marriage. In the ancient world, however, the greatest natural loyalty was not to a job, career goals, or even nation, but to parents. In Genesis 2:24, God says that when a man enters marriage, his former greatest loyalty, which was to his parents, is now to be demoted in order that his wife may take first place.
This demand could not be more radical. What does it mean for us? If your mother thinks the living room should be painted green and your wife prefers it red, red is what it will be. Your wife takes precedence. You are married to your wife, not your mother. The same principle applies, of course, to any other competing ties or obligations. According to the biblical standard, a husband cannot be “married” to the demands of friends, hobbies, school, or job. If parents should be demoted, so too should the boss, in order for your wife to take precedence. This is true even if your job is that of a missionary or pastor or anything else that you think has some tremendous claim on your time. Consistent with this principle, in Deuteronomy 24:5, for example, Israel is told that for the first year of marriage a husband is exempt even from military service, in order to put the interests of his wife first. If an army of terrorists invades your nation and you are in your first year of marriage, you should say, “I’m sorry I cannot join the battle just now. I have to stay home in order to dote on my wife.” This is the biblical view of marriage from Genesis on.
In terms of the radical demands of Genesis 2:24, a husband is not just to “leave” all competing loyalties, he is also to “cleave” to his wife. It is hard to imagine stronger language to make this point. For example, in Job 38:38, “cleave” describes the way the rain causes clay-rich soil to form hard clods, which “cleave together.” In Isaiah 41:7, “cleave” is also used for the bonds formed by a goldsmith’s soldering or welding. If you are married, you are “welded” to your wife or husband; you are inseparable.
Most significant, however, is the fact that “cleave” is often used in covenant contexts to summarize Israel’s obligation to be loyal to the LORD, as in Deuteronomy 4:4. There Moses reminds Israel that although the LORD judged those who followed Baal of Peor, “all of you who cleaved [NIV: held fast] to the LORD your God are still alive today.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 13:4 insists, “It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and cleave [NIV: hold fast] to him.”
In Genesis 2:24, these requirements are only explicitly applied to the husband. No job description, beyond that of being a “helper suitable to him” (Genesis 2:18), is stated for the wife. A wife’s fidelity is required, of course, in many other biblical texts, but the special contribution of Genesis 2 is to stress the priority of the husband’s commitment. In our relationship with the Lord, “[w]e love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). God woos us by his love, and his redemptive initiative causes us to respond in love. Likewise, in Christian marriage, ideally it is the husband who first loves his wife; he leaves all other competing loyalties, putting her foremost, and he cleaves to her, loving her dearly. It is that love which is then reflected and reciprocated in the wife’s love. According to the biblical model of marriage, the leadership of the husband is a leadership of love.
After “leaving” and “cleaving,” the concluding characteristic of marriage in Genesis 2:24 is “and they will become one flesh.” To become one flesh does not mean to become one person. You remain different people with different needs, tastes, and preferences. You are not one person, but one flesh. What does that mean? It means you are to treat your wife as you would a part of your own body. This is a compelling paradigm and a tremendous help for a culture that has forgotten the meaning of marriage.
How do I know whether I am loving my wife as my own flesh? I am sure that many examples come to mind for each of us, but let me mention just a few that have been helpful to me.
For those of us who are married, for those of us who are considering marriage, we need to pray that God will fill us with this kind of love.
St. Chrysostom, commenting on Ephesians 5:25, once asked, “Do you wish that your wife would submit to you as the Church does to Christ? Then care for her, as Christ does for the Church; and if it is necessary that you should give your life for her, or be cut into pieces a thousand times, or endure anything whatsoever, then refuse it not; yes, for if you were to suffer in these dreadful ways for your wife, you still would not have done what Christ did for you. For you did this for one with whom you were already united; but he did it for her who, until then, had only rejected him and hated him.”
Gordon P. Hugenberger, Ph.D., Ranked Adjunct Professor of Old Testament, has taught at Gordon-Conwell since 1974. Simultaneously, he has served as Senior Minister of a Congregational church in Gloucester, MA, and since 1997, of Boston’s historic Park Street Church. He has written more than 20 articles, a brief commentary on Malachi, and Marriage as a Covenant, a book on the laws and ethics governing marriage in the Old Testament.
Please let us know how we can make this page better for you. Click here to leave suggestions or feedback.
If you were unable to find something or were just frustrated with the page let us know. Or, if you found something incorrect or broken let us know. We will be unable to respond directly to your request but we will read each of them.