Marriage and the Bible- Part 47 - Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage

I have to admit this one is a tough one.  It is very difficult to say this is truly unbiblical.  The reason is that polygamy is most certainly in the Bible, the difference here is that the polygamy is both ways at the same time.

One could say there is no example of a woman married to many men in the Bible, but that could be a cultural thing as the importance of knowing both the father and mother of a child was very important to them.  It is also an argument from silence which does not do us much good.  A woman with many husbands would have a problem identifying the father in that culture.  In our modern day, paternity tests could determine this, but the proponents of group marriage point out that all the men take legal responsibility for every child in a group marriage regardless of who the father actually is.  The issue for them is that all adults are responsible for all children produced by the group.

The difference between this and open marriage is that sexual fidelity is expected in most group marriages.  The person must keep there sexual relationships inside the group.  Some of the more liberal ones allow for homosexual relationships and openness, but that is not always the case.  The Biblical problem with open marriage is fornication, but in group marriage where openness is not allowed and coupling must be male-female, the charge of homosexual sin and fornication disappears.  That leaves us with only the charge that multiple men with a single woman is not seen in the Bible.  That does not leave us much to cling to, if we are going to say this marital arrangement is unbiblical.

This type of marriage actually also does allow for the possibility of a covenant relationship but much in the same manner as polygamy has that possibility.  The difference being that with more men more such covenant couples are possible.  Ultimately though this becomes at best a mixed contracts type marriage with covenant relationships possible, but more and more unlikely as more people are added to the group.

In many ways group marriage is about creating a line (thus line marriage) of marriage that can last for a long time.  As members die, they can be replaced and a legacy created that can last as long as people want to stay in it and keep it going.  It also, in many ways is about getting some of the benefits of open marriage (multiple partners to avoid boredom, which is by the way the third leading cause of divorce in the United States for both men and women) and yet the legal protection of a marriage contract.

Another thing could be said about divorce here, that if one member of the group decides to divorce the rest, it does not end the group marriage, just that person's involvement in it.  It still means the kids would be taken care of by more than one parent, although custody issues are going to get really complex with this type of marriage should that person getting the divorce decided to sue for custody.

This is ultimately a tough one to say - "this is sin, it should be not be done".  What could be said is that it does not reflect the ideal of what God, Jesus and the Apostles present as a marriage.  It is much more of a contract than a covenant relationship.

Next: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage
Previous: Modern Challenges: Open Marriages

Marriage and the Bible - Part 45 - Women's Equality in Marriage

Probably the most significant thing that Jesus and the Apostles do to the understanding of marriage is they very much elevate the status of women in it.  The fact is that one Jesus starts talking about divorce in Matthew 19 and other places the fact is seen that the bride is not to be treated with contempt but respect.  Paul's Jesus/Church equals Bride/Groom also puts woman at a far higher level that much of the Old Testament does.  By restoring the idea of spiritual covenant, Jesus and the other apostles actually put women back at equal levels with their husbands in most cases.  

This has an impact on how men are to treat their wives.  Namely looking at one's wife like Adam first looked at Eve.  Not as some thing attached to my life to help my ego, but as a fellow traveller on the road of life and bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh - part of himself.  It means to love her no matter what.  I know this can be frustrating at times but you have a good counselor.  Jesus I am sure relates to husbands with difficult wives seeing His wife is the church and she can be difficult at times.

It also impacts how women should view themselves in there marriage.  Viewing themselves as responsible to be images of what the church should be toward Christ is a great responsibility and equal to that of their husbands.  In many ways this idea puts women on equal footing in ever area except one and it is the most significant - authority.

The one thing that neither Jesus nor the apostles change is the issue of authority in a marriage.  Man is still the head of woman.  Paul's explanation of this in First Timothy chapter 2 is basically that woman was created for the man, not the other way around.  Man ultimately was created to fulfil God's purpose and woman is there to help man achieve that purpose.  Men thus have the final say in what happens.  That being said, the one thing that is also clear is that submission cannot be forced.  A woman must willfully and freely choose to be under her husbands authority.  For a husband to force his authority on his wife would be an act without love.  At the same time, for a woman not to submit to her husband would be a sin both against her husband and God.  The choice is however the wife's to make, just like it is a choice for a husband to be under the authority of God and love his wife.

Next: Modern Challenges: Open Marriage
Previous: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 43 - God and the Spiritual Covenant

There are two things to consider here 1) is the elements of Spiritual Covenant and 2) God's role in those elements.

The purest way to see the elements of spiritual covenant relationship between a man and a woman is to return to the Garden of Eden and look at Adam and Eve's relationship before the Fall.  Mostly because at this time there is no need for marriage contracts or viewing marriage as a cultural act.  What we see are a man and a woman who enjoy a unique relationship status.  There are no cultural conventions to follow, nor are there any words or actions to establish to others that the two of them are husband and wife.  They simply are.

1. Element One: Both man and woman understand they are creations of God and responsible to his authority.  Each have been created for a purpose in the relationship.  Man to fulfill the wishes of God for planet earth and the woman to be man's helper. 

2. Element Two: 'One Flesh'.  Jesus himself reinforces this idea in Matthew 19 with the line - 'they are no longer two but one.'  This indicates a union of two people on all levels: spiritual, mind, heart and body.

3. Element Three: 'Naked' - It takes true trust and openness to be naked in the spiritual sense of the word above the physical.  To be naked in this sense is to have no secrets, no hidden thoughts or feelings and no hidden agendas.  It is to be comfortable being naked with each other in all senses.   For a better understanding of nakedness from a Biblical perspective my series The Bible and Nakedness was written specifically to examine this issue.

4. Element Four: 'Unashamed' - No shame indicates neither side has done anything to the other or before God so as to cause the shame of sin and regret.  There is nothing to clear the relationship between the man, woman or God.

This of course leads us to God role in a spiritual covenant marriage.  In order for a covenant marriage to exist God must be a part of it.  For a true covenant, this means God has a covenant with the man and the woman and they man and woman with each other.  Without all three of these relationships in covenant, there is no covenant marriage.  At that point what you have is a contract.  This is why Paul in 1 Corinthians7 can give a mixed faith marriage reason for divorce.  The unbeliever does not have a covenant with God; the believer does.  The man and woman have a contract.

In a spiritual covenant, love and blood seal it solid.  The man must love God and his wife.  The wife must love God and her husband.  God loves both man and the woman.  God seals his covenant with man and woman through their salvation by the blood of his Son.  Man and woman seal their covenant with each other in blood through sex.  This is why sex is more than a physical action for fun and procreation in a spiritual covenant.

In a spiritual covenant all actions together and with God, if done in love and respect will strengthen the covenant.  God to church and worshiping together, communicating with each other, being each other's friend, raising kids together, making love, etc. can all be actions both of expression and living of a couples' spiritual covenant.

Next: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

Previous: God and the Cultural Contract

First Post:          

Marriage and the Bible - Part 42 - God and the Cultural Contract

With all the desire for spiritual covenant type of marriage in Scripture, the fact remains cultural contracts are very much part of the Bible and many are directed by God himself particularly in the law.  The above illustration deals with most of them.
1. Man+woman = monogamy
2. Man+woman+concubine = polygamy with two classes of wife
3. Man+woman+property woman=polygamy with slave concubine
4. Man with multiple women as equal wives='traditional' polygamy
5. Woman marries brother of dead husband=could result in polygamy if the brother already had another wife.
6. Man with unbetrothed woman (the illustration is inaccurate at this point as a rapist was put to death in Old Testament law).  But this is a situation where two people have sex (the woman unmarried and unbetrothed) and it is discovered in some way.  Man loses his option for divorce with her and must provide for her.
7. Man with war wife (she must be a virgin taken as spoils of war)
8. Slave couple: only stay married if their master wishes it or the slave chooses a bond slave status.

In the grand scheme of things as much as God want people to have a spiritual covenant type marriage, allowance is made for a multitude of reasons for other types of marriage contracts.  In all of these situations God has laws regulating the practice of these types of contracts.

What this brings up is how open God is when it comes to this subject.  He desires some greater things for marriage but understands mankind enough that he does not forbid certain other things involving marriage contracts and the culture.  In short, God is very realistic about humans and their relationships with the opposite sex and this translates to marriage contracts to protect the parties involved.

God ultimately is acknowledging the selfishness of mankind and marriage is not going to be something He is going to think is avoid of such selfishness.  Contracts protect the parties involved from the negative effects of such selfishness.  in many cases it seems that a lot of these laws guard against divorce by creating difficulty or options for the man regarding wives.  The wives are protected as well as one of the main reasons for this contract type mentality is to protect a woman from abandonment or disgrace.

Cultural contracts have one flaw, that is that they are essentially about maintaining the self interests of those in the marriage contract.  A contract by it's nature is not about mutual love but protection and obligations.  Each party involved need not care about the other person in a love and affection sense, they are only obligated to perform their duties and provide as dictated by the contract.

To have a marriage leave this state and become all that it should be is only possible when the concept of a 'one flesh' spiritual covenant in embraced.

Next: God and the Spiritual Covenant
Previous: The Bible and Divorce 
First Post  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 41 - The Bible and Divorce

While it is difficult to get an opinion from God as to his like or dislike of polygamy (see my previous post), it is not difficult to get his opinion about divorce.  He hates it.  It is this hatred of divorce by God that should set the theme for our discussion of divorce.  If I am a Christian, I should hate what God hates and God hates divorce. 

Despite the hatred by God of divorce, it is still biblically allowed.  Divorce is allowed by the law of Moses very early on and it remains a constant force in the Bible from then on.  Ultimately, this seems to be an allowance by God because of sin and the nature of marriage in its cultural contract form.  Doesn't stop Him from hating it, but it does indicate God understands the why of it.

There are basically three biblical reasons God would allow a divorce:

1. Sexual Infidelity: As much as God hates divorce, he hates unfaithfulness even more.  Jesus himself gives this as a reason for it.  This reason ultimately points to something deeper and that is that sex is not simply about fun or procreation.  Sex is the ultimate expression of the spiritual covenant of marriage and to engage in adultery in any form shows a lack of understanding of this idea.  This why not only should sex not be engaged in before marriage; it also should be kept in the confines of marriage.

2. Mixed Faith Marriage:  The Bible has nothing really positive to say about a marriage between an unbeliever and a believer and that goes throughout the entire Bible.  In one case after the exile, Israelite men are forced to divorce their wives for this reason or give up their inheritance in Israel.  When we get to the New Testament there is a change though and that is that the believer should stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wants out.  Paul in 1st Corinthians is not defying Jesus so much as he is considering a further implication of Jesus' teaching.  That of the impossibility for such a marriage to achieve covenant without both parties understanding the true nature of love and self-sacrifice, which are found only in genuine faith in God.  The believer should treat their marriage as a covenant and strive for the ideal, but if the unbeliever wants out, the believer can depart free of obligation.

3. Hardness of Heart: I simply do not see that Jesus Teaching in Matthew 19 and other places nullifies this idea.  The divorce law of Moses still stands because Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets.  The fact is God still allows for hardness of heart, because hardness of heart is still going to happen.  People are still going to fail in how they view marriage, act in selfishness to the point that even the cultural and contractual sides of their marriage are not being kept, violate their marriage vows and thus become hardened of heart.  It is still an out, but I would say God doesn't like it very much given Jesus' words.  This reason should be avoided at all costs but it still is there in case it happens.  One thing though we can say about divorce is that it never is considered a sin that is unforgivable by God.

That said, we need to be reminded that God still hates divorce.  It means then the Christian should make every effort to save their marriage and to strive to see that they view it as a spiritual covenant above the cultural contract.  Ultimately this is about shifting out understanding of marriage from the selfishness of the contract and moving it to the self-sacrifice of the covenant.  For the Christian it becomes very important to understand the difference between the two and strive for the covenant.

Next: God and the Cultural Contract.
Previous: The Bible and Polygamy
First Post in Series  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 38 - Does the New Testament Change Anything?

So does the teaching of Jesus and the apostles change the concept of marriage or enlighten our understanding from what we already know from the Old Testament?  The answer to both is yes, but does it take it as far as we would like it to go?

The greatest concept of marriage that is enhanced or revived a return to the beginning and the concept of 'one flesh'.  Jesus' teaching certainly makes divorce a harder option because of it and it paves the way for an understanding of Church/Christ being equated to bride/groom in Paul.  The idea that marriage should be more than a cultural contract but involve instead a spiritual covenant is very much present in the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

One significant change is that women suddenly have a new importance in marriage. The role of women is defined in a very real way a submission by choice not by force of culture or strength.  It also give a great picture of the importance of women in the mind of God as far as marriage as their role no longer being unimportant.  As important as it is for a man to reflect Christ in his marriage role, it is just as important for a woman to reflect what the church should be in relationship to Christ.

The thing I am not sure of at this point is if these are truly new concepts or concepts that are being enhanced from the Old Testament.  It seems that Jesus uses the Old Testament to make all his points; Paul and Peter as well engage both the Law and Old Testament History to illustrate what they see in marriage.  While the concept of Church/bride in relationship to Christ/groom is new, the concepts of marriage they are built on are already there.

With my Observations concluded at this point, I now move on to the next phase which involves Interpretation and Application.  What indeed does all this mean and how does it apply to our lives as Christians.

Next: Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract

Previous:The Marriage of the Lamb

First Post in Series   

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 32 - Jesus on Divorce

As we enter the New Testament, the issues change slightly because of history. The Jews do not practice widespread polygamy and there is a hardcore line on marrying outside the faith although it still does happen from time to time. Many years have passed and the resulting half Jew-half Gentile unions have resulted in a group of people known as the Samaritans.

One major 'problem' was the fact that Jewish men were very fond of using Moses law of giving a certificate of divorce and would do so for many reasons. When Jesus begins his public ministry one of his classic teachings covers this issue and will become a major point of contention on this issue.

In Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 all have the repetition of several ideas:

1. That marriage is about the joining of male and female into something that is one flesh that no man should separate.

2. That if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery and if the former wife remarries she also is committing adultery

3. The sole exception to this is if sexual sin is involved.

In the follow up question by the Pharisees is about why the Moses law of divorce was given. Jesus replies that it was because of the hardness of heart of the Jews not because it was God's highest desire.

That leads to a few observations:

1. Jesus is directly confronting the contract marriage mentality and supporting the notion that there should be something more to marriage than just obligations. Instead he points back to the beginning and the 'one flesh' relationship between Adam and Eve.

2. Jesus seems to be indicating that the only real reason for divorce that is allowed by God is infidelity, but He also said that he was not teaching in such a way as to destroy the law and prophets so there must be some aspect of Moses' law of divorce that still holds true. If so, what is it? There does not seem to be any good explanation other than 'hardness' may still occur.

3. To not desire one flesh, may be the source of this hardness. If you are only after a contract, your not viewing the other person as a person, just an obligation and that can lead to hardness.

Ultimately, Jesus makes a very strong stand for marriage over divorce and one of the motivating forces behind this may very likely be to protect women.

A good example of this is the woman at the well in John 4. Five husbands means either five divorces or some combination of divorce and death of spouse. In any case, this woman is at the mercy of any kindness any man will show her, but it puts her in an awkward position. She either must get remarried, beg or become a prostitute. In this case, she has chosen to be a live in mistress. I feel that she simply had known the sting of being a cast off woman, probably because she was not fertile, as there is no mention of any children in her life only former husbands. It was such women that Jesus may have been thinking off when he chastises the men of his day for being hard toward their wives and that is why they liked divorce so much.

Of all the marriage issues, Jesus talks about this one the most and it is clear that is because the men of his day were abusing the divorce rule. It is however not the only marriage issue He addresses.

Next: Jesus and Other Marriage Issues

Marriage and the Bible - Part 31 - The Old Testament Marriage Issues

OK. Let's look at all the issues that the Old Testament presents and see what if anything is resolved before we hit Jesus.

Covenant verses Contract:

The real difficulty comes when defining what marriage is. Adam and Eve were one flesh and were husband/wife but did they have a marriage contract? I don't think so. What does seem to happen is there needs to be some way of recognizing who is with who and marriage as contract results in the culture of mankind. The purpose of a marriage also plays into this as some marriages are not about love. Contracts become inevitable as rights, responsibilities and duties need to be defined because of sin both in men and women. The practical issues in a fallen world become the rational for marriage contracts.

This also brings into things the concept of a contract wife or concubine. The purposes of which are either to produce children or sexual pleasure. In either case, this is not about love but practicality. The patriarchs used this extensively with handmaidens to their wives and later concubinage becomes very popular with kings. The concubine is for all practical purposes a second class wife. She receives what she receives while her husband is alive. After his death the family has no obligations toward her.

In some cases such concubinage was the result of death of older brothers and thus required younger brothers to raise up children for their family.

Most marriages are arranged and that means contract for the most part. Some rise above this but contract seems to be the norm in the Old Testament.

The main identification I want to make here is that there is a difference between a close one flesh relationship between a man and woman that I will call 'covenant marriage' and the kind of contract arrangement marriages (contract marriage) that involved practicality or pleasure for the man. This becomes the two ways you can look at marriage and even in the Old Testament it is pretty clear that the covenant is the aim; not contract, but contract marriages are not only allowed, they are not condemned.

Polygamy:

Early on in the Old Testament, polygamy is present. In all cases, the polygamy is one man with multiple women. The purpose is multi-fold: pleasure, procreation, status, etc. People ask why it was always one direction and the answer is simple. When a child is born everybody can see who the mother is. The only way to assure who the dad is, is to be the only guy who was having sex with the woman. Multiple men means question of who the father is so that form of polygamy is ruled out in this culture.

The bigger issue is when looking at the Bible on polygamy is that it makes no statement against it. In regulates it and protects the women involved in the law of Moses. Not all of the polygamist relationships in the Bible are seen as bad or having problems although a lot of them do. What you never see is the Old Testament is a condemnation of the practice.

Finally in regards to polygamy, one observation that could be made is that the more wives a man has the more difficult it becomes for him to develop a covenant marriage with any of them. His heart becomes to divided. You see maybe one wife rising to the top of the man's affection but the rest are just bed partners. Also, the more attention one gives to multiple wives there seems to be less time for God. Polygamy is not forbidden by the Bible, but it also could be said that once a man takes more than one wife, he has made a decision to have a bunch of contract marriages with less chance of finding one true covenant partner for life.

Divorce:

Divorce becomes and issue and putting away wives becomes a big issue. Divorce in the Old testament is strictly a man's preview and it seems open ended. That is, it could be allowed for any reason. What divorce recognizes in the end is that some marriages are nothing more than contracts and sometimes those contracts need to be dissolved.

The other thing though that can be said about divorce is that God hates it. He bluntly says so in Malachi. What we then have is one the one hand an allowance for divorce but also a statement from God himself that it is not a good thing and He hates it. The issue is not completely resolved.

Mixed Marriage:
The idea of mixing believe with unbeliever or in the case of Israel, Gentile with Jew, is bad from the word go. Not only does does the Old testament make strong statements against it; it also shows how perilous it can be. In particular how such mixed marriages can lead the people of God into idolatry. In some cases divorce was called for but it is not clear if this was just seen as a good idea or commanded by God. One thing is for sure, the idea of marrying outside the faith is condemned.

Women as second class citizens:
This is more of a feeling one gets from the Old Testament culture than anything else. Because of the prevalence of contract marriages and giving away of daughters to men for favors, heroic acts, etc.; you really get the feeling that women are held in regard for only three things: how they look, how many kids they can produce and who they are married to. This culture will be much the same when Jesus steps on the scene.

Malachi's statement along with others about wives not being divorced for any reason seems to cut against this, but for the most part women are completely subservient to men in the issue of marriage. Men control it and women are along for the ride.

Next: Jesus on divorce

Marriage and the Bible - Part 30 - Malachi and Marriage Treachery

Malachi introduces a new concept in a sense to the issue of marriage. That of the relationship between intimacy with God and intimacy in the marriage. That is, that God regards sacrifice and prayer through the filter of how a man treats his wife in marriage. Malachi chapter 2 verses 13 through 16 express that God isn't listening to the prayers of his people because the men have dealt treacherously with the wife of their youth. In what way? Two issues:

1. The passage continues that divorce is that form of treachery. In short, men were using the Law's provision for divorce to set aside wives for whatever reason. But God through Malachi reminds the people that marriage is supposed to be a covenant, but they have reduced it to a contract.

2. What is striking is God bold faced statement that he hates divorce. Now, there is no statement that God is forbidding divorce but from this passages perspective there is nothing that God likes about it. It is treachery to a person becasue it is done for reasons that God finds unrighteous. It seems to be an attempt to get people to return an understanding of one flesh as marriage not contract.

Next: Looking Back at the Old Testament Marriage Issues

Marriage and the Bible - Part 29 - Hosea's Marriages

Now here is where marriage and God's message to his people really get intertwined. I want you to put yourself in Hosea's shoes for a minute. In today's terms God is asking Hosea to go down to the red light district and find a prostitute who is herself a product of prostitution and then marry her. Why? So God can use Hosea's marriage as an illustration of what God's relationship is to his people. Hosea playing the role of God and Gomer playing the part of Israel. Hosea is further instructed to have children with this woman and each of them is given interesting names to illustrate the situation completely.

In chapter three, the situation gets even more interesting when Hosea is asked to enter into a second marriage with a woman who is loved by her husband and yet an adulteress herself.

Both marriages are symbolic of how a covenant relationship can go completely wrong. How faithfulness in marriage and the relationship God people have with Him is so very important. God loves his people but they play the harlot and commit adultery with other gods.

What follows is God yearning for Israel's return much like Hosea will for his wife. Love that is unconditional is illustrated here because both God and Hosea have every reason to divorce their wives, but both refuse to do so. There is a powerful image of sadness, longing and love that refuses to look at the situation but transcends it.

Next: Malachi and Marriage Treachery

Marriage and the Bible - Part 27 - Exile and Reconstruction

The End of history of the Old Testament has Israel in exile. The northern kingdom destroyed by Assyria and the southern kingdom destroyed by Babylon. During the exile, the issues of mixed faith marriages become more apparent. Not only the fact that there is less control by the people of God as a slave/conquered people class in these empires, but opportunity to keep marriages in the faith diminishes.

Ezra records the people returning to Jerusalem and rebuilding the temple. In the midst of this Nehemiah reconstructs the walls of the city. Noteworthy for Marriage discussion is chapter 9 and 10 of Ezra where it is reported that Israelite men had married foreign women. The actions that follow are somewhat controversial.

The fact that the elders require these men to divorce their wives, even if they had children by them seems harsh as well as the fact that both wives and children are asked to leave. What makes it seem odd to me is that the Law allowed for the marriage of Israelite men to foreign women, if those women were virgins, and thus by covenant made Israelite. It also seems to violate the law requiring women and their children to be taken care of by the man.

Further complicating the issue of mixed marriage and what to do about it is Queen Esther, who marries a Persian King and joins his harem of women. Once she does this she still considers herself to be Israelite although based on the culture she became Persian the moment she slept with King Ahasuerus. So it is OK for a Jewish woman to engage in mixed marriage if it saves the Jews, but it is not OK for Jewish man to do it because it violates God's law?!

Possible what needs to be considered is this is one of those situations where Ezra records what happened but given that God himself is not recorded as doing or saying anything, it may simply be like the end of Judges. Everybody thinks they are doing the right thing, but really God's mind is unknown. Also, given the list of offenders in Ezra 10 is short, this may be a case of men marrying women who were not virgins.

If this is the case, divorce for the purpose of purity of faith is presented and we shall see if any other writer picks this idea up.

Next: Marriage Imagery in the Major Prophets

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 15 -- Divorce

Probable the most significant development in the Law of Moses is the idea of divorce. Up to this moment, there has been no mention of the idea of divorce in the Scripture; then Moses adds a marriage law that dissolves marriage -- divorce. The Law of Divorce basically gave the man the power to send his wife away if he was no longer pleased with her. All he had to do was give her a writ of divorce. Once divorced he could take her back unless she married someone else in the interim. There is no record that women have this right to divorce.

One of the interests for me is how this reflects back on what marriage is -- it becomes a legal matter or contract that can be broken. This is a far cry from conceiving of marriage as being one flesh. It is simply a matter of law.

Next: The Law and Marriage

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 13 -- Wives as Possessions

What gets interesting as you get into the Law of Moses is the dealing with the idea of a woman as a wife also being a possession of the husband.
1. If a slave is given a wife for instance the wife still belongs to the owner unless the slave decides to bond himself to his master permanently.
2. Divorce is only one way -- it is almost like giving up title to a car today the way the law for divorce reads in the law.
3. Up till now wives are given and taken but there is almost no provision in the Bible for a woman to decided by her choice who she is to marry and the opposite is true for men.
4. The handmaiden laws and customs meant that in a sense the handmaiden was property of the mistress unless she gave that handmaiden to her husband -- then she became his.

Now this would change as we go along, but up till now what is presented by the Bible both in example and the law is women as a special kind of property. With some rights but not as much as men. We are still far from the end of this study, but if we were to stop here we would have to conclude women are a kind of property. Protected and valued, but property nonetheless.

Next: Other Laws Regarding Marriage and Women

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 1 -- The Questions

New Series. I know I still have Series on Revelation out there but I am not ready to continue it so I am looking at something new.

Marriage. Now i am not going to give 7 steps to a healthier marriage. I am also not here to reinforce what everyone says marriage is my question is -- What does the Bible Say Marriage is? When does God according to his word recognize that a couple is married? These two questions have a whole batch of questions tagged with them.

1. Is there a difference between marriage and being husband and wife? Some say there is, are they right?

2. Does a license, vows and sexual intercourse constitute marriage or does the Bible give an actual moment of marriage that is definable?

3. Are other types of marriage bonds acceptable? Polygamy? Homosexual? Group?

4. Can someone become unmarried to God's view? Divorce?

Now other questions may come up but these are good for starters. My method will be much the same as always: Observe what the Bible says, try to interpret what it means, apply it to real life and the draw it all together with what I already know.

Next: Were Adam and Eve Married?