Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ryan Short's avatar

Von,

Thank you for a serious reply to this thought provoking discussion. The comments have been fun to read, as well.

I'm not sure of the best way to address your reply, and it may be a bit jumbled, but here's an attempt.

*****

You stated in the comments section of the article responding to my previous query:

“As for covenants having at least two parties, both of whom agree to something, yes, that is normal but, as Webster pointed out, it is not universal. There must be two parties of some sort, but they don't both need to give, or even give the same.

My own opinion, not to go too far out on a limb, is that the covenant of marriage was established in Genesis 2, and the rest of us kind of join it as it comes our turn.”

*****

I *think* I can appreciate and possibly agree with your conclusion, but I think it needs more work to establish why it should be viewed in that way, and I’ll push on as a Berean (or devil’s advocate!) for clarity’ sake.

If marriage was established as a covenant in Genesis 2, and if it was established by God, not by Adam, why was it not made more explicit in covenantal language when the explanation is clearly being given that it is to be a “leave and cleave” one flesh relationship per Gen. 2:24? I find it unlikely that such a monumental deal would be left with ambiguity.

There are other statements in Scripture of how a thing ought to be - such as parents should teach their children diligently (Duet. 6:7) - and the mere statement or even a command of how a thing ought to be, does not seem to equate to a covenant. So, “therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife” does not automatically qualify it as elevated to a covenantal relationship in my mind. It simply states what ought to be.

To this point, looking at the rest of the covenants enumerated in Scripture, they generally appear to be explicit covenants, not implicit, and they are expressly declared to be such. God does not keep his covenants a secret, from Noah, onward. Other covenants such as between Jacob and Laban, David and Jonathan, and between kings and their people are clearly stated as such. This makes an unspoken and undefined “marriage covenant” a glaring exception.

The marriage “covenant” is not explicitly stated in the vast majority of marriages in the Old Testament with the possible exception of the passages in Ezekiel and Malachi, neither of which are specific to named human individuals and both of those do not *require* the implication that all other marriages are explicitly covenants. The Ezekiel 16:8 passage certainly compares God’s relationship to Jerusalem to a marriage, but it is also clearly an analogy and descriptive and not necessarily prescriptive to the exact way that men and women should come together in every marriage. It does bend the picture towards a one-sided covenant, though and I *do* agree with your mention that the Noahic covenant appears to be essentially one-sided.

As another commenter mentioned, there is room for interpretation in the Malachi 2:14 passage that it is referencing marriages appropriate to the Mosaic covenant vs specific marriage covenants, but presuming otherwise, the implication is still that a covenant was made, that was not being honored,

Here are some more questions to help define things further:

Implications:

1. If marriage was NOT found to always be a covenant, how does this affect our view of marriage?

2. Can law, obligation, required obedience, as in a marriage, exist without a formal covenant?

3. Is marriage somehow less important if it is of a non-covenantal nature?

4. Is the marriage covenant generally one-sided, and implicit?

5. Is it “not a marriage” if the man does not understand it as covenant but is faithful to his wife regardless?

6. Can a covenant exist where no declaration of such has been made?

Specific cases:

1. If marriage is always a covenant, how do we view scenarios like Jacob and Leah? In that case, it would seem that none if the conditions of the Websters dictionary definition of covenant is necessarily met. Is a covenant possibly required by an sexual act even where intent was not present?

2. Is marriage in general a de facto covenant even where no personally directed intent existed?

3. Since a covenant or treaty between Jacob and Laban is mentioned in Genesis 31, why is no covenant discussed regarding Jacob's marriages to his two daughters?

4. In the cases of Dueteronomy 21:11-14 is marriage a one-way covenant?

5. In the case of the Benjamites in Judges 21, are such marriages also one-way covenants?

Blood and covenants.

Hebrews 9 is pretty clear that the shedding of blood - by death - is a condition of a covenant. While there are a few passages that do not directly mention the shedding of blood for a man’s covenant - say, the covenant between David and Jonathan - it does appear that it was understood by the Hebrew people that it was a required component, and it seems that it’s practice continued even into the time of the prophets - see Jer. 34:18-19.

You mention the blood in relation to the consummation of marriage to a virgin, but I am skeptical that this in ANY way qualifies. Also, say in the case of a second marriage, such as of the widow in 1 Cor. 7:39, (which is an interesting verse) there might not be any blood... also, it says she is bound by the law, vs by covenant.

I suppose that you could argue that the Noahic covenant’s shedding of blood was made with the blood sacrifice by Noah's party, so perhaps there is room for that in a marriage covenant, but it still seems a bit of a stretch.

In contrast, Jesus, who clearly made a covenant with the church, shed His blood for His bride. In this covenant the bride’s blood is not what is shed in the marriage picture of Christ and the church.

In summary, I am not at all opposed to a Christian marriage including a man’s covenant as a picture of Christ and the church, but I’m not convinced that *all* marriages are, or of necessity must be covenantal. I do believe that all marriages must meet God's definition, and all marriages fall under the jurisdiction of Biblical obligation(s) with regards to marriage.

Ryan

Expand full comment
Russell Gold's avatar

Can you show me where in Malachi 2, G-d refers to marriage *as* a covenant? I see the word "covenant" used in the same verse as "wife," but that is not the same thing.

In principal, I have little idea with the idea of marriage as covenant, given that it is most explicitly a relationship entered into by two parties, in which they assume obligations to one another. I just don't see the Biblical support you claim.

Expand full comment
40 more comments...

No posts