The Biblical Marriage Covenant - our sermon this past weekend

[DaveW]

This past Shabbat our Rabbi gave this message.  I thought it might be of interest here in the Marriage Forum for discussion:

Today, I want to talk to you about the biblical marriage covenant. "Why 'biblical' marriage," you may ask? Isn't all marriage biblical?" Well, it used to be that way, but it seems not anymore, as an increasing number of states legislate "marriage" to mean things that God never intended. But that is not why I chose to speak about marriage today. The reason I did is that counseling couples toward marriage, and ministering to families after marriage (including to children), are among the most important things that happen in any Messianic Jewish congregation, and they are high on the priority list of what I do as Ohev's pastoral leader. The covenant of marriage is a large topic to try and do justice to in 20 or so minutes, so fasten your seat belts, and here we go!

Genesis 2:18-24: "ADONAI, God, said, "It isn't good that the person should be alone. I will make for him a companion suitable for helping him." So from the ground ADONAI, God, formed every wild animal and every bird that flies in the air, and he brought them to the person to see what he would call them. Whatever the person would call each living creature, that was to be its name. So the person gave names to all the livestock, to the birds in the air and to every wild animal. But for Adam there was not found a companion suitable for helping him. Then God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the person; and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and closed up the place from which he took it with flesh. The rib which ADONAI, God, had taken from the person, he made a woman-person; and he brought her to the man-person. The man-person said, "At last! This is bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh. She is to be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." This is why a man is to leave his father and mother and stick with his wife, and they are to be one flesh."

Some translations say "man" instead of "person," and "cleave" instead of "stick," but no matter. The resulting "one flesh" makes the leaving and cleaving "covenantal" and, because it is introduced so early in Genesis, I refer to it as a "creation" covenant, to distinguish it from other covenants that were made later on. We commonly call this "creation" covenant "marriage"


Here is the whole message:  http://www.genesisobservatory.us/ohev/Documents/Messages%20-%20PDF%20Files/Biblical%20Marriage%20Covenant.pdf

Audio file:  (in case you would rather listen than read) 
It is under "Michael Rudolph" and then "The Biblical Marriage Covenant December 1, 2012"

http://www.genesisobservatory.us/ohev/Menus%20&%20Pages/Recorded%20Messages/Menu%20of%20Recorded%20Message%20Givers.html

[p.progress]

Hi Dave.

Ok. Good.

All that I would add here now is this: Many can and do call it a 'marriage covenant' rather than the/a 'creation covenant'; I would refer to it as the 'one-flesh covenant' if I were to give it a name.

To call it a 'creation covenant', is a bit ambiguous, and misses the mark I think. Seeing that there were several aspects in the Genesis narrative, I think, that would also qualify as 'creation covenant'. Which have nothing to do with the covenant God established that a men and women enter into as husband and wife.

To call it a 'marriage covenant' - as a great many teachers, preachers, pastors, authors and 'lay people' generally lean towards referring to this as, is not at all an accurate way to refer to what God created and ordained to be a covenant between a man and his wife either (wives-plural, for those who would include polygyny in this discussion). As the word marriage does not refer to what God created and "..hath joined together"; but rather what man created, and over time has evolved into a great number of distinctive  culturally specific ritualistic ceremonies...marriage ceremonies.

To call it the 'one flesh covenant' appears to me to be more suitable and accurate, in that to refer to it this way, automatically draws attention to the very heart of the matter, what God actually is saying it is; while keeping out of sight and off the front burner of one's mind, the false notion and impression, that what man has made...his traditions ("the traditions of men")...has anything really to do with IT.

That is, 'marriage' means and ONLY refers to the celebratory ceremony that came into existence and evolved among families and then communities (cultures and societies), AFTER THE FACT...that is, AFTER God himself created and established what we are to be concerned about keeping inviolate (inviolable): the one flesh covenant relationship and union between lawfully established husband and wife 'one flesh' relationships.

The confusion, ignorance or outright ignoring of the fact (by those who practice being "willingly ignorant" and who refusal to acknowledge the truth), that the word 'marriage' is not the heart or intrinsic issue at the core of this subject, is at the heart of the confusion this confusion causes. Confused?

It is recorded in Luke 18, that Christ stated the following:
"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery."

In Mark, he is recorded to have said:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

In Matthew 5, he is recorded to have said (adding an 'exception' - only though for the husband):
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

And then in Matthew 19, similar words:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

The issue or subject of discussion was not centered on the word 'marriage'. This is easily missed and then foolishly argued over, on account of failing to or alright ignoring the evidence in the scriptural record that Christ was not and does not honor the concept of marriage - that is, the festive occasion men created as a way to celebrate and  set as a landmark, or token, in a ceremonial manner, WHAT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED PREVIOUSLY...ALREADY, that is what had been established between the father of the young man and the father of the young woman.

Which was when the father of the young woman consented to willingly "give his daughter" to wife...to become the wife of the young man that requested that he might "take" her "to wife"...to become "his wife". That simple.

The festivities of the ceremony: meaning, as it is called 'marriage'...this ceremony is what man does; it is NOT what God does or establishes.

Rather, he (God) is concerned and looks to see if the essential and simple ingredients are present in order for him to do what he does: which is, to establish a "one flesh" union and covenant-relationship between the two. Two though, who are lawfully at liberty to be joined together into a 'one-flesh' relationship with one another. As for the putting on a 'marriage' (ceremony/festivities)? The ceremony and the festive celebratory occasion that is planned and carried out - put on (i.e. marriage), it is nothing but the proverbial 'icing on the cake'...NOT the 'cake' itself.

This then is why when Christ said, as in Mark 10:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and 'marry' another, committeth adultery against her." [emphasis mine of course]:

He was not defending the 'marriage' of the man, who left and deserted his first wife to 'marry' another woman. No, he was denouncing the man's motives and actions, for breaking covenant with his (first) wife.

The Lord referred ONLY to the marriage and ONLY 'honored' it, ONLY that is, in the sense of how it or when it is conducted lawfully (according to the laws of God). The fact that a 'marriage' had been conducted is an indication – may be an indication that there had ALREADY been established WHAT HE is concerned about: which is the lawful "giving" and 'taking' "to wife", a woman, whose father/guardian gave her to a man who was at liberty to "take her" as his wife.

The Lord addressed the man and his second 'marriage' ('remarriage'), calling his marriage - more so, his actions (and motives) as 'committing adultery'. Why? Because the 'marriage' in this case – his second 'marriage', was NOT honored by him (or honorable). Why? Because he had previously left his father and mother to take to wife, the one he is now guilty of treacherously departing from - that is "the wife of his young" or to say it another way, "the wife of his covenant". His second 'marriage' then, while men may respect it and officiate over its proceedings; in the eyes of the LORD, it is nothing but an activity he calls adultery – 'legal' perhaps, but adultery all the same ('legalized' adultery/treachery).

Those then that defend and refer to their 're-marriage'/'re-marriages' as honored by God, are in my opinion, foolishly suffering under a false notion, a false premise, thinking that God honors all marriages (– when it comes down to it). Because they erroneously think that due to the fact that Christ uses the term 'marriage' (as in these passages), that his use of it is an acknowledgment and endorsement of it: as if this is what he uses to establish the one-flesh husband and wife relationship. But that is a wrong conclusion and a wrong premise to be counting on before God.



One more point here.
It has been assumed as well by many (including myself years ago), that Christ was saying - but without saying it outright - that the practice before the law and the practice and provision under the law, of being able to take more than one wife at a time, was abruptly ended by him (Christ); and that it is here in these encounters with the Pharisees over the question of divorcement, that he ended it.

But where does he say so in these texts, I am compelled to ask?

It is assumed from the wording where he proclaims that whoever puts away his wife and marries another is guilty of committing adultery. But notice that something is wrong in deducing this to be the meaning and case here.

The subject matter is what here? Is the subject under discussion here about polygyny; or about putting away and divorcement ('lawful' divorce)? About divorcement. The only problem with the man marrying (taking to wife) a second woman, was NOT the fact that he did it; but rather that he treacherously treated his first wife...casting her away - putting her away...divorcing her; SO THAT he enjoy his second wife without the 'baggage' his first wife represented to him. He 'traded' her in for 'a newer model', so to speak. That act and the motives behind his actions, constituted the sin and iniquity of adultery.

But what if he had NOT divorced her and put her away? What if instead he kept her faithfully as his wife, the wife of his youth, lovingly providing for her all that he had in the past; while at the same time, chose to take to him a second wife as well? Is that condemned in scripture anywhere...anywhere at all?

Advantageous? Not to me in most cases I'd say. But the issue is not whether (or not) this is in many or all cases a wise decision; but rather whether or not the taking of a second wife constitutes a transgression against the law and will of God. That is the question here - to me at least.


Think about it:

How many times do you suppose a man from another country has come to the USA or another western country and visits a church, and comes across this scene (below) - not often if ever at all. But let me go on:

"Hi I'm John, this is Jill my wife. My children Dora, Don and Dean (Don and Dean are from Jill's previous 'marriage'). "

"Hello. I'm Klocuuza. These are my wives, Yuuone and Dezzial."

"What?!!! You can't have two wives! That's adultery!"

"Why you say this my brother? Where do the scriptures say this to you?"

"Matthew 19."

"But you have two wives, do you not? You say these two children are from this wife. Is this one not from your other wife?"

"NO, no! We these are from my wife's first...former husband. She divorced him years ago. We are married now."

"Wait! God does not condemn me for having two wives...I did not get rid of the first one to marry another one. That, that is what Christ condemned in Matthew - not taking two wives. We are to keep the first one too, not divorce her! That would be wrong, that IS wrong - it is treachery. But you took the wife of another man? Is he dead? If not, you are the adulterer, not me or other men like myself." 

Let us see what is said to this.


p.p.



P.S. I am not advocating this. It is though not something I can find to be sinful.   

[+Lily+]

Thanks for posting this. I remember you asked me to read it.