|
tn1 -> RE: Covenant Spouse/Marriage (9/25/2008 5:31:18 PM)
|
I voted other because the 3rd option implied a devaluing of marriage as if marriage were disposable, though the 3rd option is technically correct. Marriage is established by covenant and can be broken; but of course there are usually very negative ramifications for doing so.
Unfortunately, there is significant errant teaching in the church concerning marriage covenants. Many assume that the word “covenant” is a specific biblical term, clearly defining a relationship. However, the word “covenant,” in the Bible and throughout the ancient Near East, was a broad term used to describe a wide variety of relationships: simple contracts, treaties between nations, marriages, indentured slave/master relationships, God’s relationship with the nation of Israel, and God’s promise not to flood the world. Sadly, many theologians and pastors fail to recognize the contractual element of a marriage covenant.
David Instone-Brewer devotes the entire first chapter of his book, “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible” to discuss the contractual nature of marriage as understood in the Near East in biblical times. I highly recommend this book for further study on this and related issues. For the conclusion of chapter one, Dr. Instone-Brewer writes:
… marriage in the Pentateuch is a contract between two families and between two individuals. This contract was often recorded in a document which included the financial arrangements, the stipulations which could lead to divorce if broken, and the financial arrangements in the event of divorce. Many of these documents have been found dating from the seventh century BCE. The details recorded in these documents, and the language which is used to record them, finds exact parallels in the Pentateuch. The Old Testament speaks of marriage as a ‘covenant’ (tyrb), which was the ancient Near Eastern term for any kind of binding agreement or contract. The correct term for a marriage agreement in the Old Testament is therefor a ‘marriage contract’. Like any other contract, this contained an agreement and penalties for breaking the agreement. The penalty for breaking the marriage contract was divorce with loss of the dowry.
Dr. Instone-Brewer makes a convincing argument supporting the assertion that; “The correct term for a marriage agreement in the Old Testament is a ‘marriage contract.’” However, does the English word “contract” adequately define a marriage relationship? In English, “contract” is most commonly used as a legal term with its strength in its specificity, clarity, and declared penalties for the breaking of the contract. An ironclad contract is one in which there are no loopholes or means of breaking the contract without penalty. The word “contract” usually applies to tangible and measurable elements of a relationship such as finances, responsibilities, and/or material ownership. The word “contract” also has the connotation of an insensitive, cold, calculating, and business-type relationship. However, marriage is far more than the English word “contract” can define or connote.
The English word “covenant” is a better term for describing the marriage union, though having virtually the same meaning as the word “contract.” Covenant is more of a relational word that often implies a personal commitment of the involved parties to each other that far exceeds the financial, material, or legal aspects of the relationship. The word “covenant” is often biblically used as a broad, inclusive, and non-specific relational vow establishing new “family” ties. Furthermore, although the financial and material aspects of the covenant might be covered by a written contract and enforceable through civil law, the strength of a covenant is almost wholly dependent upon the moral character of the covenantors, the ones making the covenant.
The word “contract” is an integral part of the word “covenant;” but “covenant” is not necessarily implied in the word “contract.” Contracts are specific and legally enforceable covenants, whereas the relational elements of covenants are neither specific nor legally enforceable. For example, mutual love, honor, submission, trust, and faithfulness are all elements of a Christian marriage covenant; but these are intangible, immeasurable attributes that are not legally enforceable due to their ethereal nature.
Although the word “covenant” does best describe the marriage union; I hesitate to use it, especially among Christians, because errant teaching concerning the word “covenant” has helped to promote errant concepts concerning marriage and divorce. In fact, the word “covenant” has been so “spiritualized” that it has lost much of its practical meaning and application. What do I mean by spiritualized? Various covenants that God established with mankind are incorrectly used as a standard for defining and describing fundamental elements of marriage covenants.
Divine covenants are often, but not always, unilateral (completely one-sided), universal, unbreakable, unconditional, and eternal. However, marriage covenants are bilateral, requiring both parties’ endorsement and support. They are breakable, being conditional upon the moral character and actions of the covenantors; and temporal, ending at the dissolving of the covenant (divorce), or the death of one of the covenantors (the husband or wife).
A premier example of a divine covenant is the one Noah received. After the flood destroyed the world, and living in the ark for 375 days, Noah and his family stepped foot once again upon dry ground. God had spared them from the most devastating cataclysmic terrestrial event of all time. Overwhelmed with gratitude for God’s miraculous protection, provision, and for finally standing on solid earth again, Noah sacrificed some of the clean (as in edible) animals that he had personally cared for throughout their time on the ark! This was an amazing feat when one considers that these animals were the foundation for his family’s future provision. This sacrifice exhibited his radical trust in God, which pleased God greatly! The Bible then says that,
Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, … Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: “I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. (Genesis 9:8-14 NCV)
This divine covenant is unilateral in that God makes this covenant with or without man’s acceptance or agreement. It is universal in that it applies to all of mankind. It is also unbreakable, because God’s moral character is without flaw. “God is not a man that He should lie” (Numbers 23:19 NKJV). Note that even this covenant is dependent upon the covenantor’s character.
We run into problems when we try to apply the fundamental elements of this divine covenant to marriage covenants. Unlike this divine covenant, marriage covenants are in no way unilateral; they are bilateral, requiring the endorsement and support of both the husband and wife. Though the wife does everything in her power to make the marriage work, if her husband hardens his heart and legally dissolves the covenant, the marriage is broken.
Marriage covenants are also not universal, but are provincial in that their foundational assumptions and expectations are dependent upon their cultural settings or the specified elements of the covenant. For example, the marriage covenants and relationships between a polygamous husband and his wives in Saudi Arabia are very different than the marriage covenant and relationship between a monogamous husband and wife in the United States of America. Different cultures have different marriage and family arrangements and covenants. Some are closer to the divine ideal than others, but that does not make the covenants any less real or binding.
Furthermore, marriage covenants are by no means indissoluble, especially when one considers the inherent depravity of mankind. It is because of this depravity, the hard-heartedness of mankind, that God inspired the bill of divorce. The Mosaic bill of divorce facilitated the legal and social dissolution of marriages that had gone awry, and specifically enabled divorcées to remarry without fear of negative social, religious, or civil repercussions.
Marriage covenants are NOT unconditional! Though modern western marriage vows do not specify conditions upon which the marriage will be dissolved; mutual love, honor, respect, and fidelity are stated and implied in the ceremony and understood by the couple, the witnesses, the one performing the ceremony, and God. A habitual breach of any of these elements of the covenant is a legally and morally acceptable reason for the dissolution of the marriage relationship—divorce! Ultimately, marriage covenants are only as strong as the moral character of the covenantors. Outside factors such as family, the church, civil law, social norms, and friends have minimal influence upon the strength of marriage covenants. It is character that matters.
If you want a strong marriage, be and marry a person of strong moral character, a person for whom your word is your bond.
|
|
|
|
