THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND ITS PASTORAL IMPLICATIONS

by Alan Marshall - January 2001

(This is an essay which originally appeared on Alan Marshall's web site and is used with his permission.)

Sex in Today's Culture

The changes in society's attitudes to love, sex and marriage in the last few decades requires the church to review its position, and to defend or update its teaching as it examines our culture with the light of scripture and the Holy Spirit. One fundamental question that must be revisited concerns what it actually is that constitutes a marriage. Should it be defined as a sexual union, or as a covenant? If it is a sexual union, does sex carry responsibilities, even if no covenant has been made? If it is a covenant, what period does it cover? Is it for life? Does it cover life leading up to it, as well as life after it is made?

The predominant view of our culture is that marriage is a covenant of sexual faithfulness, excluding other sexual relationships only while it is in force. There is therefore nothing inherently wrong with pre-marital sex, from a legal viewpoint, as it does not break the marriage covenant. As christians, we may rightly argue that pre-marital sex is unwise, in that it may reduce one's capacity for intimacy with one's future marriage partner. However if we accept this definition, we will have difficulty explaining why it is wrong in an absolute sense. Others will see us as out of step with the majority view in contemporary western culture that pre-marital sex is useful in testing a relationship prior to making a long-term commitment. Contemporary culture still tends to see marital infidelity as wrong, but sees pre-marital sex as something quite different.

Marriage in the Old Testament

As christians we cannot accept this view of sex before marriage. It is clear from the scriptures that God's ideal for his people is that they marry as virgins. From the scriptures we must say that marriage is more than a covenant of sexual faithfulness for a period of time. We should say that marriage ideally means sexual faithfulness for all time, both before and after any public ceremony? This is what it meant before the fall, when marriage and sexual union were equivalent.

The seventh commandment explicitly forbids adultery, but it is clear it covers a broad range of sexual sin. I believe the Old Testament law as a whole was designed to enforce the purity of marriage. Adulterers were put to death (Leviticus 20:20), so in theory there were no second marriages. Similarly wives were put to death if found not to be virgins (Deuteronomy 22:21-22). Finally, couples who engage in sex, but are not covenanted to marry (each other or others), are required to marry each other (Exodus 22:16-17). The effect of the law, if fully implemented, was to ensure that no woman had a sexual relationship with more than one living man. For the woman at least, this made marriage and sexual union equivalent. This understanding dates from the dawn of time. That its application precedes the Law of Moses is illustrated by Jacob, later called Israel, who accepted Leah as his wife after unintended sexual union (Genesis 29:16-30).

Of course, the practice of polygamy meant that a man could have a one-flesh relationship with more than one woman, but Jesus shows us that this was not God's design from the beginning, and the early church forbade it.

I know other explanations for the above scriptures are possible, but I don't find them are as satisfying or coherent as the explanation I have offered.

The Old Testament therefore provides us with a powerful answer to the question of why pre-marital sex is wrong. Surprisingly, the answer is that the term is something of a misnomer. Should we think of it as technical marriage, or pre-marital marriage? Even the briefest relationship constitutes a meeting of body and soul in "one-flesh" (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16). A distinction can however be made between "pre-marital sex" and marriage. If the former lacks the intent to form a lasting family unit, then it does not (yet) have the blessing of God. But it is toying with the very foundation of the marriage bond, and to trivially enter and exit such relationships is to devalue, even blaspheme, marriage.

The Nature of Marriage

From the beginning, marriage has involved not just sexual union, but a commitment that has the blessing of God. In the first account of creation, in Genesis 1, this blessing came directly from God. In subsequent generations it comes through parents, the church, and the community. Genesis 1 speaks of man, woman and marriage as follows:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it." (Genesis 1:27-28).

Among the writings of the church fathers, whose ability to help us understand scripture should not be under-estimated, is a treatise of marriage by Clement. His understanding of marriage would seem to echo the above scripture, and his definition is as follows:

Marriage is the first conjunction of man and woman for the procreation of legitimate children. (Stromata / On Marriage)

The phrase "legitimate children" recognises that marriage is more than a sexual union. It recognises that marriage is a sexual relationship with a purpose, with a sense of permanence, a sense of the approval of God and hopefully the approval of the community, and an expectation of raising children.

The second account of creation, in Genesis 2, is somewhat fuller. In speaking of man, woman and marriage, it agrees with the account from chapter 1, but puts it slightly differently:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Genesis 2:23-25)

The phrases "flesh of my flesh" and "one flesh" are similar. The first phrase would seem to denote a genetic or family kinship, the kind we are born (or created) into, over which we have no control. The second phrase refers to the marriage bond, where two live as one, and to the sexual act which both symbolises and nurtures this bond. Marriage is therefore another kind of kinship, voluntarily entered into, but just as strong as the family bond.

This is the text that Jesus refers to in their teaching on marriage and divorce (Matthew 19:3-12). It is clear Jesus regards the marriage bond as binding as the family bond. While it can be argued that both family and marriage bonds can be disrupted or severed by extraordinary circumstances, Jesus makes clear that that if one renounces a marriage out of selfishness with a view to marrying another, that God does not regard the second marriage as valid. This text is also that which Paul refers to his teaching on marriage (Ephesians 5:25-33), where he emphasises the relational aspect, and in his teaching on immorality (1 Corinthians 6:9-20), where he emphasises the sexual aspect.

A marriage is a valid family unit, whether or not it produces children. Nevertheless, both God's blessing and the marriage covenant have a view to reproduction and the extension of the Kingdom of God (Genesis 1:28, Malachi 2:15).

Restoration Though Christ

While God's ideal is that his people marry as virgins, we must accept that for many new converts in New Testament times, and perhaps most new converts in our own libertine age, this will not be the case.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). While his words treat the matter seriously, it seems that the purity of marriage is not to be enforced in the manner it was in the Old Testament. If it were to be enforced, then not only would adulterers be executed, but rape victims would have to marry those who molested them, or else remain single (Deuteronomy 22:29).

The restoration of sexual purity, through Christ, is alluded to in the Old Testament itself. Israel had been spiritually unfaithful, but God said:

I have drawn you with loving-kindness. I will build you up again and you will be rebuilt, O Virgin Israel. (Jeremiah 31:3-4)

We all fall short of God's ideal (it is called sin) and many fall short in the sexual area of their lives. In the New Testament the remedy is Christ, appropriated through repentance, faith and baptism. It is clear that, at baptism, one is cleansed from the sins of the body (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Hebrews 10:22). And even after baptism, sexual sin can be forgiven where there is genuine repentance (Revelation 2:20-22, Psalm 51). However repentance must be in deed, and not just in word, and baptism washes away sins but does not wash away our responsibility to others (Luke 3: 7-8,19:8).

Pastoral Implications

Well, how do I think the church should apply this understanding of marriage in a European culture as we enter the third millennium?

When a person becomes a christian, the blood of Christ cleanses them from every stain of their sexual past. This includes not only what we refer to as pre-marital sex, but to divorce as well, even where they have been the unfaithful partner. For in both situations, a sexual bond has been established and later broken. Jesus refers to both scenarios with the one Greek word "porneia", which we translate as "sexual immorality" (Mark 7:21), or "adultery" (Mark 10:19).

However in both cases the church has to ask whether once sins are forgiven, whether obligations remain.

Divorce

Let us first look at the question of divorce, as it is the area of application that has received the most attention.

In the case of a new convert who was the innocent party in a divorce (ie. where it was their partner who was unfaithful), most teachers today would accept that they are permitted to remarry. There was some confusion in the early church over what appeared to them as a discrepancy in Jesus teaching on divorce when comparing Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 with Mark 10:11. My view is simply that Mark is typically briefer. At any rate, the teachers of greatest substance in the early church, among them Clement, Tertullian and Augustine, regarded the "exception clause", in which unfaithfulness is given as a ground for divorce, as Jesus' words. It is not clear that they understood Jesus to permit remarriage. Luther and the reformers, however, had no difficulty in seeing Jesus words as permitting remarriage for the innocent party. In this they concur with the Jewish Hillel school of thought with whom Jesus, in responding to the question from the Pharisees in Matthew 19, also seems to be in agreement.

If the innocent party is permitted remarriage, this does not mean that they should rush to do so. They first need to forgive their former partners, and should first seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to whether the marriage is truly finished, or whether they should attempt reconciliation.

In the case where the new convert has been the unfaithful one, he¹ must be prepared to consider reconciliation with his former partner, whether she is a believer or not. A divorce certificate is not to be considered fait-accompli. It does not in this circumstance have any standing with God (Matthew 5:32-33). What does count is repentance (John 4:16-18). However, if his former partner is not interested in reconciliation, then the marriage is finished and he, washed from his sins and born-again, is free to find another.

This leaves the case of mature christians who divorce. If we are to do justice to Jesus teaching, we must do everything to discourage divorce, except where there has been unfaithfulness. Even then, the guilty party should be encouraged to repent, and the innocent party to forgive.

Abandonment is another legitimate ground for divorce, because after a certain time it can be considered akin to unfaithfulness. A christian who has sought to save their marriage, and has then been left by their christian partner, has the right, once all hope of reconciliation is lost, to find someone else.

The partner who has done the leaving is however in a much more difficult situation. While there are undoubtedly some very unhappy situations which I do not wish to judge, for the most part people leave their partners because they believe they can be happier if they find someone new. This selfishness must be called sin, and must not be rewarded by remarriage, at least not while the innocent party is still alone, and desiring reconciliation.

De-Facto Relationships

If a new convert is living in a de-facto relationship, I do not think that he (or she) should be automatically instructed to separate. I know this is contrary to the practice of some churches, but the boundary between de-facto relationships is blurred, and each case requires wisdom from the Holy Spirit.

The wishes of the partner of the new convert should be taken into account (1 Corinthians 7:12-15). If she (or he) wants to remain in the relationship, then she must accept that her partner now has obligations to God as well as to her. She must be willing for the union to publicly receive God's blessing at a marriage ceremony - otherwise the relationship is untenable. If on the other hand she wishes to leave, the new convert has no further obligation, and is free to marry another, provided that she shares his new faith (1 Corinthians 7:39).

Pre-Marital Sex

To complete this essay, I will return to my starting point, and put forward a christian model for dealing with "pre-marital sex".

In the case of new converts, our main concern is with de-facto relationships, and I have covered this in the above section. In the case of young men and women within the church who fall into pre-marital sex, we need them to understand that it is playing with the real thing. It is damaging to the marriage commitment they will one day make. For this reason, if they are already old enough to marry, and their parents and church consider them compatible, they should consider whether that is the best option. In other cultures today, particularly those where parents are central to the selection of partners, there would be an obligation to marry similar to that in the Old Testament. While this does not mean it is the right decision in every case, it does indicate time-tested wisdom that is generally believed to be in the interests of the community and the individuals concerned.

Therefore, if the couple desire a future together, and if they are of legal age (16, see section below), and if they have the blessing of their families and church, then let them marry, or plan to marry in a year or so if a delay would help.

On the other hand, if they do not desire a future together, let them acknowledge their failure to each other and to their parents or pastor. We should not view them as bound by divine law to one another, for without approval from their families and pastor, it is difficult to see how their union has God's blessing. Instead, they should be allowed to find God's forgiveness. The period in their lives when young people are coming to terms with sexual desires is the same period in which many are forming their views of life. It is the period during which many, though raised in a christian family, affirm the faith for themselves. Their situation is not that different from that of new converts. For some it may be appropriate, if they have not already been baptised, to seek this prior to marriage to a third party. The power of baptism to wash the body clean through the blood of Christ is under-estimated.

Sex Education and Other Practical Advice

The foundation of christian sex education is to teach children why pre-marital sex is wrong, as discussed above. Having laid that foundation above, I now move on to a broader range of considerations.

We can no longer expect society to strongly link marriage and sex. Much of society has come to view sex as, at best, a fulfilling of physical and emotional needs (a true but incomplete view), or at worst, mere recreation. Society tells children that "safe sex" means precautions to prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In the past, society recognised STD's as an indicator that the order of creation was being violated, but modern medicine has allowed society to blind itself to this, much as the invention of the contraceptive pill (which I am not opposed to) has blinded society to the natural link between sex and blessings and responsibilities of parenthood.

However, christian education that focuses on STD's is misguided. An approach like that of the organisation "True Love Waits" is excellent, focusing on the blessings of remaining faithful to God's design. I like the name of that organisation, because it is a theme repeated over and over in the Song of Songs (2:7, 3:5, 8:4). Likewise, Jacob waited seven years for Rachel, but "they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her" (Genesis 29:20).

Peer pressure is of course enormous. A strong antidote to this is to ensure that the majority of their peers are from christian families. While I have mixed feelings about christian schools as we currently know them, I recognise their value in this regard. I know there is playground talk in all schools, but the point is that most of the children at christian schools are "holy" (1 Corinthians 7:14). They are children of the Kingdom.

The other pressure that adolescents face is that of waiting. God made young men and women sexually mature and ready to reproduce from age 13-16, and 11-14, respectively. Yet increasingly we expect them to continue their education to the tertiary stage, not being capable of earning an income or supporting a family till they are age 20-24. To adolescents who have newly discovered their sexual drive, this must seem like an eternity. I believe in such circumstances that early marriage is an option in line with scripture (1 Corinthians 7:9) and historical practice. I believe the law in some states is wrong in setting the age for marriage (18) above the age of consent (16), and I applaud those young christian couples who have successfully challenged this at local court.

The Greatest Commandment

Jesus confirmed that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second greatest is to love one's neighbour. On these commandments "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matthew 22:40). Neither Jesus nor Paul gives us a licence to ignore God's commands. But neither wants us to be prisoners to the law. As a church let us uphold his standards, even when in the world's eyes they may seem foreign. But let us do so with Christ's compassion, in a way that promotes love of God and love of one another, a way that is life-affirming (John 10:10).

Acknowledgements:

All quotations of the scriptures, unless otherwise stated, are from the New International Version (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI, USA), 1984.

Feedback:

Some readers may wish to endorse this essay while others may have criticisms. All feedback is welcome if it is constructive. Email can be sent to: alan.marshall@tpg.com.au

Distribution:

You can print out this essay, or download other essays, from: www.alanmarshall.org

All essays on this site can be reproduced freely without permission, provided they are not altered.

¹ Wherever the male pronoun is used, it should be understood to apply equally to the females.

Other places you might want to look at: