In order to have a clear understanding of divorce and subsequent remarriage, we must first come to a consensus regarding a definition of marriage. Indeed, if divorce is the breakup of a marriage, we must know the nature of the thing that actually gets broken. If marriage is simply a matter of convenience created by man, as some suggest, in order to control women and ensure a male’s exclusive right to the woman of his choice, then divorce is hardly a matter of great concern, for we can simply change our definition of marriage or move right along and do away with it if it becomes too much of a practical burden. Isn’t this what we’re seeing in the news?
What is marriage? What does the Bible have to say regarding this institution? Indeed, if it is the Bible that provides us our definition of marriage we would do well to go there and have a fresh articulation of its contents here. The book of Genesis provides us with the story of creation. It is a book of beginnings – the beginning of the universe, and perhaps time; the beginning of life in all its rich diversity; and specifically the beginning of God’s pinnacle of creation, mankind. I attribute such quality to mankind because it is only man (need I say I use this term inclusively?) that is given the privilege of being created “in God’s image”. Traditionally, this means we share God’s communicable attributes, not that we are little gods who have the same powers of omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnisapience (all wise). It means we are like him in smaller, more discreet ways. We consist, partly, of a spirit; we share God’s mental attributes of knowledge and wisdom; we share in God’s moral attributes in that we are created to be moral creatures; and lastly we each have a will and certain measures of freedom.
Genesis 1 shows us God’s act of creation. What he creates he declares to be “good”. Chapter 2 gives us more specific details regarding the process of man’s creation. When we get to verse 18 we stumble upon something, or some state of affairs, that is not good. Adam is alone. (I will hesitate to use the term lonely, though I can see how an argument for that term’s legitimate use in this context can be made.) There was no companion suitable/appropriate/fit for him. Of all the creatures God created, there was none that could be Adam’s companion. None met the requirements. God therefore created a woman, Eve, using one of Adam’s ribs. Adam declares,
This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Certain truths are apparent as one reads this account. Because Genesis 1 and 2 are chiefly about God’s creative acts, this includes the fact that God institutes this new and unique relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage has divine origins. Adam’s words signify the deeply intimate nature of this new relationship. Verse 24 further clarifies God’s intent regarding this new institution. Marriage is intended for one man and one woman, and therefore excludes supposed unions that do not reflect that reality. The notion of cleaving demonstrates that this relationship should be a total commitment to one’s spouse for life. Jay Adams astutely calls marriage a “covenant of companionship”. It is a unique relationship that involves a commitment to the welfare of the other and includes the gift of sexual union. God declares this new relationship to have such significance that the union involves the two becoming one flesh. It is as though a singular identity results from this bond between the husband and wife. Jesus reaffirms these principles in Matthew 19 when the Pharisees confront him with a question regarding divorce.
The New Testament provides more insight into the nature of this relationship as the implications of Christ’s death and resurrection have direct bearing on marriage since it is a representation of Christ and the church. Nevertheless, I believe what I’ve shown above sufficiently summarizes the biblical conception of marriage. More can be said especially for the love that two people in such a relationship ought to have. I understand that the definition I’ve presented above is more academic for those of you with slightly more romantic desires. But those two classifications need not be mutually exclusive, if we can only rescue the proper sense of romance from individualistic hijackers.
The type of bond depicted in scripture is deeply intimate and is chiefly rooted in the commitment of one’s will, rather than the capriciousness of one’s emotions. Note that I say “chiefly rooted”. This willful commitment certainly involves the emotions but that is not the place from which the commitment takes its direction. God chose to maintain his commitment to his people by sending his Son, even though his people were unlovable (we were sinners). This is love; this is the steadfast love (hesed) that God continually displays and we are to emulate. It is unconditional.
Traditional marriage vows should be sufficient to close this thought. Next time I’ll present a definition of divorce and perhaps touch on what some of the most prominent teachings have been throughout church history.
I, ___, take you ___, to be my wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, ’til death do us part.
