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.
You'll have to excuse me for not understanding the objection:
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
If the passage said 'land of thy covenant' then I would interpret that as a covenant that involved land. I might even call it a 'land covenant' unless the evidence was such that other things were far more important than the land.
If I were to speak of a 'wife covenant' I think most people would scratch their head and say, 'You mean marriage?" In what other way can a 'wife' be part of a covenant?
>>It is most explicitly a relationship entered into by two parties, in which they assume obligations to one another.
I think I would disagree with this as the definition. First of all, a third party, or more than one can be involved... thus I could 'covenant' to take my brother's children if he died. Secondly, the obligations don't need to go both ways, one party can be making all of the promises.
The context of the chapter is about violations of the prohibition on intermarriage. For example:
Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
So I would read "the wife of your covenant" as "the wife whom you are permitted by your covenant - that is, the one made at Sinai, as opposed to the "the wife you took in defiance of the covenant."
It does not say "wife covenant."
Sure, you could 'covenant' to take your brother's children: that would be a covenant between you and your brother. It would affect his children, but unless you made it with them rather than him, they would be subjects of, not parties to, the covenant.
>> one-way agreement is a promise, not a covenant.
An interesting statement but... other than your words what do you have to back this up? In what way does a promise differ from a covenant in your view? (And there is a bit of a problem using the word 'agreement' in any case, since that does require two people. What I said was, "One party can be making all of the promises".)
>>the wife whom you are permitted by your covenant
This seems to back the issue up one step, but not change the end result. If, according to the covenant at Sinai, you are permitted a wife, then she would be, as you say about the children, a subject of the covenant. Which would still make it a 'wife-covenant' using the simplistic language that I summarised it with.
>> other than your words what do you have to back this up?
I presume you're not looking for me to cite Talmudic passages :)
So I went to see what others have said, and found:
"A covenant is a relationship between two partners who make binding promises to each other and work together to reach a common goal. They’re often accompanied by oaths, signs, and ceremonies."
as the first hits that define it. Note that in the text, they do say that marriage is an example of a covenant, since husband and wife make commitments to one another. But they don't try to cite Malachi as support.
>> Which would still make it a 'wife-covenant' using the simplistic language that I summarised it with.
You're being extremely imprecise in ways that allow you to twist meanings. The rules on marriage are part of the Sinaitic covenant; that doesn't make it a wife-covenant (a covenant with your wife), any more than it is a food-covenant (a covenant with your food).
I'm not sure why, when I spoke of a 'land-covenant' as being a covenant between you and your brother concerning land, you would think that when I said 'wife-covenant' you would insist that I mean a covenant between you and your wife.
I would certainly speak, if it were helpful, of a 'food-covenant', a 'covenant' a 'virginity-covenant' or even a 'business-covenant'... and I would not mean an agreement between men and my business.
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'm not sure why, when I spoke of a 'land-covenant' as being a covenant between you and your brother concerning land, you would think that when I said 'wife-covenant' you would insist that I mean a covenant between you and your wife.
Because of your words above:
"If I were to speak of a 'wife covenant' I think most people would scratch their head and say, 'You mean marriage?" In what other way can a 'wife' be part of a covenant?"
You did cite the phrase "wife of your covenant" as Malachi calling marriage a covenant, after all.
>> 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.
Never said that they have to give the same. Can you cite something clearly called a covenant in the Scriptures that we share, in which one party has no obligations at all?
Calvin quite agrees with you as to the context of these verses:
--------
Calvin's Words Below! Not mine!!
--------
But he immediately comes to particulars: Polluted, he says, has Judah the holiness of Jehovah, which he loved; (228) that is, because they individually indulged their lusts, and procured for themselves wives from heathen nations.
Some take, קדש, kodash, for the sanctuary or the temple; others for the keeping of the law; but I prefer to apply it to the covenant itself; and we might suitably take it in a collective sense, except the simpler meaning be more approved — that Judah polluted his separation. As to the Prophet’s object and the subject itself, he charges them here, I have no doubt, with profanation, because the Jews rendered themselves vile, though God had consecrated them to himself. They had then polluted holiness, even when they had been separated from the world; for they had disregarded so great an honor, by which they might have been pre-eminent, had they continued in their integrity. It may be also taken collectively, they have polluted holiness, that is, they have polluted that nation which has been separated from other nations: but as this exposition may seem hard and somewhat strained, I am inclined to think that what is here meant is that separation by which the Jews were known from other nations. But yet what I have stated may serve to remove whatever obscurity there may be. And that this holiness ought to be referred to that gratuitous election by which God had adopted the Jews as his peculiar people, is evident from what the Prophet says, that they married foreign wives. (229)
We then see the purpose of this passage, which is to show, — that the Jews were ungrateful to God, because they mingled with heathen nations, and knowingly and wilfully cast aside that glory by which God had adorned them by choosing them, as Moses says, to be to him a royal priesthood. (Exo 19:6.) Holiness, we know, was much recommended to the Jews, in order that they might not abandon themselves to any of the pollutions of the heathens. Hence God had forbidden them under the law to take foreign wives, except they were first purified, as we find in Deu 21:11; if any one wished to marry a captive, she was to have her head shaven and her nails pared; by which it was intimated, that such women were impure, and that their husbands would be contaminated, except they were first purified. And, yet it was not wholly a blameless thing, when one observed the law as to a captive: but it was a lust abominable to God, when they were not content with their own nation, and burnt in love with strange women. As however the Jews, like all mortals without exception, were inclined to corruptions, God purposed to keep them together as one people, lest the wife by her flatteries should draw the husband away from the pure and legitimate worship of God. And Moses tells us, that there was a crafty counsel given by Balsam when he saw that the people could not be conquered in open war; he at length invented this artifice, that the heathens should offer to them their wives and their daughters. It hence happened that the people provoked God’s wrath, as we find it recorded in Num 25:4.
As then the Jews after their return had again lapsed into this corruption, it is not without reason that the Prophet so severely reproves them, and that he says, that by marrying strange women they had polluted holiness, or that separation, which was their great honor, as God had adopted them alone as his people; and he calls it a holiness which God loved. Thus their crime was doubled, because God had not only bound them to himself, but he had also embraced them gratuitously. For if the cause of the separation be enquired, whether they excelled other nations, or whether they had any worthiness or merit? the answer is, No; but God loved them freely. For by the word love, the Prophet means the mere kindness and bounty of God, with which he favored Abraham and his race, without regard to any worthiness or excellency. He therefore condemns them for this ingratitude, because they had not only departed from the covenant which the Lord had made with their fathers, but had also neglected and despised that gratuitous love, which ought to have softened even their iron hearts. For if God had found anything in them as a reason why he preferred them to other nations, they might have been more excusable, at least they might have extenuated their fault; but since God had adopted them as his peculiar people, though they were unworthy and wholly undeserving, they must surely have been extremely brutish, to have thus despised the gratuitous favor of God. Their baseness then is increased, as I have said, by this circumstance, — that so great a kindness of God did not turn their hearts to obedience.
At the end of the verse the Prophet makes known, as I have already stated, their profanation; they had married the daughters of another god. By way of reproach he calls them the daughters of a strange god. He might have simply said foreign daughters; but he intended here to imply a comparison between the God of Israel and idols: as though he had said, “Whence have these wives come to you? from idols. Ye ought then to have hated them as monsters: had you any religion in your heart, what but detestable to you must have been everything which may have come from idols? but your hearts have become attached to the daughters of false gods.”
And we find that this vice had been condemned by Moses, and branded with reproach, before the giving of the Law, when he said, that the human race had been corrupted, because the sons of God married the daughters of men, (Gen 6:2,) even because the posterity of Seth, who were born of the holy family, degraded themselves and polluted that small portion, which was holy and consecrated to God, by mixing with the world; for the whole world had at that time departed from God, except the descendants of Seth. The Lord then had before the Law marked this lust with perpetual disgrace; but when the Law itself which ought to have been like a rampart, again condemned it, was it not a perverseness wholly inexcusable, when the wantonness of the people broke through all restraints? He then adds —
(227) It is בגדה in the feminine gender, because by Judah is meant the tribe or the family; so Ephraim is often regarded. See Hos 4:18. We find here Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem mentioned; and probably because the purpose was to include the whole of the people, as some of Israel or of the ten tribes were among them. — Ed.
(228) This last clause has been variously explained: “whom,” i.e., Judah, “he loved,” or, “which,” i.e., holiness, “he loved,” or, “which he,” Judah “had loved.” The last seems the most natural construction according to the tenor of the passage, if אשר be a relative; for Judah is the subject in the sentence. Judah did in former times love and delight in that separating which God had made and appointed between his people and the heathen world. To say that God loved it seems an odd idea; but to say that Judah delighted in it was much to the purpose, and added it for the sake of enhancing the guilt of that generation.
Dathius gives this version, —
For he profanes Judah, the holiness of Jehovah, Who loves and marries a foreign wife.
But more suitable to the genius of the language would be this, —
For profaned has Judah the holiness of Jehovah, Because he has loved and married The daughter of a strange God.
The word אשר is often a conjunction as well as a relative; because, for, inasmuch as. See Gen 34:13; Deu 30:16; 1Sa 15:15. — Ed.
(229) “The holiness of Jehovah,” i.e., the holiness required and enjoined by Jehovah. Most agree that what is meant is the separation from any alliance with heathens. See Deu 7:3. Ezra mentions Israel as “the holy seed,” Ezr 9:2. See also Jer 2:3. Marckius, after Jerome and Cyril, takes this view, and so do Henry, Scott, Newcome, and Henderson. — Ed.
>> Some take, קדש, kodash, for the sanctuary or the temple; others for the keeping of the law; but I prefer to apply it to the covenant itself;
קדש is a reference to the Temple, certainly. Covenant, though, is ברית. They are two different things. You can certainly ignore G-d's words and say anything you like, but if you are going to interpret them, you need to look at what is actually said, and not what would be convenient for you, if it is said.
Von and I discussed that very point. As far as I can tell, and according to other sources I have found, it is always a mutual agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "equal," here. Most of the covenants mentioned in the Bible are clearly unequal, being between G-d and one or more persons.
Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Eze 16:9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
Eze 16:10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
Eze 16:11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
Eze 16:12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
Eze 16:13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.
BTW, lest you think I am alone in my interpretation, Calvin, Gill, and Henry all make the same assumption. I believe it is the standard Christian interpretation of the passage.
BTW, way up here at the top level, what is your actual position on marriage? I assume you make a difference between Jewish and non-Jewish marriages? Can non-Jews marry, in your view? If you don't see it as a covenant, what do you see it as? What do you see as its obligations, benefits, etc. Who created it and who maintains it?
In general, the Torah gives us the rules for Jews; we do not claim to know what rules non-Jews must follow beyond the 7 Noahide laws.
The Torah forbids Jews to marry non-Jews, and does not recognize such marriages; we recognize that non-Jews often do, and certainly have their own rules for marriage among themselves. It's basically not our concern. G-d is the god of the entire world and all people, not just us.
For us, marriage is at heart a set of obligations between husband and wife; it is not symmetric. A Jewish man marries a Jewish woman by giving her an item whose value she recognizes, and accepts for the purpose of marriage; usually it is a ring. The couple signs an agreement which specifies the husbands obligation to his wife, which include providing for her and her children, guaranteeing her sexual rights, obligates him to redeem her if she is captured, and so on. It also establishes the payment that he must make to her in the case of divorce, or if he dies first.
Other obligations are found in the Torah, such as her obligation of sexual fidelity to him.
Ah, I was speaking from the point of view of Judaism.
Obviously marriage existed before Moses. Even if you ignore the Bible, we know perfectly well that marriage was found in virtually every civilization (there was one exception that I recall, somewhere in southeast Asia, where children were raised by the mother and her brothers - the father have no connection to their kids). There is one society which practices polyandry, but most are either polygynous or monogamous. In every case that I know of, the women are not permitted to have sex outside the marriage; in many, the same does not apply to men. But wherever it exists, it is an agreement (covenant) between the participants.
Again here, it is interesting that you state what marriage is. I believe that all the evidence that you’re going to be able to gather is what people in society think it is.
And in that case you’re wrong as well, because there’s lots of societies, and have been lots of societies, where marriage was actually the father, deciding who his daughter was going to marry Kmart, or even the father, deciding who is son was going to marry, and many cases were some authority was going to decide who so-and-so was going to marry.
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.
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.
You'll have to excuse me for not understanding the objection:
Mal 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
Mal 2:15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
If the passage said 'land of thy covenant' then I would interpret that as a covenant that involved land. I might even call it a 'land covenant' unless the evidence was such that other things were far more important than the land.
If I were to speak of a 'wife covenant' I think most people would scratch their head and say, 'You mean marriage?" In what other way can a 'wife' be part of a covenant?
>>It is most explicitly a relationship entered into by two parties, in which they assume obligations to one another.
I think I would disagree with this as the definition. First of all, a third party, or more than one can be involved... thus I could 'covenant' to take my brother's children if he died. Secondly, the obligations don't need to go both ways, one party can be making all of the promises.
The context of the chapter is about violations of the prohibition on intermarriage. For example:
Mal 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
So I would read "the wife of your covenant" as "the wife whom you are permitted by your covenant - that is, the one made at Sinai, as opposed to the "the wife you took in defiance of the covenant."
It does not say "wife covenant."
Sure, you could 'covenant' to take your brother's children: that would be a covenant between you and your brother. It would affect his children, but unless you made it with them rather than him, they would be subjects of, not parties to, the covenant.
A one-way agreement is a promise, not a covenant.
>> one-way agreement is a promise, not a covenant.
An interesting statement but... other than your words what do you have to back this up? In what way does a promise differ from a covenant in your view? (And there is a bit of a problem using the word 'agreement' in any case, since that does require two people. What I said was, "One party can be making all of the promises".)
>>the wife whom you are permitted by your covenant
This seems to back the issue up one step, but not change the end result. If, according to the covenant at Sinai, you are permitted a wife, then she would be, as you say about the children, a subject of the covenant. Which would still make it a 'wife-covenant' using the simplistic language that I summarised it with.
>> other than your words what do you have to back this up?
I presume you're not looking for me to cite Talmudic passages :)
So I went to see what others have said, and found:
"A covenant is a relationship between two partners who make binding promises to each other and work together to reach a common goal. They’re often accompanied by oaths, signs, and ceremonies."
https://bibleproject.com/articles/covenants-the-backbone-bible/
"Covenant can be defined as follows: a covenant is a chosen relationship in which two parties make binding promises to each other."
https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-biblical-covenants/
as the first hits that define it. Note that in the text, they do say that marriage is an example of a covenant, since husband and wife make commitments to one another. But they don't try to cite Malachi as support.
>> Which would still make it a 'wife-covenant' using the simplistic language that I summarised it with.
You're being extremely imprecise in ways that allow you to twist meanings. The rules on marriage are part of the Sinaitic covenant; that doesn't make it a wife-covenant (a covenant with your wife), any more than it is a food-covenant (a covenant with your food).
I'm not sure why, when I spoke of a 'land-covenant' as being a covenant between you and your brother concerning land, you would think that when I said 'wife-covenant' you would insist that I mean a covenant between you and your wife.
I would certainly speak, if it were helpful, of a 'food-covenant', a 'covenant' a 'virginity-covenant' or even a 'business-covenant'... and I would not mean an agreement between men and my business.
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'm not sure why, when I spoke of a 'land-covenant' as being a covenant between you and your brother concerning land, you would think that when I said 'wife-covenant' you would insist that I mean a covenant between you and your wife.
Because of your words above:
"If I were to speak of a 'wife covenant' I think most people would scratch their head and say, 'You mean marriage?" In what other way can a 'wife' be part of a covenant?"
You did cite the phrase "wife of your covenant" as Malachi calling marriage a covenant, after all.
>> 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.
Never said that they have to give the same. Can you cite something clearly called a covenant in the Scriptures that we share, in which one party has no obligations at all?
Calvin quite agrees with you as to the context of these verses:
--------
Calvin's Words Below! Not mine!!
--------
But he immediately comes to particulars: Polluted, he says, has Judah the holiness of Jehovah, which he loved; (228) that is, because they individually indulged their lusts, and procured for themselves wives from heathen nations.
Some take, קדש, kodash, for the sanctuary or the temple; others for the keeping of the law; but I prefer to apply it to the covenant itself; and we might suitably take it in a collective sense, except the simpler meaning be more approved — that Judah polluted his separation. As to the Prophet’s object and the subject itself, he charges them here, I have no doubt, with profanation, because the Jews rendered themselves vile, though God had consecrated them to himself. They had then polluted holiness, even when they had been separated from the world; for they had disregarded so great an honor, by which they might have been pre-eminent, had they continued in their integrity. It may be also taken collectively, they have polluted holiness, that is, they have polluted that nation which has been separated from other nations: but as this exposition may seem hard and somewhat strained, I am inclined to think that what is here meant is that separation by which the Jews were known from other nations. But yet what I have stated may serve to remove whatever obscurity there may be. And that this holiness ought to be referred to that gratuitous election by which God had adopted the Jews as his peculiar people, is evident from what the Prophet says, that they married foreign wives. (229)
We then see the purpose of this passage, which is to show, — that the Jews were ungrateful to God, because they mingled with heathen nations, and knowingly and wilfully cast aside that glory by which God had adorned them by choosing them, as Moses says, to be to him a royal priesthood. (Exo 19:6.) Holiness, we know, was much recommended to the Jews, in order that they might not abandon themselves to any of the pollutions of the heathens. Hence God had forbidden them under the law to take foreign wives, except they were first purified, as we find in Deu 21:11; if any one wished to marry a captive, she was to have her head shaven and her nails pared; by which it was intimated, that such women were impure, and that their husbands would be contaminated, except they were first purified. And, yet it was not wholly a blameless thing, when one observed the law as to a captive: but it was a lust abominable to God, when they were not content with their own nation, and burnt in love with strange women. As however the Jews, like all mortals without exception, were inclined to corruptions, God purposed to keep them together as one people, lest the wife by her flatteries should draw the husband away from the pure and legitimate worship of God. And Moses tells us, that there was a crafty counsel given by Balsam when he saw that the people could not be conquered in open war; he at length invented this artifice, that the heathens should offer to them their wives and their daughters. It hence happened that the people provoked God’s wrath, as we find it recorded in Num 25:4.
As then the Jews after their return had again lapsed into this corruption, it is not without reason that the Prophet so severely reproves them, and that he says, that by marrying strange women they had polluted holiness, or that separation, which was their great honor, as God had adopted them alone as his people; and he calls it a holiness which God loved. Thus their crime was doubled, because God had not only bound them to himself, but he had also embraced them gratuitously. For if the cause of the separation be enquired, whether they excelled other nations, or whether they had any worthiness or merit? the answer is, No; but God loved them freely. For by the word love, the Prophet means the mere kindness and bounty of God, with which he favored Abraham and his race, without regard to any worthiness or excellency. He therefore condemns them for this ingratitude, because they had not only departed from the covenant which the Lord had made with their fathers, but had also neglected and despised that gratuitous love, which ought to have softened even their iron hearts. For if God had found anything in them as a reason why he preferred them to other nations, they might have been more excusable, at least they might have extenuated their fault; but since God had adopted them as his peculiar people, though they were unworthy and wholly undeserving, they must surely have been extremely brutish, to have thus despised the gratuitous favor of God. Their baseness then is increased, as I have said, by this circumstance, — that so great a kindness of God did not turn their hearts to obedience.
At the end of the verse the Prophet makes known, as I have already stated, their profanation; they had married the daughters of another god. By way of reproach he calls them the daughters of a strange god. He might have simply said foreign daughters; but he intended here to imply a comparison between the God of Israel and idols: as though he had said, “Whence have these wives come to you? from idols. Ye ought then to have hated them as monsters: had you any religion in your heart, what but detestable to you must have been everything which may have come from idols? but your hearts have become attached to the daughters of false gods.”
And we find that this vice had been condemned by Moses, and branded with reproach, before the giving of the Law, when he said, that the human race had been corrupted, because the sons of God married the daughters of men, (Gen 6:2,) even because the posterity of Seth, who were born of the holy family, degraded themselves and polluted that small portion, which was holy and consecrated to God, by mixing with the world; for the whole world had at that time departed from God, except the descendants of Seth. The Lord then had before the Law marked this lust with perpetual disgrace; but when the Law itself which ought to have been like a rampart, again condemned it, was it not a perverseness wholly inexcusable, when the wantonness of the people broke through all restraints? He then adds —
(227) It is בגדה in the feminine gender, because by Judah is meant the tribe or the family; so Ephraim is often regarded. See Hos 4:18. We find here Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem mentioned; and probably because the purpose was to include the whole of the people, as some of Israel or of the ten tribes were among them. — Ed.
(228) This last clause has been variously explained: “whom,” i.e., Judah, “he loved,” or, “which,” i.e., holiness, “he loved,” or, “which he,” Judah “had loved.” The last seems the most natural construction according to the tenor of the passage, if אשר be a relative; for Judah is the subject in the sentence. Judah did in former times love and delight in that separating which God had made and appointed between his people and the heathen world. To say that God loved it seems an odd idea; but to say that Judah delighted in it was much to the purpose, and added it for the sake of enhancing the guilt of that generation.
Dathius gives this version, —
For he profanes Judah, the holiness of Jehovah, Who loves and marries a foreign wife.
But more suitable to the genius of the language would be this, —
For profaned has Judah the holiness of Jehovah, Because he has loved and married The daughter of a strange God.
The word אשר is often a conjunction as well as a relative; because, for, inasmuch as. See Gen 34:13; Deu 30:16; 1Sa 15:15. — Ed.
(229) “The holiness of Jehovah,” i.e., the holiness required and enjoined by Jehovah. Most agree that what is meant is the separation from any alliance with heathens. See Deu 7:3. Ezra mentions Israel as “the holy seed,” Ezr 9:2. See also Jer 2:3. Marckius, after Jerome and Cyril, takes this view, and so do Henry, Scott, Newcome, and Henderson. — Ed.
>> Some take, קדש, kodash, for the sanctuary or the temple; others for the keeping of the law; but I prefer to apply it to the covenant itself;
קדש is a reference to the Temple, certainly. Covenant, though, is ברית. They are two different things. You can certainly ignore G-d's words and say anything you like, but if you are going to interpret them, you need to look at what is actually said, and not what would be convenient for you, if it is said.
Are you disagreeing with Calvin here? He's dead, so it might be a while before he can reply.
Ah, you didn't use quotes, so I mistook which were your words and which his.
@Russell Gold - can a covenant be a one-way agreement, or is it necessarily between two “equal” (in some sense) parties?
Von and I discussed that very point. As far as I can tell, and according to other sources I have found, it is always a mutual agreement. I'm not sure what you mean by "equal," here. Most of the covenants mentioned in the Bible are clearly unequal, being between G-d and one or more persons.
Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Eze 16:9 Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
Eze 16:10 I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.
Eze 16:11 I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.
Eze 16:12 And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.
Eze 16:13 Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.
BTW, lest you think I am alone in my interpretation, Calvin, Gill, and Henry all make the same assumption. I believe it is the standard Christian interpretation of the passage.
BTW, way up here at the top level, what is your actual position on marriage? I assume you make a difference between Jewish and non-Jewish marriages? Can non-Jews marry, in your view? If you don't see it as a covenant, what do you see it as? What do you see as its obligations, benefits, etc. Who created it and who maintains it?
Both for Jews and non-Jews, if you please :)
In general, the Torah gives us the rules for Jews; we do not claim to know what rules non-Jews must follow beyond the 7 Noahide laws.
The Torah forbids Jews to marry non-Jews, and does not recognize such marriages; we recognize that non-Jews often do, and certainly have their own rules for marriage among themselves. It's basically not our concern. G-d is the god of the entire world and all people, not just us.
For us, marriage is at heart a set of obligations between husband and wife; it is not symmetric. A Jewish man marries a Jewish woman by giving her an item whose value she recognizes, and accepts for the purpose of marriage; usually it is a ring. The couple signs an agreement which specifies the husbands obligation to his wife, which include providing for her and her children, guaranteeing her sexual rights, obligates him to redeem her if she is captured, and so on. It also establishes the payment that he must make to her in the case of divorce, or if he dies first.
Other obligations are found in the Torah, such as her obligation of sexual fidelity to him.
So you would have no views on the existence of marriage, and the importance that God puts on it before Moses?
Ah, I was speaking from the point of view of Judaism.
Obviously marriage existed before Moses. Even if you ignore the Bible, we know perfectly well that marriage was found in virtually every civilization (there was one exception that I recall, somewhere in southeast Asia, where children were raised by the mother and her brothers - the father have no connection to their kids). There is one society which practices polyandry, but most are either polygynous or monogamous. In every case that I know of, the women are not permitted to have sex outside the marriage; in many, the same does not apply to men. But wherever it exists, it is an agreement (covenant) between the participants.
Again here, it is interesting that you state what marriage is. I believe that all the evidence that you’re going to be able to gather is what people in society think it is.
And in that case you’re wrong as well, because there’s lots of societies, and have been lots of societies, where marriage was actually the father, deciding who his daughter was going to marry Kmart, or even the father, deciding who is son was going to marry, and many cases were some authority was going to decide who so-and-so was going to marry.
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
I'll start working on my response.