Marriage and the Bible - Part 50 - Final Thoughts

This series started with a series of questions and a simple idea to go through the Bible and find out what is actually said about marriage.  With 50 posts it stands as probably the most lengthy thing I have done to date and I am sure some of those questions weer answered, but not always in the way one would have thought.  

1. Is there a difference between being married and being husband and wife?

I would say yes.  At least there is a great deal of difference between a couple that seeks to have a spiritual covenant and those who engage in a cultural contract type of obligation.  It seems that God has always desired man and woman to have what the original couple had before the fall of man.  A triune relationship with Him, man and woman together.  Sin entered the world and over time culture and law began to seek to define marriage as forms of obligation and give it in many ways a mechanical and practical view away from the idea of 'one flesh', naked and unashamed.

In our world Christians find themselves where the ultimate desire for their married lives is to return to this covenant relationship but still there are cultural and legal obligations that define marriage.  God seems to let mankind define this but presses each couple 'back to the garden'  as it were.  Mankind can indeed present difficulties in this as sometimes marriage contracts are not written with this in mind.  In some forms cultural contract marriage is actually a deterrent to achieving spiritual covenant.  The spiritual covenant marriage is about God; the cultural contract is about man.  God seems to respect or at least allow both, but His desire is to bring mankind back to the garden at least in spirit.

2. Does the Bible give a actual moment of marriage that is definable?

This greatly depends on what you are talking about.  When it comes to culture and law, marriage is definable when all requirements are met and agreed on.  Those requirements are different for each culture and nation so it is difficult to say anything other than God honors that man makes some choices here.  Even here, because of the nature of humanity, this can be a clear as mud.  In a spiritual covenants I see that is this union is only possible with one man, one woman and God at a moment when all three parties come together in spirit, mind, heart and for the couple flesh. 

I think it is very possible to have one without the other but often what happens is a conjunction of both.  Some marriages start out as covenants without cultural obligations such as Adam and Eve's being husband and wife.  Others start off as a cultural and legal obligation and can change into a spiritual covenant.  The best marriages in our fallen world try to live up to both with an understanding that, if push comes to shove, what God desires in a spiritual covenant takes precedent over the cultural contract.

3. Are other types marriage bonds acceptable?

What can be said about this is that the Bible allows for the fact that humans are going to be humans and we are going to enter into less than perfect relationships because of it.  The Bible presents many forms of marriage in its contract form: polygamy and concubinage for the most part with marriages that are purely procreative or pleasure oriented.  God accepts that human being will want to control sexual expression to maintain certain cultural and legal obligations.

What the Bible takes the dimmest view on is anything that involves sin in the relationship or a mixing of faith (believers with unbelievers).  In our modern context, that means open marriages and homosexual marriages are out, but polygamy and even group marriage (minus homosexual and open elements) are real possibilities.  The problem with all of these though is that outside the simplest arrangement for marriage (one man, one woman for life) there becomes a diminished capacity to live up to or even attain a marriage that is a true spiritual covenant. 

4. Can a marriage end?

The unfortunate answer is yes.

The real truth is that spiritual covenants require a great deal of effort to both attain and maintain and this means that there are a lot of opportunities for it to become the lesser form of marriage -- the cultural contract. 

In the cultural contract form, marriage can be broken and ended when one side or the other decides the obligations are not being kept.  Christians probably should take note that Jesus defines adultery as the only thing that should end any marriage but allowance is also made for mixed marriages by Paul and the fact Jesus even seems to indicate that 'hardness of heart' can still cause a marriage end, it just may not justify it.

The other unfortunate end to marriage is death and this in effect ends both kinds of marriage.  This can make the end of a spiritual covenant marriage particularly difficult when a couple is truly one flesh.

In the end marriage is both an action involving both God and man and thus it gets complicated even in the Bible as it greatly is affected by what what a person or culture is seeking to produce with marriage.  Marriage involves a lot of choices but God's desire remains the same.  That desire being to see a man and woman one flesh, naked and unashamed working for His purposes.

Finis

Previous: Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure? 

Marriage and the Bible - Part 49 - Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

The question keeps getting raised by people who challenge traditional marriage:Is it a failure?  There are even people who suggest that we should do away with legal marriages all together and just let people do what they want.  Given some of the Recent headlines with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner as well as the 50% divorce rate, there seems to be ammo with this.  Why not just call traditional marriage a wash and let people live in any arrangement they want?

Firstly, I reject the notion that the institute of traditional marriage is a failure. Things may fail but there is always a human reason why they fail.  When a building collapses, we don't sue the building but the people who designed it, built it and said it was OK.  In traditional marriage, the idea is sound, in fact it really stands at the only true way to have the highest form of intimacy between a man and a woman.  The issue is not the institution of traditional marriage but the people who say "I do".

Secondly, as much as we want to show marriage failures as evidence there are also couples who succeed.  I have been to 60 year, 50 year, 40 year and 25 year anniversary celebrations.  I myself just celebrated 22 years with the same woman just yesterday.  The truth is that for every failure there is a success.

Ultimately, I would conclude that those who want to talk about the failure of traditional marriage are people who have an unfortunate wrong understanding about what traditional marriage is supposed to be about.  It is supposed to be about a spiritual covenant with God and a member of the opposite sex that runs as an example of what the relationship between Christ and the Church is supposed to be.  Traditional Marriage then ultimately fails because people fail to understand this.  This is reflected in many thing I have seen over the years:

1. People going into marriage purely for selfish self interest.  If all you talk about before you get married is what the marriage is going to do for you and you never think about what your responsibilities are toward the other person are and how you can make them a better person, you have a problem.

2. Failure to understand God's role in the covenant.  Going into a marriage without God automatically reduces marriage to a contract.  Contracts break.

3. Viewing marriage as a manipulative tool to get what you want done from your spouse.  The main thing to remember about marriage vows is to make sure your fulfilling your end of them.  I see so many people who complain about their spouse's not fulfilling what they expect, but are completely oblivious to their own failures.

4. Failing to be your spouse's best friend.  Viewing a spouse as an attachment and not a friend is the first step to divorce.

5. Failing to engage in the things that bring intimacy.  Worshiping, communicating, loving and sexual expression all have their place to do this when done a a couple.

In short, when a person starts viewing their spouse as a thing that should just do what they want without concern for their person hood or what they are needing, you are viewing your marriage as a contract.

In a sense, I too believe traditional marriage should go.  It should go, if all people are going to use it for is a contract to keep the other person obligated.  It should be returned to its real role of a covenant expression of love between to people and God.  That is probably the difference in most marriages as far as success or failure.

Next: Final Thoughts

Previous: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage.  In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around.  Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin.  Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'.  This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear.  Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is.  The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever.  The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins.  In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death.  This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight.  This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'.  No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful.  I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality.  On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either.  It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted?  The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant.  By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has  a possibility of achieving such a union.  In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible.  The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one.  In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse. 

The other place where  a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it.  The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans,  Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality.  Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage.  You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal.  That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage.  Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens.  The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage

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 46 - Modern Challenges: Open Marriage

Open marriage is defined as a marriage where both spouses agree that they may each engage in extramarital sexual relationships without those relationships being regarded as infidelity.  In short both sides say that cheating isn't cheating.  Looking above at a copy from a page from a book advocating open marriage you can see the general perspective as one that allows freedom of the individual and a value on honesty and truth in a relationship.  Or so it is stated and believed by those who practice and promote open marriage.  Historically, in the United States open marriage has been popular at two times: the 1970s during the sexual revolution and right now.  From a biblical point of view is this an allowable form of marriage?  Is the swinger cry of: "It ain't adultery if my spouse says its OK." true? 

There are some Biblical passages to consider here.  The most direct teaching is 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it is stated plainly that a wife does not have power over her own body, but her husband does and visa versa.  So if a man wilfully says to his wife that it is OK for her to go out and engage in extramarital sexual activity is he in a sense exercising this power?  Another thing to consider is at certain points in polygamist relationships the marriage is partially open.  If a man is married to a wife and seeking a second, some behaviours could be seen as extramarital activity until the second woman agrees to marriage.  If this is OK why would the idea of open marriage be not OK?

Firstly, I would like to say that open marriage must be classified as purely a cultural contract marriage.  Covenant marriage requires wilful sexual faithfulness and so once a couple is talking open marriage they are dickering about the terms of the marriage contract.  In particular the line that says: "Forsaking all others, keep you only unto her/him".  That stated, is such a contract allowable by the Bible?

The Bible in cultural context is trying to protect a few things with its view of marriage and one of them is children.  When a child is born, the main protection of the child knowing who its parents are is that no one else has been with mommy but daddy.  Modern proponents of open marriage however argue that with modern birth control this could be curbed.

The other thing the Biblical views of marriage try to protect is health.  If the Biblical pattern for marriage were followed worldwide, even including the various forms of polygamy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would disappear in a couple generations.  Once again Open marriage advocates argue that condoms could stop this too.

The problem with both things is that no birth control is perfect and no condom is fail safe.  Human gadgets are always prone to error and defect.  No matter what happens this is true because both also require that humans use them correctly.  Sorry, this is simply true to the point that even the manufacturers of said instruments say "99.9% effective if used correctly" to save against lawsuits.

These objections however do not deal with the biblical issue, I simply want to state for the record that this seems culturally OK, but it has its practical problems that could become huge monsters. 

The biblical problem is 1 Corinthians 7:4 does not directly say that the giving of the power of your spouses body for sexual gratification of another is wrong.  Paul in the same book; however, has a very dim view of fornication and that is where open marriage fails biblically.  Fornication would still be taking place from a biblical point of view as any sex outside any type of marriage contract is considered fornication.  Fornication is declared to be a sin so the extra martial sexual encounters become a biblical no-no.

Next: Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage
Previous: Women's Equality in Marriage  

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 44 - How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

There are a lot of things that are required to build and maintain a spiritual covenant marriage as well as a cultural contract marriage for that matter.  It is these things that also are what give both a fragile nature that has to be maintained by both parties to keep them strong. 

The Requirements of Spiritual Covenant Marriage:

1. Dedication to God - if both the husband and wife are not also dedicated to God the covenant will fall apart.  The thing with covenant marriage it involves three parties and three relationships. If a husband or a wife is not also concerned and gives time for their spouse to build and grow their relationship with God, then the covenant will start to break down.  One mistake people make about marriage is they think that the only thing that matters is their relationship to their spouse.  If that is the case then your not really engaged in a spiritual covenant, you have crossed the line to cultural contract.

2. Dedication to Intimate Friendship on All Levels: This intimacy must be marked all the elements of true intimacy: one flesh, naked and unashamed.  It covers all aspects of  the relationship: spiritual, mental, emotional and physical.  most of the time the crack in the armor of marriage starts when one of these areas or more begins to have a 'seperateness' lack of unity, or lack of openness or some shame because of past action.  The healing elements of  forgiveness, kindness and of course love (the real stuff) must always be there.

Given all the things that need to be maintained it is easy to see why things can start to go south.  All it takes is one person turning their back on God or an element of intimacy to be ignored or forgotten or a single unforgiveness offense for it to no longer be covenant. 

Cultural contracts provide a safety net for society as a rule, but they are in some ways more fragile than covenants.  While a cultural contract does not need either of the two elements above, it does require that both (or more) parties keep their end of what is expected of them.  One clause disregarded, one cultural rule violated and the contract invokes consequences.  Because a cultural contract is based more in selfishness and self interest, violation is going to be in some ways harder, but also easier.  Example: In a covenant adultery is defined as lust toward another person other than your spouse, in a cultural contract lust could exists but the marriage contract maintained, but the moment in a cultural contract that physical adultery takes place, contract dissolved.  The existence of lust in the contract type of arrangement is going to make such falls more of a possibility.

In modern marriage what I see, even in Christian marriages, is kind of mixed hybrid of both where some elements of covenant are there and other things have devolved to a contract.  You may for example see a couple who are each dedicated to God but their intimate friendship has dropped down to contract level.  Mixed marriages also have this problem as one spouse is dedicated to the ideas of relationship with God and their spouse, but the other spouse has no walk with God and views their marriage as a contract arrangement.  The Goal is to get both elements in place and growing, but that is not always possible.

Next: Women's Equality in Marriage
Previous:  God and the Spiritual Covenant    

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 40 - The Bible and Polygamy

The extreme difficulty with the issue of polygamy and the Bible is twofold: 1) There is no direct statement forbidding the practice anywhere in the Bible and 2) It is prolifically practiced from very early on in Scripture and by some of the great heroes of faith from Abraham to David.  In short, while the Bible certainly does not encourage the practice, it does not forbid it.  In fact there are Biblical laws that regulate it.

The first implication of this is that those Christians that go around and say the practice of polygamy is a sin or evil are very much not supported by the Bible.  This means that the moral judgments about people that practice polygamy stand purely on cultural grounds not Biblical ones.

Secondly and on the flip side, there is a problem with polygamy that the Bible presents, that of achieving the ideal of what marriage symbolizes.  The polygamist marriages in the Bible present either a man who has no close spiritual covenant relationship with any of his wives or only just one with the rest of his wives being contract wives.  In fact, it seems that if a man opts for polygamy he is already accepting this fact.  His marriages are about other cultural and personal desires not a desire to be 'one flesh' in truth with a woman.  It has been said that no polygamist relationship in the Bible is absent from problems, the truth is that in some situations we simple do not know this for sure.

Another thing to consider is that there is no Biblical example of polygamy other than one man with multiple wives.  The idea of one woman with multiple husbands simply is not there.  In part this is because of a patriarchal man dominated culture, but in truth it is also a practical consideration.  When a man has more than one wife there is still not doubt when a child is born who the father of the child is.  This would not be true in the reverse situation.  Given that family was important in this culture and being able to trace one's lineage also important: one wife, multiple husband relationships would undercut both and are rejected.  It is an argument from silence all the way around on this issue but given the lack of example we have to conclude it is probably not an option.

Finally, the New Testament has two important changes in understanding polygamy.  First, the fact that the ideal marriage is presented very strongly as one man, one woman from both Jesus and the apostles point of view.  Secondly, that if a man is polygamist he is disqualified from church leadership.  In short, Jesus and the apostles are encouraging monogamy but neither condemns polygamy although they do enact things to consider and thus discourage it.

For the Christian in the modern day, application touches two areas:

1) When confronted with polygamy in society there is no biblical grounds for condemning the practice or the polygamist and his wives.  As long as the relationship was freely entered into, we have to conclude that all the parties involved are both sin free and accepting the consequences of such a relationship.  In truth, this is far less repulsive to God than the man who has multiple partners without marriage contracts and children from each relationship as well.  At least the polygamist is accepting responsibility both legally and culturally.  The situation of multiple wives one at a time due to divorce would also fall under a far more 'hate' category from God's perspective than polygamy. 

2) If a Christian considers entering into a polygamist relationship, they should consider the following issues: a) by so doing they are opting for the less desirable option than monogamy, b) it is going to be difficult for them to achieve a spiritual covenant with this type of relationship and c) they are opting out of being in leadership in the church.

In final analysis, polygamy is an allowable situation for mankind because of the nature of the beast as it were.  People are encouraged to get married if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and can't control it.  Here seems to be an additional allowance for the man who simply can't contain his sexual desire to one woman.  It offers an option free of affairs and divorce.  It is not the best situation, but it is better than the alternatives.  Interestingly enough while many women do not like the idea, many women in such relationships defend it for various reasons.

Next: The Bible and Divorce
Previous: Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 39 - Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract

An interesting tension exists throughout the Bible between the ideas spiritual covenant and cultural contract.

Spiritual Covenant is based on the idea of a man and a woman becoming 'one flesh', being naked and unashamed without influence by the nature of their culture, society or legal obligations.  Center of this idea is an idea of genuine spiritual love and growth together.  It is deeper than romantic love; it is true genuine 'oneness' of spirit, mind, heart and body.  It is this idea of spiritual covenant that drives later New Testament ideas of relationships and the Christ as groom; Church as bride in union.

Cultural contracts involves marriage as a legal and cultural issues and are made for various reasons including procreation, sexual pleasure, cultural obligation, diplomacy, simple desire and a host of other reasons.  There is no expectation in such contracts other than what is stated in the contract or expected by culture.  Ultimately these are done so society will have some benchmark of when a relationship between two people moves from unmarried to married and to protect the parties involved from certain dangers of such relationships.

For the Biblical Christian, the desire should be to press toward spiritual covenant, but with a full acknowledgement that cultural contract is a part of it.  However, a couple who genuinely achieves spiritual covenant will ultimately fulfil any cultural contract but even Jesus' conversation indicates that even He shared some understanding that culture and law had some influence on determining when a couple is married.

Ultimately, God acknowledges both.  He desires covenant for mankind, but realizes that because of sin, contracts are necessary.  In truth it is because of sin and the necessity of enforcing obligations that cultural contracts are needed.  In the Law at least there is some concern for the protection and provisions for the wife and children of a union.

When it comes to marriage or husbands and wives, this tension becomes a continual thread that weaves its way through all the marriage issues that will follow.  We are always trying to bring the relationship back to Adam and Eve and yet acknowledging that we have many obstacles to do so.

Next: The Bible and Polygamy
Previous: Does the New Testament Change Anything?
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 37 - The Marriage of the Lamb

The Book of Revelation on several occasions evokes a reinforcement of the Jesus/Groom and Church/Bride concept.  The wedding depicted is one under the ancient customs where the bride waited until the bridegroom came and took her to a wedding feast. 

Because revelation is written by John though it means that this concept was not exclusive to Paul as we have seen but John and Jesus use it as well. 

For marriage in this world the idea is of the wedding day.  The return of Christ is depicted as a joyful event where the bride is swept off her feet to be with her groom forever. It also means that perhaps Paul's concepts of behavior in marriage were not just his but were shared by others. 

Next: Does the New Testament Change Anything?
Previous: Hebrews and Peter
First Post in Series  

Marriage and the Bible - Part 36 - Hebrews and Peter

In the remaining epistles only two sections of scripture really address issues regarding marriage: Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

The single verse of Hebrews addresses several issues but the chief among them is that the writer states that marriage is an honorable thing. He also states that the marriage bed is not defiled in any way. Once again the image is to promote the idea that sexual activity in the confines of a marriage is not sinful or dishonorable but pure and undefiled. The verse goes on to say that other forms of sexual activity outside of marriage - God will judge them. There is definitely a upholding of the idea that marriage is a protective thing from the wrath of God but also a promotion of marital sexual activity, as it is not evil if it is in a marriage bed.

Peter's view of marriage is a little different than Paul's. Paul uses marriage as a living breathing example of Christ and his church. Peter is more practical but echos the idea of submission from the the woman. However, he does not invoke and Christ church image but one of Sarah and Abraham. Peter's message to women is six verses long and includes that submission has the following practical qualities: 1) it may lead to the salvation of their husband 2) Internal spiritual modesty is more valuable than vanity and 3) it reflects what holy women of old did.

Peter also addresses husbands to be understanding with the motivation that if they do their prayers will be unhindered.

One thing you can say for this, at this point what marriage is takes a back seat to what marriage should be in practical terms. It is almost as if the other issues are already understood.

Next: The Marriage of the Lamb
Previous: Paul - Divorce, Sex and Polygamy
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 34 - Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride

As we switch to Paul one thing seems to stand above everything else in Paul's understanding of marriage. That being that ultimately marriage is supposed to be a reflection of some thing higher: Christ and His Church. The best place to see this is Ephesians 5:22-33 as not only is the imagery of Christ and his bride used it is practically applied to the marriage between a man and woman in this world.

Paul's presents marriage as something that is supposed to be a witness of what the relationship between Christ and his bride is. In other words, the way we live our married lives as Christians is supposed to be a reflection of the relationship that is also supposed to exist in Christ's marriage to his bride the church.

Christ is the groom and in ancient eastern societies that meant the center of attention. In our culture, the bride is the center of attention but not in the east, the groom takes center stage. In addition, husbands are reminded to act like Christ does toward his bride. Love being the centerpiece word. Self sacrificing for her, cherishing her, to love his wife like himself as his own body. Christ is to be reflected by the man in marriage.

The Church is the Bride and in eastern societies the issue for women was humbleness before their husband and that leads to a couple words: respect and obedience. Now it must be noted that neither of these things can be forced on a woman, she must choose to do them for her to fulfill this. So a man thumping his chest and telling his wife to obey is a waste and violates the image of Christ a man is supposed to uphold. The real issue for women is that they are to act toward their husbands the way the church is supposed to act toward Christ. The church is supposed to respect and obey Christ. Both are choices a woman must make based on how committed she is to her marriage, husband and ultimately Christ.

Colossians 3:18-19 hits the same practical advice but without the detailed imagery and it is shorter and to the point.

Now, this does have some impact of the issue of marriage and it is not small. In a very real way Paul is basing this on Jesus' one flesh teaching and that means the idea of Jesus leaving his bride or the bride leaving Christ does not compute with Paul although we will see later he does have some views on divorce that seem to contradict Jesus.

Some have stated that this puts an end to polygamy. Not really, 1) it does not directly say that and 2) if Jesus has other peoples on other worlds that he has redeemed or vindicated, would those peoples be other brides or all part of the same one? Sorry, at that point we can only speculate. We need to also remember this is analogy and all analogies break down at some point or another including ones from the Bible.

Next: Paul on Divorce and Polygamy

Marriage and the Bible - Part 33 - Jesus and Other Marriage Issues

Outside divorce Jesus is not silent. In fact some of the things Jesus hints at can shed some light on other things involving marriage.

1. The Necessity of Marriage:
In Matthew 19 after Jesus gives his teaching on divorce, one of the disciples comments that it would then be better for a man not to marry. Jesus comments that not everyone can accept this statement. He is not saying it is not possible but that only those who can handle celibacy should not get married. Some men are that way from birth, others are made that way by men and others by God, but not everyone can accept this idea. Marriage stays, because honestly without it there would be no sex or children born within the proper boundary God has set. Only marriage can protect these so nothing sinful happens. Without the law of marriage, the legal side, things get real ugly.

2. Marriage as Part of this World, but Not the One to Come:
In Matthew, Mark and Luke all have Jesus being confronted by the Sadducees with the question about the woman who was married to seven brothers (one at a time). Jesus realizes the question is really about the resurrection, but his statement: "There is neither marriage or giving in marriage, but all are as the angels of heaven" have lead some to believe that God will end marriage and the whole male-female equation. In am not sure we can go that far with Jesus' statement because I don't think Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall were 'married' in the sense that the conversation between Jesus and the Sadducees indicates. They were one flesh. Marriage contracts and customs result from sin ultimately and so it is in my mind still possible that relationships of this sort could be possible in the hereafter. Sure there are a lot of questions with multiple partners in life, but that is why we say - 'till death do us part'. Jesus seems to indicate by saying: because they cannot die' that marriage is ultimately nullified in glory because of immortality; but this does not indicate that there is no longer male and female or relationships of some sort between the two.

3. Marriage as a Matter of Society and Custom:
The woman at the well indicates something else. Jesus remarks that she had five husbands and the guy she was living with now was not her husband. The indication is that she was still having sex with the guy but she was not married to him. Marriage cannot simply be copulation based on this passage. There is something more to it than sexual joining. There must it seem also be an acknowledgement by the society and culture that two people are married. You can see the divorce law in action here, but the interesting thing to me is that you can indeed live with two different partners but one you are considered married to because society says you are married and the other you are not because society says your not. In some way then, the acknowledgement of mankind over a couple as to their state of marriage does factor in. Sure, it muddies the waters of the discussion but it is there.

Next: Paul: Bride and Groom / Church and Jesus.

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