Presented here are a number of marriage pictures that appear in Scripture. These pictures provide important insights into God’s expectations for the relationship between Himself and His people, and also regarding eschatological events described using wedding or marriage imagery. These various pictures are provided as reference for those who have interest in these studies. One can easily scroll to the specific marriage images of interest.
Edenic Marriage as a Redemptive Picture
In our creation posts, it was established that the Bible moves from creation (Genesis 1) to new creation (Revelation 21) in which creation is a picture of redemption. In our Eden posts, it was further established that the Bible moves from Eden (Revelation 2) to a new Eden (Revelation 22) in which Eden is a further picture of redemption.
Within the Eden narrative is the creation of woman and her relation to man. Her presentation models a marriage. When one turns to Revelation, we find that that the redeemed community, envisioned as the new Jerusalem are described as a bride:
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
The appearance of the bride coming down from heaven marks the end of God’s eschatological plan, penned with the words:
3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
That the redeemed covenant-community is described as a bride expresses the unique relationship realized in the eschaton. It supports that marriage is also a redemptive picture. It’s presentation with new creation and new Eden also reveals marriage has strong bearing upon eschatology, making its study important.
But marriage is a complex, multi-faceted picture the requires knowledge of biblical history and custom. Many historical customs are employed in eschatological descriptions of our age. Scripture widely applies the picture of Israel’s relation to God as an unfaithful wife or bride due to her idolatry. Included in this eschatological picture is divorce, revealing meaning beyond simple marriage contractual obligations. It suggests marriage relations and obligations are a living testimony of God’s redemptive love for His people.
Given the difficultly, breadth and implications, this post will examine a variety of Biblical marriage pictures, their symbolism and eschatological New Testament implications. The “thorny” question of divorce and its relevance to eschatology and Christian marriage will be examined in the post to follow.
Marriage a Special and Sacred Relationship
Marriage was understood by the Ancients to be a sacred relationship built upon holiness between two people. Hints are found in the Hebrew word for marriage:
The Hebrew word for marriage, Kiddushin (“sanctification”) expresses its special sanctity. Marriage is not only a sacred relationship, but the sacred relationship. [1]
Its introduction in Genesis seems almost out of place. With free will extended and the probationary test established, the author abruptly moves to discuss what seems to be an unrelated topic in Genesis 2:
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 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.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
It seems an abrupt change of topic but this insertion is not unrelated, as coming judgments upon both the man and woman reveal. That it was not good for man to be alone, that his relationship with the animals was insufficient, that his relationship with God was insufficient, hints at a far greater meaning.
This special relationship seems to allow man to be uniquely fruitful (he cannot fill the earth without Eve). Yet a special relationship is not required for fruitfulness (note the same blessing of fruitfulness with other lifeforms), pointing toward more important truths associated with marriage.
Though no explicit mention of marriage or a marriage covenant is presented, the phrase “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” is universally understood to be the basis of marriage. This belief follows the words of Christ who applied it to marriage (Matthew 19:5-6; Mark 10:8; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31). Thus, by the time of Christ the creation of Eve came to be viewed as a picture of marriage.
Marriage Allusions and Their Symbolism
The garden-narrative begins with a recognition that something was lacking. Despite creation being spoken of seven times as good in Genesis 1, we are now told there is something that is not good. It is not good for man to be alone. Creation is yet incomplete. Man needed a companion. God brought before Adam all the animals but “no suitable helper was found.” Suitable here indicates corresponding or complementary:
When he had made Adam, God resolved to provide “a helper fit for him” (ēzer kenegdô, Genesis 2:18, 20, lit. “a helper as in front of him”, i.e. “a helper corresponding to him”), so he caused him to sleep and, taking one of his ribs, sēlā, a word normally meaning “to build” into a woman (leiššâ). [2]
The compound prepositional phrase “matching him,” נזגנכ, literally, “like opposite him” is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. [3]
Though naming the animals, Adam could not find community and companionship with them. It is unsurprising given none of the animals was created in the image of God nor invested with the breath of God. Man requires a suitable companion similarly in God’s image and invested with His breath.
The Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. [4] During the sleep, a rib was removed and used to build the woman. This sleep seems ordered of God, Hooke noting the significance in Hebrew for sleep:
. . . since the man recognizes none of these as suitable for this purpose Jahveh causes a magic sleep (the Hebrew word tardēmah indicates a supernatural sleep; cf. Genesis 15:12), to overwhelm the man, and takes out a “rib” (the Hebrew word also means “side”) and “builds” it into a woman. [5]
They are declared “one flesh”. Then follows another unexpected insertion, that “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame”. This insertion brings the narrative of Eve’s creation to a close and seems designed to heighten the reader’s interest. The statement seems to anticipate coming changes, changes that will be relevant to the reader. Their initial state of nakedness is not explained. However, that they felt no shame in their initial state points toward a coming deeper meaning. Why were they unclothed initially? And how did men come to be clothed? These questions await an answer at the end of the Genesis garden-narrative.
Perhaps most surprising is the declaration that “they become one flesh”. This declaration is also left unexplained. How do two different beings, both physical, both of flesh become one flesh? They share a rib, giving them physical, bodily commonality. But to claim that they are one flesh seems mysterious. Will their children similarly be considered one flesh? The narrative chooses not to answer these questions. Yet, like their initial state of nakedness, the mystery of becoming one flesh also seems designed to portend coming changes. With the prior command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the astute reader is pointed toward relational changes that seem in some way tied to this mysterious tree from which they are forbidden to eat.
All these pointers suggest significant symbolism in the text. That creation is incomplete without the woman, that she is complimentary, that they are naked yet unashamed, that they are not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and that they become one flesh all heighten the reader’s interest. What does all of this mean? What happens next in their unique relationship? How will the coming events impact our present standing today? In light of these narrative uncertainties, a search for symbolism seems sensible.
Adam’s Rib
There are considerable writings about the rib, much in allegorical terms enforcing the idea of the equality of man and woman and their appointed destiny to walk side by side. This idea seems inherent in the term woman, meaning from the man. Walke argues:
Significantly, before God gave Adam His most precious gift, the woman, the man must first show his ability to rule by naming the other creatures. But, then, in one of the most instructive insights into the mind of man before the fall, Adam named her after himself. He was “ish”; she would be “ishshāh,” the feminine form of “ish”; that is to say she is my equal. He was her lord, but he recognized her as his equal. What a perfect blending of leadership and love in the first husband. [6]
While much scholarly work emphasizes naming as exercising dominion, naming may also point to covenant relationship. Dominion in Scripture seems to define relationship and responsibility between parties. One has responsibility for the other, and responsibility defines relationship.
In a covenant, the terms define the responsibilities of each of the parties entering that covenant. In Scripture, dominion defines cooperative relationships, with the two parties working together seamlessly to accomplish a task. [7] Adam declares that woman is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
This declaration infers closeness beyond blood relations to flesh and bone. This idea is further developed in the narrator’s words “they shall become one flesh” suggesting that God views the pair as one being – no longer two. The narrator refers to the oneness using the words “united” and “wife,” emphasizing the unique relationship between the two while also showing God’s ultimate purpose in companionship is realized in the marriage covenant.
In creation of woman, God took a rib, Hebrew צלע tsela`, from the man and fashioned woman. Though translated rib in the garden-narrative, elsewhere it is more generally translated in the AV “side” or “chamber”. It is occasionally translated board, plank, or beam.
It is used in Exodus 12:12, 14 to describe the sides of the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of God’s covenant-law with men. It is also one of the words used to describe the sides of the tabernacle, thus defining the boundaries of the tabernacle, separating the chambers within the tabernacle. [8] It was also used to describe the sides of the Holy Place of the Tabernacle as well as the sides of the altar of burnt offering. Ezekiel used this word to describe the chambers of the new Temple:
5 Then he measured the wall of the temple; it was six cubits thick, and each side room around the temple was four cubits wide. 6 The side rooms were on three levels, one above another, thirty on each level. There were ledges all around the wall of the temple to serve as supports for the side rooms, so that the supports were not inserted into the wall of the temple. 7 The side rooms all around the temple were wider at each successive level. The structure surrounding the temple was built in ascending stages, so that the rooms widened as one went upward. A stairway went up from the lowest floor to the top floor through the middle floor. 8 I saw that the temple had a raised base all around it, forming the foundation of the side rooms. It was the length of the rod, six long cubits. 9 The outer wall of the side rooms was five cubits thick. The open area between the side rooms of the temple 10 and the priests’ rooms was twenty cubits wide all around the temple. 11 There were entrances to the side rooms from the open area, one on the north and another on the south; and the base adjoining the open area was five cubits wide all around. Ezekiel 41 (Emphasis mine)
The use of tsela` in Ezekiel 41 may emphasize the location of these chambers as “side” chambers though little is known of their architectural use. The presence of these terms in the temple parallels the “rib” of Adam’s side and the “side” chambers of Ezekiel’s restored temple. It hints that the creation of woman may symbolize the creation of a temple, an important outcome given that the New Testament temple is the church.
Adam’s Rib a Symbol of the Last Adam’s (Christ’s) Side
God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep and took a rib to construct Eve. John describes blood and water flowing from the side of Jesus after being pierced in death on the cross by a Roman soldier (John 19:34). Some have seen a parallel in Adam’s deep sleep and the death of Jesus Christ:
The earliest foreshadowing of the Lord’s death seems to be given in the deep sleep that God caused to fall upon Adam when He formed or builded Eve. We know from Ephesians 5 that this is a picture of Christ and the Church, and it was through the deep sleep of Christ that the Church could be builded up. [9]
Upon the first Adam, God brought the sleep of insensibility. Adam’s side was wounded while he was yet in innocence, flesh and bone being taken for the physical creation of the first bride. Finally, Adam awakened to behold his bride in all her perfection. In the fullness of time God would bring upon the last Adam the sleep of death, whereupon his side would be wounded, blood and water issuing for the spiritual creation of the church, the blood for the bride’s purchase, the water for her purification (John 19:34). Christ, as the last Adam, awakened in resurrection to behold his bride in all her perfection. [10]
John seems focused upon the piercing of Jesus’ side (it may allude to Zechariah 12:10). Allusions to blood and water include Leviticus 14:6, 51-52, Ezekiel 16:9; Hebrews 9:19; 1 John 5:6,8. [11] A number of authors have written on the medical viability of water and blood flowing from a fresh corpse.
It seems best however, to focus upon what John intended to communicate with the inclusion of that detail. John 19:36-37 confirms that the piercing of Jesus’ side, together with his unbroken legs, were to serve as testimony of the fulfillment of prophecy.
In documenting the piercing of Jesus’ side, John chose the Greek word πλευρα pleura. The LXX translates the Hebrew word tsela` in Ezekiel 41:5-9 using the Greek word pleura, possibly linking the side chamber of the temple to Christ’s pierced side. The LXX also translates rib – tsela` with pleura. It supports that creation of woman is linked with creation of God’s new and final temple, the church, whose origin may be found in the pierced side of Christ.
For This Reason Shall a Man Leave his Father and Mother
Despite the scriptural call for a man to leave father and mother, ancient practice suggests the man leaving his father and mother was exceptional. In antiquity, it was the woman who typically left her home to be joined to her husband (e.g. Rebekah and Isaac in Genesis 24:3-58). [12] It makes the declaration of Adam’s marriage surprising. There is little reason to believe that the garden-narrative is not of ancient origin. If so, why was this practice not found predominantly among God’s people? It would seem that ancient practice established the woman leaving her family and thus, the tradition of the garden-narrative stands out, introducing a new concept that was not traditionally embraced.
Symbolism of “For This Reason Shall a Man Leave his Father and Mother”
The pronouncement that man would leave father and mother and be joined to his wife seems unique to the Ancients. Though uncustomary, Jesus directly appealed to this garden-narrative quote to correct another traditional custom, divorce.
The Pharisees sought to trap Jesus, perhaps to divide his supporters, with a question that may have been designed to force Jesus to choose between the positions established by Rabbis Shammai and Hillel. Though the arguments are presented in differing forms in Matthew 19 vs Mark 10, Jesus makes clear that the Mosaic allowance for divorce was “because your hearts were hard”.
In quoting Genesis 2:24, Jesus makes the point that God’s perfect will had been that the two become one flesh and not divorce. Mosaic law provided a capitulation given the sinful state of Israel’s heart. Jesus’ followers already experience a heart of flesh, not stone, and thus the expectation is that they comply with God’s perfect will. [13]
With the realization of the kingdom and the restoration of Eden, what governs divorce is no longer Sinaic law or Mosaic authority but God’s perfect will originally expressed in the direct words in the garden, “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two become one flesh”.
The man leaves or forsakes his father and mother, is united or “stuck” to his wife. [14] Christ adds “what God has joined together, let no one separate”. These words are reminders that the union is not a vehicle for procreation or rearing offspring, but serves a higher purpose, a union ordained by God.
Christ does not directly delve into the meaning of “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother”, but his response to the Pharisees clearly links “leaving father and mother” and “united to his wife,” with “the two will become one flesh”. Paul however, is explicit in his citation, stating, “this is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:32).
Paul’s words point to two realities. First, the fulfillment of “for this reason will a man leave his father and mother” is found in Christ, who willingly left his Father in heaven to cleave to His people. That Christ left heaven, choosing to make his home on earth with us likely explains why Ancient Near Eastern marriage tradition didn’t align with God’s intended purpose. It points to the uniqueness of the choice Christ made. Second, it points to a spiritual union and spiritual oneness that rightly could have been symbolically foreshadowed in the concept of “one flesh”.
The implications of Paul’s words should not be missed. The union between Christ and His people is binding, which explains why Christ argued against divorce “for any and every reason” (Matthew 19:3), correcting the Pharisees with the retort, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality and marries another woman commits adultery” (vs 9).
While Christ chooses not to elaborate concerning the exception of sexual immorality, it is clear that the bond between husband and wife is not to be broken without due cause, and that cause appears quite exceptional. The exception is of sufficient import to be treated separately. [15] For our purposes, a husband should have the expectation that he will forsake all others, and cleave to his wife for life, as the union is from God.
The Betrothal and its Significance
Before the wedding, ancient marriages traditionally had a betrothal, typically celebrated in the home of the bride’s family. [16] The betrothal period typically lasted for about one year and had strong legal obligations:
In the Near East betrothal (Talmudic ‘ērûsîn and qiddûšîn) is almost as binding as marriage itself. In the Bible the betrothed woman was sometimes called “wife” and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Genesis 29:21; Deuteronomy 22:23-24; Matthew 1:18, 20), and the betrothed man was called “husband” (Joel 1:8; Matthew 1:19). [17]
The betrothal was accompanied by a celebration at the bride’s home. Hosea 2 compares the new covenant between God and His people with a betrothal. Hosea’s description implies Eden restored:
16 “In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ 17 I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. 18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. 19 I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. 20 I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord. 21 “In that day I will respond,” declares the Lord—“I will respond to the skies, and they will respond to the earth; 22 and the earth will respond to the grain, the new wine and oil, and they will respond to Jezreel. 23 I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’”
The passage is filled with imagery. The relationship between God and Israel changes, symbolized by the change in name from “my master” to “my husband,” suggestive restored covenantal relationship. There seems to be a pun present in the passage that emphasizes how dramatic this change is:
Hosea was the first biblical prophet to have explicitly and systematically compared human marriage to the relationship between God and Israel. God commands Hosea to marry a prostitute, bear children with her, and then send her away, thus reenacting the tumultuous relationship between God and Israel: God “married” Israel by means of the covenant, Israel was unfaithful to this covenant by means of her “whoring”, and God sent her away. In later, happier, days, God will return to His people, “And in that day, declares the Lord, you will call [Me] Ishi, and no more will you call me Baali” (Hosea 2:18). The verse is a beautiful pun, for the word “Baal” can mean the (false) god Baal, husband, and master. Not only does it imply that Israel will abandon Baal for the true God, but also that Israel and God will live in a kind of marital intimacy in which God is no longer her “master”. [18]
God’s relationship with His people is framed as a marital covenant or betrothal. God betroths Israel to Himself in “righteousness and justice”, marked by “love and compassion. Love is in evidence where there is compliance with His covenant, described in the words compassion, justice and righteousness.
Israel is also betrothed to God in faithfulness, which stands in contrast to her unfaithfulness, described by the Baals being currently upon her lips. Israel’s covenantal fidelity is thus envisioned in terms of marital fidelity. [19] The pairing of words husband with betrothal supports that betrothal shares the same covenantal obligations as marriage.
Restoration is seen in blessings where all creation will produce its bounty, prior withheld in judgment. This bounty may be emblematic of God’s covenantal responsibility to provide for His wife, a responsibility also set aside when He writes a bill of divorcement (Hosea 2:8-9). Restoration comes with a new covenant that brings Israel’s purification and repentance.
Hosea also links God’s restoration with Israel’s re-establishment in the land. The use of “Jezreel”, which means “God plants” shows God’s self-imposed covenantal obligations to make the land fruitful (promise of grain, new wine and oil) and Israel fruitful in the land (“I will plant her for myself in the land”).
The restoration of the land and replanting of God’s people signals the curse judgments have been completed in full and Israel has been fully restored. The passage closes with Israel receiving a new name, an act often accompanying the establishment of a covenant.
The new name also brings us back to the Garden of Eden. The new name given Israel parallels the name Adam gave to His bride. As Israel is God’s people, Eve is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. There is an inference in this new name of Israel’s true and final submission to God.
The act of changing Israel’s name from Lo-Ruhamah (not my loved one) to Lo-Ammi (You are my people) followed by the declaration “You are my God” brings Israel into true covenant relationship with God, fulfilling her obligations to subordinate her will to God’s in marital oneness. It suggests that the relationship between Israel and God changes with the consummation of a new covenant. Israel has been purified and perfected and is now a suitable marriage companion to dwell with God.
The Betrothal – Implications
Perhaps the best example of New Testament betrothal is given by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:
2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
The word “promised” used here in the NIV is ἁρμόζω harmozō, meaning betrothed or espoused. In selecting this word, Paul emphasizes that while contractually in covenant with Christ, that contract can be broken by the failure of the Corinthians to maintain purity and hold fast to the teachings of Christ. It supports that Paul envisioned Christian marriage as indicative of the relationship of the church to Christ.
Reference to Eve’s deception in the garden aligns with Christ’s position regarding marriage as an institution established by God in the garden in which it was intended that both parties would be faithful and thus there would be fidelity and purity in the relationship.
Paul’s concern is clear. The Corinthians are being deceived by false teachers who are advancing a gospel different from the gospel of Christ he presented to them. That he envisions them betrothed carries the idea that Paul, like a spiritual parent, [20] has pledged the Corinthians to Christ in marriage and deeply desires they maintain spiritual purity (envisioned as virginity) for their husband, Jesus Christ.
The NIV loses the force of Paul’s words, “I have espoused you to one husband”. One husband points toward avoidance of idolatry as the measure of true purity. The false gospel being advanced by Paul’s opponents represents a false and thus idolatrous belief. Paul’s counsel shows marriage is a picture of how the relationship between the church and Christ.
The Blessing
A blessing on the bride and groom often accompanied the betrothal and wedding. [21] Rebekah received a blessing on her betrothal before departing for Canaan in Genesis 24:
59 So they sent their sister Rebekah on her way, along with her nurse and Abraham’s servant and his men. 60 And they blessed Rebekah and said to her, “Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands; may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.”
The blessing is prophetic. Israel would be a priestly nation and serve as judge (to possess the gates of one’s enemies signals serving as a judge). Ruth 4 presents a marital blessing accompanied by the redemption of Naomi’s property, a blessing that accompanied her planned marriage:
9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from the town records. Today you are witnesses!” 11 Then the elders and all those at the gate said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you have standing in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem. 12 Through the offspring the Lord gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.”
Ruth’s progeny are blessed with fame in Bethlehem. Ruth is later mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus, whose birth was in Bethlehem, showing the fulfillment of the blessing.
The Blessing – Symbolism and Implications
Perhaps the clearest example of a New Testament wedding blessing is found in Revelation 19:
9 Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’ ”[22]
That this is a wedding blessing is clear from the preceding announcement “the wedding of the Lamb has come” (vs 7b). The blessing is brief and lacking detail. That it follows a series of judgments upon wicked men, the destruction of the Babylon, the kingdoms of this world, the Antichrist and false prophet, puts the blessing in perspective.
Though the picture is of those invited rather than the bride, it is likely a parallel picture of the redeemed. [23] Those who gain entrance into the wedding supper have gained entrance into the kingdom of God, and have thus gained eternal life. [24] John wishes to emphasize the importance of being part of the great victory-celebration of God and His Christ, consistent with his message throughout his Apocalypse.
The invitation is followed by a vision of Christ as the heavenly warrior striking down the nations, enhancing the contrast between those invited and those excluded. Those excluded are invited to a different banquet setting, one in which carrion are invited to feast upon the flesh of those destroyed by Christ and His army.
A detailing of the promised wedding blessing is unnecessary as it points unmistakably to the blessing given to Abraham and His seed (Galatians 3:8-9, 14). The promise that all the nations of the world would be blessed through Abraham’s seed is now seen fulfilled in Christ, with His followers restored to a better paradise from which there is no falling.
Earlier Old Testament wedding blessings are now seen as foreshadowing this final blessing. True fruitfulness is seen as spiritual fruitfulness, to be enjoyed for an eternal Sabbath by His faithful servants who labored for a spiritual harvest in the field of the world. The contrast with those who were spiritually unfruitful is dramatic, with the unfruitful spending eternity tormented in hell without rest. This final blessing emphasizes the true spiritual meaning that the Old Testament martial blessings only foreshadowed.
The Wedding Garments
With marriage, no ceremony is recorded. Neither Adam or Eve is presented as having wedding apparel. Rather, they are described as naked, symbolic of their innocence in the garden. [25] Neither had fallen into sin, so neither required a covering. After the fall, nakedness was associated with shame and unpreparedness (Genesis 9:21-23; Isaiah 20:4; 47:3; Jeremiah 49:10; Habakkuk 2:16).
Post-fall, wedding attire took on symbolism in Judaism and pagan cultures. The bride was typically dressed in linen and arrayed in jewels. [26] Psalms 45 speaks of a near eastern wedding involving a wedding chamber and wedding dress. The passage describes a royal wedding between a king and his bride:
13 All glorious is the princess within her chamber; her gown is interwoven with gold. 14 In embroidered garments she is led to the king; her virgin companions follow her and are brought to you. 15 They are led in with joy and gladness; they enter the palace of the king.
Ezekiel 16 describes God’s people using bridal imagery with wedding attire presented in vss 10-13:
8 ” ‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine.9 ” ‘I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. 11 I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, 12 and I put a ri ng on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil.
There is significant symbolism in the materials listed in her garments. Fine linen was typical of priestly vestments (Exodus 28:5-8; 28:15; 28:39-42; 39:2-8; 39: 24-29; Leviticus 6:10; 16:4; 16:23; 16:32; 1 Samuel 2:18; 22:18; 2 Samuel 6:14; 1 Chronicles 15:27; 2 Chronicles 5:12; Ezekiel 9:2-3; 9:11; 10:6-7; Ezekiel 44:17-18; Daniel 10:5; 12:6-7; Revelation 15:6) [27] and was widely used in the construction of the tabernacle and temple, the place where priestly service was conducted (Exodus 26:1; 26:31; 26:31; 27:16; 27:18; 36:8; 36:35-37; 38:9; 38:16-18; 2 Chronicles 3:14).
Embroidered work, often found in wedding attire, also seems emblematic of priestly service. [28] Linen was considered valuable, often offered as a gift (Genesis 41:42; Exodus 25:4; 35:6; 35:23-25; 1 Kings 10:28; 2 Chronicles 1:16; Esther 1:6; 8:15; Proverbs 31:24; Isaiah 3:18-23; Ezekiel 16:10-13; Ezekiel 27:7; 27:16; Luke 16:19; Revelation 18:12; 18:16). [29]
White linen was worn by the priests on the Day of Atonement, likely emblematic of the purity of the High Priest. Isaiah 61:10 supports that white linen signified purity, describing the bride’s garment as salvation and righteousness, adding that the bride will be decked in jewels and ornaments (Isaiah 49:18; Jeremiah 2:32).
That the bridal garments symbolized purity, yet also modeled priestly attire fits well with prior pictures. God has created man for the purpose of serving as priest over the earth. That he fails a great probative test drives the necessity for God to make provision for purity, which seems symbolized in the attire meant to cover the person who now bears guilt and shame for sin. The skins God made for Adam and His wife seem to point to the need for a covering for the shame of sin. More than that, the garments point toward Yahweh’s intention to purify His people (as priests) as part of His covenantal program of restoration.
The Wedding Garments – Implications
Consistent with John’s picture of the Parousia as a wedding, he envisions the bride in wedding garments bearing spiritual significance:
7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.” (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God’s holy people.) Revelation 19
Two things are noteworthy: First, the bride is envisioned wearing fine linen that was bright and clean (white), symbolizing her purity and second, the fine linen represents the righteous acts of God’s holy people. That the bride is envisioned in bright, clean linen points to her purity. Fine white linen was also indicative of priestly garb worn on the day of Atonement; a day set aside for purification of the congregation.
The bride’s garment stands in contrast to the clothing of the harlot Babylon, which is described as “fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls . . . such great wealth” (Revelation 18:16-17). The harlot also sports dress indicative of priestly function, though as a harlot she represents the false church, full of self-confidence and boasting (vs 7), with no purity (vss 2-3, 5).
She is wholly unrepentant, incapable of recognizing her filthiness. John’s envisionment of her destruction in a wilderness reveals her unworthiness and rejection from the kingdom, in contrast to the true bride who is blessed to enter the kingdom and enjoy the fruits and festivities of eternity.
That John envisions the fine linen to represent the righteous acts of God’s holy people is also telling. Joining the righteous acts together with their purity, calling her holy, points to the reality that righteous acts are impossible apart from holiness. The righteous actions can only proceed from a heart of holiness. That the end-time bride is envisioned wearing fine linen also stands in strong contrast to the first bride, who was envisioned as naked but unashamed.
In the final fulfillment of the antitype of the bride of Christ, though she is restored to paradise, she is not restored to a state of shamelessness. Sin brought shame to all men, requiring that God provide a covering. That God initially provided skins, points to the need for shedding of blood for remission of sins. This is where the garden-narrative leaves man.
In the final creation, we see that God not only provided a blood-sacrifice for sin through the crucifixion of Christ, but He has also invested His Spirit into His people, bringing them beyond forgiveness to purity. The provision of purity has its source in Christ and follows from John’s account that the “fine linen . . . was given her to wear”, implying that Christ has provided the wedding dress. It removes any doubt that the righteous acts have their source in us, or that our righteous acts somehow are credited to us. To the contrary, their source is Christ, without whose transformative Spirit, the church’s righteousness would rise no higher than that of the harlot Babylon.
Though it could be argued that the focus of the author of Genesis was primarily upon physical phenomena like the skins provided to Adam and his bride, it is clear that some symbolism is implied in the link between nakedness and shamelessness. That link foreshadows John’s envisionment of the ultimate theological significance of the wedding garments of the bride and the eschatological wedding.
As with so many other eschatological symbols in his writings, John employs the picture of a Near-Eastern wedding to provide spiritual insight about the Parousia of Christ and the wonderful blessings His people will share at His victorious return.
The Wedding Feast, the Wedding Party and the Wedding Processional
Near eastern weddings included a feast, a processional, bridesmaids (Psalm 45:14) and groomsmen (John 3:29). The wedding feast often lasted seven or more days. [30] The wedding of Sampson provides an example:
10 Now his father went down to see the woman. And Samson made a feast there, as was customary for bridegrooms. 11 When he appeared, he was given thirty companions. 17 She cried the whole seven days of the feast.
The wedding ceremony included a processional with the feast. The processional involved both groomsman and bridesmaids. The processional occurred on the day of the wedding ceremony at evening. Some uncertainty exists in the events surrounding the location of the wedding feast and the processional. It may be that some flexibility existed in these events depending upon the economic means of the parents or local customs: [31]
In the evening of the day fixed for the marriage the bridegroom and his friends went in procession to the bride’s house. The wedding supper could be held there: sometimes circumstances compelled this (Genesis 29:22; Judges 14), but it may have been fairly common, since the parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13 is most easily interpreted of the bridegroom going to the bride’s house for the supper.
One would, however, expect that more usually the bridegroom escorted the bride back to his own or his parents’ home for the supper, though the only references to this in Scripture are in Psalms 45:14f.; Matthew 22:1-14 (royal weddings), and probably John 2:9f. [32]
When “all things [were] now ready” (Luke 14:17), the groom – who had dressed in his finest (or borrowed) robes at his own home (Psalms 19:5: Isaiah 61:10) – engaged in preliminary celebrations with men friends (? “the bachelor’s dinner”) proceeded joyfully from his own quarters (Joel 2:16; cf. Jeremiah 7:34, 16:9, 25:10, 33:11); and came to the place of the wedding feasts, in the home of a friend or of his father . . . The weary attendants of the bride, some grown sleepy with waiting, went forth to meet the bridegroom when they heard he was coming. [33]
The chief ceremony was the entry of the bride into the bridegroom’s house. The bridegroom, wearing a diadem (Canticles 3:11; Isaiah 61:10) and accompanied by his friends with tambourines and a band (1 M 9:39), proceeded to the bride’s house. She was richly dressed and adorned with jewels (Psalms 45:14-15; Isaiah 61:10), but she wore a veil (Canticles 4:1, 3; 6:7), which she took off only in the bridal chamber. . . The bride, escorted by her companions (Psalms 45:15), was conducted to the home of the bridegroom (Psalm 45:16; cf. Genesis 24:67). Love songs were sung in praise of the bridal pair (Jeremiah 16:9), examples of which survive in Psalm 45 and in the Song of Songs, whether we interpret them literally or allegorically. [34]
Next came a great feast (Genesis 29:22; Judges 14:10; Tobit 7:14). In these three passages the feast took place at the home of the bride’s parents, but the circumstances were exceptional. As a general rule it was certainly given at the bridegroom’s house (cf. Matthew 22:2). The feast normally lasted seven days (Genesis 29:27; Judges 14:12), and could even be prolonged for two weeks (Tobit 8:20; 10:7). But the marriage was consummated on the first night (Genesis 29:23; Tobit 8:1). [35]
Though there may have been some flexibility (if not uncertainty) with the location of the marriage feast, it is generally agreed that there was a wedding feast lasting seven days with a processional between the homes of the bride’s and groom’s parents, or perhaps the groom’s home. Despite the uncertainty, the practice of a feast of seven days with a processional between the homes of the bride and groom’s parents was certainly well established and understood by the ancients.
Interesting is the feast length of seven days, a number we have prior stressed signals completion and is prevalent in both the creation and re-creation narratives. It may point symbolically to a new creation (and eschatologically to the eternal Sabbath (seventh) of rest following redemption). That Hosea 2:19 speaks of the restoration of Israel, describing the betrothal as “forever” enhances this view.
The Wedding Feast, The Wedding Party and the Wedding Processional – Implications
Though John chooses only to make mention of the readiness of the bride and the blessing on those invited to the feast, Christ employs frequent parables eschatologically in which the end is portrayed using Near-Eastern biblical wedding traditions. The tradition of the wedding feast and processional was leveraged by Jesus in a parable to describe His Parousia in Matthew 25.
In this parable, Jesus speaks of a processional of the bridegroom that is late in coming, with virgin-bridesmaids awaiting into the late-night hours. The focus of the parable was on the unexpected late arrival of the bridegroom and the need to be spiritually prepared for His late appearing.
1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4 The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ 7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’ 9 ” ‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11 “Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’ 12 “But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.’ 13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
Though the parable’s focus is upon spiritual readiness for the Lord’s Parousia, the employment of a wedding scene shows Christ’s intention to compare His coming with a great wedding feast. The feast is envisioned as a procession of the bridegroom.
We do not know if His procession is from the home of the bride’s father or from his father’s home. That information is unnecessary for the ethical teaching of spiritual preparedness. Yet it is possible a Parousia-procession is intended. Jesus is the bridegroom, having prior identified Himself in Matthew 9:15.
The ten virgins seem envisioned as bridesmaids and likely represent the saints who are entreated to readiness with a teaching that tempers near-term eschatological hopes. In Matthew 24, Jesus discusses the signs of the end of the age, climaxing with the Lord’s appearance in the sky. It is “at this time” that this parable is uttered, pointing to the Lord’s Parousia.
Despite the uncertainty in our knowledge of this Near-Eastern tradition, Jesus teaches spiritual preparedness for the Messiah’s appearing. The lengthy delay in Christ’s return results in some being unprepared for His return, pictured without oil in their lamps. Oil is often symbolic of the Holy Spirit and light or lamps symbolic of the testimony or witness of God, opening the possibility that during the unexpectedly long wait for Christ’s return, their witness for Christ became snuffed out. That witness may be represented in their righteous actions (Proverbs 13:9; Job 18:5).
The point of the parable is not found in what the oil represents, but that some of the virgins were unprepared for His late arrival. Key is their unpreparedness to light up the procession of the bridegroom at the appointed moment.
Their unpreparedness precludes participation in the wedding feast that celebrates the consummation of the kingdom of God. Suggested in the parable is an appointed time of the Messiah’s return and all His servants must diligently prepare as if it is imminent, yet realizing the possibility of delay. Their diligence is likely envisioned consistent with earlier parables as diligence in working for the kingdom.
Despite the interpretive difficulties, its message is consistent with that of John’s Apocalypse. Spiritual readiness seems envisioned by John as robed in righteous deeds in contrast to the robes of the harlot that signify spiritual unrighteousness.
Another wedding parable is found in Matthew 22. It is also eschatological in its teaching. This parable is directed to the leadership of the Jews of Jesus’ day who had rejected Him as Messiah:
1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off–one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. 13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
The timing of this parable is important. Christ’s authority had been challenged after throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. In response, Christ presented two parables that showed that His Kingdom, first offered to the Jewish community (represented in the Jewish religious leadership) would now be offered to others ahead of the Jewish nation as a result of their rejection of the Messiah. Following Christ’s recounting of these parables, Matthew records that the Chief Priests and Pharisees knew that Jesus’ parables applied to them.
At this point, Jesus relates a third parable of a wedding ceremony, comparing the Kingdom to a wedding banquet of a King’s son. The King is God the father, His son is Jesus and the wedding marks the consummation of the kingdom. Those invited who offer insulting excuses are the Jewish leadership of Jesus’ day. The servants who are mistreated are God’s prophets and likely Jesus’ disciples who attempted to ready the hearts for the important kingdom-event.
The action of the King to send “his army” to destroy “those murderers” and burn their city is prophetic, predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D. The follow-on instructions of the King to invite “anyone you find” marks the Gospel going out to the diaspora and Gentiles. The Kingdom would be extended to those willing to attend, as opposed to those first invited.
Reference to the one in attendance but lacking wedding garments points to all who would hear the invitation yet fail to spiritually prepare themselves with the appropriate wedding-clothes, again hinting at preparedness. [36] Their fate is not left in doubt. The description of darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth is a manifest picture of hell. Preparation and readiness during our probative time on earth are emphasized to ensure entrance into the kingdom at Christ’s coming.
The Unbreakable Nature of the Marriage Covenant
During patriarchal times bigamy became commonplace. There are numerous narratives that reveal that patriarchs often had multiple wives despite its violation of the Genesis 2 garden-narrative in which God created one woman specifically suited as Adam’s companion.
Scripture also reveals the one-sided nature of the practice, in which men were allowed multiple wives, but women would be considered impure and adulterers if they had more than one husband or sexual relations with more than their husband. The practice, while tolerated throughout patriarchal times, seems to have fallen into disfavor in later Judaism. [37] Scripture does not seem to encourage the practice. The narratives with multiple wives seem designed to point to needless family problems that resulted from the practice (e.g., Isaac and Jacob).
Though bigamy fell out of favor in later Judaism, divorce came into vogue. Divorce became common, where typically only men could issue a bill of divorcement. That the practice became common is surprising in light of the Adamic example. Yet divorce is found in the Sinaic covenant (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) though lacking specific grounds:
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Uncertainty in the meaning of “indecent”, עֶרְוָה `ervah, allowed later Rabbinical teachings to vary widely, bringing a more liberal interpretation among some in the religious leadership. [38] What resulted was widespread divorce for any reason. [39] The prophet Malachi indicted the people for failing God’s marital expectations in Malachi 2:
13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
Malachi makes clear the failure of the people to honor their covenantal marriage obligations without specifically defining what constitutes ervah. Yet his indictment suggests that his audience understood they routinely had “broken faith” with their spouses. There is implication the people had failed their marriage covenantal obligations detailed in Genesis 2, if not also Sinaic covenantal obligations.
While God had made an allowance for divorce, it would seem that His people had gamed the requirement, willfully choosing to understand it in a way that allowed them freedom to break the covenant with their spouses when they found another they believed would please them more. Malachi’s charge shows that God had not intended His divorce-allowance to authorize “on demand” disposal of the covenant made with the wife of their youth.
The Unbreakable Nature of the Marriage Covenant – Implications
With divorce widespread in Jesus’ day, it is no surprise He was drawn into the controversy with the religious leadership. His responses were surprising, re-baselining the significance of marriage to the garden-narrative. In so doing, he passes over Mosaic provisions, rendering them of limited relevance, if not obsoleting them in total.
Yet even Jesus’ answer is not without a measure of controversy, seen when comparing the Markan and Lukan accounts with the Matthean account. A comparison brings the differences into focus. First the Markan and Lukan accounts:
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark 10
18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Luke 16
The Matthean Account:
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19
When one examines these accounts, it is clear that Jesus views divorce and remarriage as adultery, with the possible exception of divorce that results from spousal infidelity (so Matthew). It is also clear that Jesus’ view of divorce and remarriage appears at odds with the Mosaic allowance for divorce and remarriage (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
His explanation for the Mosaic provision was an accommodation for the hardness of the hearts of God’s people. The Matthean exception for infidelity in no way changes Jesus’ view of the unbreakable nature of the marriage covenant. Whether one allows an exception for infidelity, Jesus makes clear that long prior to Mosaic law, God made them “one flesh” and that “God has joined” them “together”.
Because God has brought them together, and because they have become one flesh, no one is to separate them. Jesus’ words are truly shocking. No one is to separate them, not family, not friends, not the religious leadership, not even Moses. His words particularly indict those religious leaders who had liberalized the meaning of `ervah (indecency) to allow divorce and remarriage for any reason.
Most important, in going back to the Genesis garden-narrative as the basis for His arguments, Christ affirms that the new creation has come and with it, He has re-opened Eden. He has inaugurated it and soon the Mosaic covenant will pass into obsolescence, being replaced by a long-promised better covenant.
Particularly significant were the words used to describe the state of the covenanters, with those of the new covenant receiving “a heart of flesh” to replace the “heart of stone” of those of the Mosaic covenant (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26). Both of these scriptures point to the establishment of the new covenant in which the Spirit is placed within the covenanters, making it possible for them to honor the covenantal laws. That enablement is worth reflection:
17 “Therefore say: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.’ 18 “They will return to it and remove all its vile images and detestable idols. 19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. 21 But as for those whose hearts are devoted to their vile images and detestable idols, I will bring down on their own heads what they have done, declares the Sovereign Lord.” Ezekiel 11
24 “ ‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. Ezekiel 36
That they will follow the Lord’s decrees faithfully after receiving the new heart that comes with the new covenant is key. Their faithfulness is possible after the removal of the heart of stone (their hard-heartedness) and replacement with a heart of flesh (the new covenant and new Spirit).
It means that Israel will no longer be covenantally unfaithful, no longer the adulterous wife, but faithful and purified. The replacement of the heart of stone with a heart of flesh eliminates the hard-heartedness Jesus complained of, making the Mosaic provision no longer necessary. Those who covenant with Jesus are part of a new creation and have been given a new heart. They dwell in a new garden-paradise and in fact, already dwell with God in that the Spirit indwells them.
Hard-heartedness does not apply to them as it did with those of the old creation and thus, a divorce provision is no longer needed. This is the implication of returning to the garden-narrative for marital authority. Jesus has, in effect, proclaimed the inauguration of the new creation and its new covenant, granting God’s people the new heart they needed to maintain covenantal fidelity to God’s laws.
Inherent in this argument is that the meaning of `ervah becomes irrelevant. Could this be why there is no mention in the Old Testament of the legal grounds for divorce or legal definition of `ervah? It would explain why Jesus did not carefully define πορνεία porneia, the word commonly translated adultery in the NIV (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).
Jesus reframed the argument with a focus upon purity rather than uncleanness. As the One who brought the new covenant, Jesus has secured purity for His people, cleansing them from their uncleanness. It is not merely their adulterous lusts from which He has cleansed them but from their lustful desires of idolatry, for which adultery was symbolic. That Jesus purified His people in giving them a new heart and a new spirit, brings important implications to Christians who choose to enter into marriage as Paul succinctly states in Ephesians 5:
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
While there is much to this passage, two are worth introducing. First, Paul makes clear that our spousal-relationship is to operate as emblematic of the relationship between Christ and His people (vs 32). It means that husband and wife each have a unique role to fulfill in their marriage so that others will see the type of relationship that is to exist between the believer and Christ – both individually (vs 23) and corporately (vs 24).
Second, Paul urges husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for the church. Of particular note, Paul states that the love we are to show our wives is “to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word” (vs 26). Christlike love for our wives has the purpose to bring holiness and cleansing to them. For Paul to state this seems surprising, yet it is consistent with the words of Ezekiel who proclaimed that the new covenant would bring cleansing and purity for God’s people.
This does not mean that women or wives are somehow impure and unholy. Impurity and unholiness is resident in all. What seems envisioned by Paul is behavior from the husband that is modeled after Christ. Husbands cannot be the guarantor of a new covenant, a new spirit or a new heart. But husbands can love their wives in a pure and holy way that puts her spiritual interests ahead of all other interests.
When this type of love is in evidence, purity and cleanliness should result. The husband must behave in a way that places “winning his wife’s love” as top priority, even at the cost of his own life. Such love speaks powerfully to wives and to others, reproducing itself. If the husband evidences this Christlike love, it will similarly evidence itself in the love of his wife. This type of love will make it easy for a wife to submit to her husband as to the Lord, when she knows her best interests are her husband’s priority. Love as defined here by Paul, is the basis for the unbreakable nature of the marriage relationship.
Divorce and Remarriage
Given Israel’s abuse of Yahweh’s divorce allowance, some introductory comments are appropriate. In Judaism, if the man found something indecent or unacceptable, he could write a bill of divorcement to nullify the marriage. Most authors believe that only the man could initiate divorce while Pilkington indicates that a woman may have been able with the support of a male family member but then only with her husband’s consent. [40] Evans also believes later Judaism accommodated divorce by women. [41] Satlow believes that either party could initiate divorce proceedings. [42] It is possible differing views existed in various Jewish communities at various times.
The legitimate grounds for divorce were less clear. While Malachi’s charge seems to show the widespread acceptability of the practice, divorce was still controversial within Judaism. Controversy surrounded the word `ervah, meaning uncleanness or indecency. Rabbi Shammai interpreted this passage as limiting divorce to sexual infidelity or adultery. Rabbi Hillel interpreted ervah “for any reason”. [43]
Among scholars today, there continues to be a diversity of views regarding how Jewish people viewed divorce. Pilkington argues that marriage was not considered lifelong even from the earliest of times of Judaism,[44] claiming marriage contracts in Israel and Mesopotamia were merely civil contracts devoid of religious rites.[45] Cohick argues that Jewish marriage was intended to be lifelong, with Jewish marriage contracts typically having no provision for divorce (pagan contracts typically did have divorce provisions). Cohick however, does acknowledge one contractual example that included divorce provisions for infidelity.[46] De Vaux refers to an Elephantine marriage contract as an example that some viewed marriage as lasting till the death of one of the spouses:
The formula pronounced at marriage in the Elephantine contracts, which are made out in the name of the husband are: “She is my wife and I am her husband, from this day for ever.”[47]
The testimony of Malachi and Deuteronomy 24 suggest that divorce was not intended as a norm and its use was to be limited. Though some uncertainty seems to exist in the meaning of “uncleanness”, divorce restrictions of the priestly class point toward divorce for cases of adultery:
Members of the priestly line were subject to special restrictions. According to Leviticus 21:7, they could not take a wife who had been a prostitute, or divorced by her husband. Ezekiel 44:22 adds also widows, unless they were widows of a priest. The rule was even stricter for the high priest: he could marry only a virgin of Israel. [48]
One would expect priests to be held to higher standards of purity, which may explain the additional requirement that a priest not marry a divorced woman. It hints that divorce was intended as a remedy for adultery. The prohibition on marriage of a prostitute likely reflects their occupation as priestesses in temples practicing various fertility rites that were in effect, cult prostitution.
Yet it also points to sexual purity, which likely became a symbol of religious purity given Hosea’s testimony. The requirement on the high priest to marry only a virgin seems to anticipate religious purity needed as mediator between God and Israel. One would expect the behavior of an effective mediator to be faultless concerning matters he was to mediate.
There is a final consideration concerning the requirements for divorce with evidence found in Yahweh’s attitude toward His covenant people Israel. The prophets consistently compare Israel’s covenant of Sinai as a marriage contract from which she has been the unfaithful bride/wife (Jeremiah 2:2; Isaiah 50:1; 54:6-7; 61:10; 62:4-5; Ezekiel 16; 23; Jeremiah 2:20-25; 3:1-11; 5:11; 13:27; Hosea 4:12; 9:1; Amos 3:2; Malachi 2:14).
Warnings of judgment are consistently prophesied as Yahweh calls Himself a jealous God, a further allusion to the love underlying the (marital) covenant. Israel’s unfaithfulness becomes a major Old Testament theme. Yahweh is faithful despite Israel’s routine unfaithfulness. Israel’s unfaithfulness becomes so intolerable that God writes a bill of divorcement to Israel (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:8).
God’s example shows that divorce within the Sinaic covenant was permissible in the case of adultery as marriage became a picture of the covenant relationship between He and His people. Yet He still chose to honor His covenantal obligations to Israel, preserving a remnant that would enable her later restoration to Himself. It is His unexpected action that must be examined more deeply to understand His true attitude regarding divorce.
Divorce and Remarriage – Implications
Divorce and re-marriage is one of the thorniest of theological subjects. Much is at stake for the church in this debate and there seems at times no end to the writings on this topic. The arguments are often lengthy, complex and exegetically challenging. Presently, the Matthean exception of adultery will be examined.
Scripture has much to say regarding adultery. Job 24:15 warns against those who secretly seek it. Proverbs 6:26 warns against taking another man’s wife and Proverbs 6:32 warns that the adulterer destroys his own life. Mosaic law forbid adultery (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18) and Leviticus 20:10 required a penalty of death for both the adulterer and adulteress. [49]
With such strong prohibitions, was an exception needed? If so, why was the exception included in Matthean writings but absent from the Markan and Lukan accounts and similarly absent from the teachings of the Apostle Paul? Was there a motivation for allowing divorce for adultery, and would that exception extend to also allow remarriage?
All of these questions are vexing. Some insights may be found in Old Testament prophetic books that employed the picture of Israel’s unfaithfulness as adultery or “playing the harlot”, as these terms became ciphers for idolatry. Is there potentially significance to their use?
With regard to these questions, some have argued that the Matthean passage should be viewed as the governing passage regarding divorce. To their understanding, the Markan and Lukan passages are simply abbreviated versions of the Matthean passage in which it would have been understood by Jesus’ audience that adultery was legitimate grounds for divorce.
There are significant challenges with this position however. First, one must argue that the two Matthean passages somehow outweigh the Markan and Lukan accounts as well as the Pauline passage of 1 Corinthians 7:1-11. Also, guidance on remarriage is absent from Jesus’ teachings, notably including the Matthean passages.
Perhaps Jesus was focused upon addressing a Pharisaical question of divorce. But neither Matthew 5:31 or Luke 16:18 show dependence upon the Pharisaical question, yet each claims marriage to a divorced woman is adultery against the victim of spousal divorce.
If Matthew intended to highlight the exception for divorce, why not also for remarriage? If one is to argue a similar exception for remarriage is implied or understood, such a view is contradicted in 1 Corinthians 7:11. There is further uncertainty in Jesus’ choice of porneia, which can mean adultery, fornication or a host of other sexual sins. [50] One must then determine which of the sexual sins is legitimate legal grounds for divorce. These complexities are not easily overcome.
On the other side, some authors argue Jesus intends an absolute ban on divorce and remarriage (thus favoring the Markan, Lukan and Pauline passages). John the Baptist castigated Herod Antipas for his divorce and remarriage, and one would expect Jesus’ position to align with John’s.
Though Herod took his brother’s wife (illegal by Jewish law), Josephus tells us that in remarrying Herodias, she “parted from a living husband”. [51] Inclusion of the secondary charge suggests Herodias’ remarriage was contrary to Jewish religious law. If so, there is little reason to believe that John would not have been critical of both breaches. It reinforces the view that Jesus, as well as John, viewed divorce and remarriage in opposition to God’s design.
Among those who see an absolute ban on divorce and remarriage, it is argued that the Matthean versions have the exception clause to address Jewish-Christians, whose cultural understanding required divorce for infidelity. [52] The basis of their views is Christ’s declaration of God’s intent in creation, now restored with the advent of the kingdom of God. Divorce within this view, is a destruction of creation as God had intended and no man had authority to destroy a union God had created.
Jesus’ language seems to support this view. His antithesis between “it has been said” and “but I tell you that” sharpens the contrast between “anyone who divorces . . . must give her a certificate of divorce” and “anyone who divorces . . . commits adultery”. Jesus’ statement is more than a repudiation of the Hillite position, it gives precedence to God’s garden-marriage institution over Mosaic allowance for divorce of hard-heartedness.
For Jesus to allow divorce for adultery would substantially weaken the antithesis, reducing his position to Shammai’s view. The important issue of the arrival of the kingdom and the associated new creation would then fade from view if Jesus’ position is consistent with Shammai. Jesus’ interest is not to support either school but with promotion of the kingdom. As Hagner has noted:
In his answer to the question about divorce, Jesus appeals to the creation narrative of Genesis. The kingdom of God brought by Jesus is ultimately to involve the restoration of the perfection of the pre-fall creation, and the ethics of the kingdom as taught by Jesus reflect this fact. As God intended no divorce for the garden of Eden, so divorce is not to be allowed in the new era of the kingdom of God. [53]
The inauguration of the kingdom marks the restoration to the pre-fall standard. Jesus, in appealing to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, sets out for his disciples a standard of holiness in keeping with God’s righteous intentions for His people. The restoration of paradise and the restoration of relationship with God requires compliance with the highest ethical standards. These ethical standards anticipate the reversal of the curse of sin with Christ accomplishing what the first Adam could not.
While there is much to commend this view, there are some variant views that appear more focused upon remarriage over divorce or divorce with the apparent intention to remarry. Fee, in his exposition of 1 Corinthians, argues that Paul makes clear that Christians who are married to other Christians are to remain married. Paul “consistently rejects the notion that believers who are married may dissolve their marriages.” [54]
Though Fee sees “no divorce” as Paul’s “command”, yet Paul’s follow-on statement “but if she does”, leads Fee to the pragmatic belief that some will choose to violate the no-divorce command. In this case, he argues first that they must remain “as they are” (separated and single) or be reconciled to their spouse.[55] There is no option toward remarriage to another as this would be adultery. Rather, Fee sees reconciliation as the norm in Christian churches and expresses the importance of Christians being models of reconciliation to a broken world. [56]
Nolland, in his exposition of Luke 16:16-18 argues that the best meaning of the Lukan text may be “dismisses . . . in order to marry”. [57] With the exception of the Markan passage, which he sees focused primarily upon divorce, the Lukan and Matthean texts in his estimation could well point to premeditated divorce for remarriage. He notes the writings of Descamps in suggesting that “among the Greek Fathers the linking καί (lit. ‘and’) was often understood in a final sense [ that is as denoting purpose: so, ‘dismisses . . . in order to marry’]”. [58]
Though difficult to determine the veracity of his arguments, his claim the Lukan and Matthean passages focus upon remarriage and not divorce constituting adultery is not so far from Fee, and it brings emphasis to understanding God’s view of divorce, extensively reported in the Old Testament.
In the interim, what can we conclude from this brief overview of the words of our Lord Jesus (and Paul) concerning divorce and remarriage? We can certainly state that Jesus taught that remarriage after divorce was adultery, in which there could be culpability both upon the one remarrying and the one divorcing.
While Nolland argues for a restriction to premeditation of remarriage driving divorce from his exegesis of the Lukan passage (and Jesus’ parallel synoptic testimony), the words of Paul weigh against such a limitation. His insistence that those divorced remain divorced, testifies to a broader prohibition. Likewise, Christ’s appeal to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as governing Scripture militates against such a restriction. That the man and woman become one flesh, created by God, makes clear why no man is to separate such a union. It was a creation of God that no one was to de-create.
It can also be stated that Jesus makes clear the Mosaic provision for divorce (and consequent allowance of remarriage) was an accommodation for hard-heartedness. Thus, anyone who attempts to argue that the New Testament ethical laws and requirements should be consistent with the Old Testament, accepts a priori that hard-heartedness in the church is a reality – worse, an acceptable reality.
But in whose eyes is it acceptable? Jesus’ testimony certainly lacks any such acceptance. By contrast, Jesus appears to position Himself as the new Moses, offering a new covenant with new covenantal Torah. This “new” Torah was not new in the sense of something totally different from Mosaic law. Rather, it was new in that it represented a transformation in the meaning of Mosaic Torah, getting at the broader, true spiritual significance behind the physical laws that only foreshadowed the true covenantal laws of the new creation.
Hence, murder was not merely physical blood-violence of taking another life, but could include character assassination, a spiritual attack against the whole being. Adultery was not merely the physical act of sexual union, but could include the desire to commit adultery in one’s heart. Jesus’ higher Torah got to the key behind the sin, the desire of the heart.
If divorce was the result of hard-heartedness, then wouldn’t hard-heartedness be the true sin of divorce, and also remarriage? And if so, is this not what would need to be addressed, and in truth was addressed in the new covenant? It suggests that neither divorce, nor remarriage is acceptable to Christ, as both have a common basis in the sin of hard-heartedness.
It brings discussion back to Jesus’ use of the garden-narrative as basis for His teaching. The kingdom has come in its inauguration and with it has come the restoration of paradisal relationship with God. His new covenant has removed the heart of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh, giving His followers a new Spirit that would enable them to live faithfully.
This new heart and new Spirit would free them from their constant idolatry, described as adulterous and harlotrous. The link between adultery and idolatry points toward a better understanding of the warnings and complaints of the prophets. Similarly, Paul’s words regarding divorce “if she does” [divorce], also urge better understanding of the words of the prophets, so that we may better know the heart of God with regard to divorce.
Provisions of the Kinsman-Redeemer
Within the Sinaic covenant was a provision to serve as kinsman-redeemer to a wife whose husband was deceased without a male heir. To our modern way of thinking, the provision is quite shocking, virtually obligating the brother of the deceased to raise up a son in proxy:
5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. Deuteronomy 25
The purpose of the provision was to assure that no one’s familial line ended without a son. The provision is beautifully illustrated in the Book of Ruth, where Naomi, a Moabite widow of an Ephraimite, becomes the wife of Boaz, a near-kinsman, fulfilling his familial obligation to raise up a son in the name of Ruth’s first husband.
In the New Testament, we find Ruth’s name listed in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:5). That Scripture would dedicate an entire book to illustrating the role of the kinsman-redeemer is surprising. That Ruth’s name appears in Christ’s genealogy is also striking given genealogies were constructed predominantly with the names of men.
It points to special importance of the provision. The story also contains irony in that Ruth was a Moabite and Moabites were cursed for their unwillingness to allow the Israelites passage through their land on route to Palestine:
3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, even down to the tenth generation. Deuteronomy 23
The Book of Ruth however, portends blessing, restoration and inclusion among God’s people, even by those formerly put under curse. Matthew’s careful inclusion of Ruth’s name in his genealogy hints at eschatological significance through Christ. [59]
Provisions of the Kinsman-Redeemer – Implications
A couple provisions appear to bear on our analysis of marriage. One was the requirement that the woman without an heir not marry outside the family. The sin of Adam and Eve brought death, not just to them but to all their seed until the coming of the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15).
Everyone born of woman would die, leaving mankind without heir. Regaining a true heir for Eve would require the reversal of the curse of death. A true “heir” would require true life, and true life implies eternal life. Inherently eternal life requires spiritual life, hence why one must be born again (spiritually). True spiritual, eternal life is found only in Christ. It makes Christ the true heir, and those who are in Christ similarly become heirs with Him. They represent a restored post-fall community.
We who are born of Adam (and Eve) are estranged from God and must be restored. One of the pictures to describe that restoration is found in the provision for the kinsman-redeemer. The picture of the redeemed in Christ as His bride is well established in the New Testament.
If one applies the requirement of kinsman-redeemer to marry within the family, it establishes a picture lending insight to why God had to become man. That Christ was begotten of a virgin yet fully human makes Jesus, both fully God and fully human, establishing a “familial” link with man. That Christ was human, makes him of the “family” of man. It provides insight into why man, being of carnal, physical birth, must similarly be spiritually “born again”. It allows symmetry in the pictured “familial” relationship.
Divergence in this picture appears in raising up of an heir. It was the responsibility of the closest family member (typically a brother), to marry his brother’s wife and raise up a male heir who would then carry the name of the deceased brother. In its fulfillment, in being wed to Christ, we have raised up an heir in the name of our earthly father Adam.
With the guarantee of eternal life for Christ’s followers, an heir is raised up. An heir is not “sired” through the pictured marriage to Christ. Yet in effect, Christ as husband to His people, has directly raised up the name of the dead (Adam). Raising up the name of the dead is the language used in Ruth 4:5, 10 to describe the responsibility Boaz has accepted in agreeing to serve as kinsman-redeemer for Ruth.
Additionally, that the nearest of kin refused to fulfill his responsibilities to Naomi may indicate that our “nearest of kin”, the carnal fleshly, physical man, will not and cannot perform the role. That responsibility rests with the second-in-line, the spiritual man, a near-kinsman, but not as near as the fleshly, carnal man.
Further, Ruth was Moabite, barred from the assembly of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3), emphasizing first, man’s estrangement from God and second, the futility of his situation. Being barred even to the tenth generation shows the fullness of the curse. If that Moabite curse typifies the curse of death placed upon man after the fall, it then points to the need of God’s supernatural actions to reverse the curse and restore him into the assembly of the Lord. [60]
Creation and Marriage
A tie can be established between creation and marriage in Jewish thought based upon Isaiah 54:
Rav Shmuel bar Onia said in the name of Rav, “A woman is a golem [i.e., unformed lump] and she only makes a covenant with the one that forms her [into a] vessel, as it is written, ‘For He who made you [bo ‘alayik] will espouse you – His name is “Lord of Hosts” . . .’” [Isaiah 54:5]. [61]
It suggests some Jewish people understood God’s purposes in creation to covenant with a people He would form into a chaste bride. His election of Israel began as an unformed seed-community that He would create through separation from the world, provision of a covenant and formation into a people for the accomplishment of His purposes.
Prophetic writers envisioned His intention to dwell with His people in an intimacy that is well illustrated through marriage, seen in the traditional marriage blessing in Jewish weddings, eventually expanding to seven blessings that included creation, man fashioned in God’s image as well as God’s redemptive plan of restoration of Israel:
The final element is the reciting of the seven blessings. Praising God for the creation of all things, of Man, and of man and woman in his image, these blessings deliberately invoke the bliss of the garden of Eden. Not only the story of creation, but also the history of Israel and its future hopes are echoed. The whole ceremony is designed to sanctify the ordinary, to transform this particular couple as their love embodies God’s creation, revelation, and redemption in the here and now. [62]
That the blessings tie back to Eden maintains the eschatological hope of Eden-restored, yet also links to creation. Notably, there is awareness that the path from the first to final Eden requires sanctification of God’s covenant-community, symbolized in marriage of the two.
Marriage was to be conducted so that it pointed to fidelity of covenant relationship while also evidencing sanctification needed for restoration. The inclusion of God’s restoration of Israel confirms an awareness of Israel’s covenantal failures that extend back to Sinai. The failure at Sinai becomes evident in other Jewish traditions, again employing marital symbols:
One tradition glancingly compares God coming from Sinai to a groom coming toward a bride. A second midrash appears in the Tosefta, and asks about the difference between the two sets of tablets that Moses brought down from Sinai. According to the account in the Hebrew Bible, the first tablets were the work of God (Exodus 32:16), but the second tablets were made by Moses, although the writing was that of God (Exodus 34:1). The midrash illustrates this with a parable:
To what is the matter similar? To a human king who betrothed a woman. He brings the scribe, the pen, the ink, the contract, and the witnesses. [But] if she sins, she brings everything, [and] it is enough that the king gives to her clear writing [i.e., his signature] [in] his own hand. When God gave the first tablets, He was like a man betrothing a woman. God arranged the entire betrothal ceremony. After Israel sinned with the golden calf, though, it was she who brought the betrothal contract to her groom, asking only that he sign it clearly. The midrash compares Israel to a woman who cheats on the man to whom she is about to be betrothed. [63]
The midrash attests Jewish understanding that their historical unfaithfulness to the covenant was akin to marital unfaithfulness. Yahweh, though able to select any of the nations with whom to covenant, has chosen Israel. Faithfulness to His covenant is assumed. It is Israel that must show fidelity.
Perhaps this is why Scripture gives preeminence in divorce to men, modeling divorce after God (as husband) and His faithfulness. If so, it is God alone that wields the power of divorce. Israel has no legal ground for divorce given God’s faithfulness. It was not intended that Israel seek a divorce, rather that Israel would not play the harlot. God’s faithfulness to His covenant with Israel despite her unfaithfulness serves to magnify Him as loving and gracious.
Jewish belief in sanctification through marriage conflicts with Israel’s covenantal unfaithful. Yahweh’s faithfulness to form a new people despite their unfaithfulness, His commitment to sanctify and purify them from their idolatries envisioned as adulteries, offers a clue. That clue seems embodied in a coming new covenant that follows judgment for their unfaithfulness.
Creation and Marriage – Implications
Jewish thought envisioned God as forming a people uniquely suited as a companion and helpmate for Him. Given man’s fallen state and his constant failings against God’s covenantal standards, Jewish thought points toward a belief that in redeeming and saving Israel, God would also transform Israel, forming her into a pure and holy vessel suited for His purposes.
It suggests that the task of purification of God’s people is being compared with creation. This is a reasonable comparison if one considers the parallel with new creation. The restoration of all creation is itself compared with new creation, and John’s final vision of Christ’s Parousia envisions God’s redeemed community as the centerpiece of His restorative work.
John sees God’s people as a bride that is beautifully dressed. Her dress points toward her being formed in holiness, confirmed in the description of the bride as “the Holy City”. It is a radical transformation of God’s people from the indictments of the prophets who saw Jerusalem as an impure and filthy harlot.
That the holy city is called “the new Jerusalem” brings the radical transformation into focus. God’s people, envisioned as a city, are no longer indicted for their harlotries, but are now seen as a pure bride, transformed from ungodliness to holiness (cf. Titus 2:14).
The transformation to holiness is affirmed in a two-fold description of the harlot’s destruction followed by the presentation of the bride in which a covering of fine linen has been given to her that is bright and clean, and represents “the righteous acts of God’s holy people” (Revelation 19:8, emphasis mine). That the bride is envisioned together with a restored Edenic garden links marriage with creation eschatologically.
It follows that God’s program to bring His people to purity is also part of redemption envisioned as a new creation. The path from the first Eden (with its subsequent fall from purity), to the final Eden requires transformation to purity. Sin cannot simply be forgiven. God’s people must also be purified as part of their re-creation.
Christ’s response concerning divorce links marriage to creation with His reference to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. It makes marriage inseparable from creation and inseparable from God’s creative purposes. In creating for the first man a wife complementary to him, God foreshadowed His intention to create a wife complementary to Him for all eternity. Linked to the fall, it points to the great cost God would bear to create a pure bride for all eternity.
These truths point toward God’s expectations for His people in marriage. Marriage is not just a union created by God; it signifies the eternal union God is intent upon establishing with His people. The great cost He bore to establish that union testifies of His matchless love. Is this not the heart that both husband and wife should have one to another in marriage so that their relationship testifies of Christ’s love for the world?
Marriage as One Flesh – Implications
When one turns to Revelation 21, John sees a final vision of the redeemed covenant-community, envisioned both as a beautifully adorned city and bride:
2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God. 11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
John’s view of the redeemed covenant-community as a bride and city he calls “holy” implies the completion of God’s eschatological program. He has not only redeemed His beloved people, He has purified them, allowing them to dwell in His presence forever. “The old order of things has passed away”.
Scripture takes the reader from a physical marriage institution in Eden between the first Adam and his wife Eve, to a final spiritual marriage of Christ as last Adam and husband, and the covenant-community as bride. John’s reveals the true significance of marriage. The Genesis garden-narrative foreshadowed it, then recapitulated it with Yahweh as husband, the Sinaic covenant-community as wife and the Sinaic covenant as marriage-contract, to Jesus as husband, the covenant-community in Christ as wife and the covenant in Christ’s blood as marriage-contract.
The true covenant-community are the spiritual seed of Christ and the true marital contract is Christ’s new covenant with Christ as husband. True members of the covenant-community must live by faith, not law. They must be “born again” spiritually. It includes the righteous saints of the Old Testament who lived by faith, anticipating the coming Messiah, as well as those who professed faith in Christ after His coming. This truth is symbolized in the twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Their inclusion signals the inclusion of historical Israel.
Particularly noteworthy is the shift from Yahweh as husband to Christ. Given that Christ is described as the image of the invisible God, the shift is not surprising. That Christ took on human flesh and walked among us seems significant.
In robing Himself with humanity, He became like us. That John envisions Jesus’ followers as forever dwelling (tabernacling) with God and Jesus points back to the garden-narrative, in which the two become one flesh. It would seem that redemption makes us one “flesh” with God.
Interesting when one considers the path of redemption brought God, who is a Spirit, flesh, and then brought us who were flesh, Spirit. Though abstract, at minimum we should gain some understanding of God’s great love for us, that He became like us, bridging the divide between spiritual and physical, between creator and creation, to bring us into perfect relationship with Him.
It is difficult to grasp what this might mean in totality, though Paul seems to offer a clue in 1 Corinthians 6:16, pointing out that the man who unites himself with a prostitute is “one” with her in body, as “the two will become one flesh”. This is then contrasted with “but whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit”. It seems to mean that marriage has moved from a picture of one flesh in the old creation to one in spirit in the new creation.
Marriage – Concluding Reflections
Genesis introduces the concept of marriage early, hinting its importance in God’s redemptive plan. While no institution is formalized, the picture of the woman formed from the rib of the man leaves the reader puzzling its significance. At the very least, it suggests a special bond between man and woman, unique in the author’s eyes from the relationships of all other created beings. The woman is presented as a special gift to the man, uniquely fashioned from the man, yet complementary to him. It suggests the two comprise a specially equipped team.
The garden-narrative introduces the idea of marriage indirectly in the creation of the woman as a compliment for the man. The narrative introduces some revolutionary ideas regarding the origins of the woman, her place beside the man, her unique calling as a helper for the man, God’s divine plan in her creation and God’s ultimate purpose, that together the two become one flesh. These concepts place the woman on a high standing in the narrative while also introducing considerable mystery in the relationship.
Later authors deepened the meaning in ways that brought spiritual meaning that complimented Near-Eastern marriage traditions in ways that brought theological and eschatological symbolism to marriage. The prophets indicted Israel for her covenantal failures employing marriage allusions to show Israel’s failures and God’s faithfulness. Beyond the indictment of Israel’s sins, some insights are evident regarding God’s purpose and love for us, seen in His faithful commitment to us.
The process peaked in Christ and the Apostles, who envisioned the redemption of God’s people employing marriage concepts. Their works built upon the foundation of Old Testament authors and prophets who sought to illumine their audience to the unique relationship God planned for His people through the employment of numerous marriage pictures.
These pictures included eschatological parables and prophetic presentations of the culmination of God’s redemptive plan as a wedding, complete with invitations, a feast, a processional, a bride wonderfully adorned and a glorious husband, coming to take His bride at His Parousia. These pictures contrast strongly with pictures of a false covenant-community, who are envisioned as an impure, covenant-violating harlot. Her appearance belies her devotion. Her actions reveal that her apparent holiness and purity are mere pretense.
There are important implications present in these pictures given the sheer number of pictures, their strong interrelationship with other important redemptive pictures and their early introduction into God’s redemptive narratives. In the garden-narrative, the union of man and wife is presented as a creation of God’s hand. That God envisions them as “one flesh”, affirms that they are a new creation of God. They are no longer two but one, one that no man should separate. For who is man to dissolve that which God has created?
In a world in which most partners freely choose their own spouses, it may appear that marriage is an agreement between two people. Yet those in Christ cannot denigrate their thinking to that of the world. Agreements are often made between men with the understanding that they can be dissolved by men.
Not so with Christian marriages. While we may have the freedom to select our spouse, the union is divinely overseen by God. The consummation of the wedding makes the two one flesh in God’s eyes, and thus not subject to our whims for dissolution. In our marriages, we become a new creation in Christ. A dissolution of that union is de-creation. It is contrary to God’s ways and it introduces chaos into our families and our familial relationships.
Christ’s clarification and correction of the Pharisees makes clear that Christian marriages are part of the new creation, a part of the restored new heaven and new earth. Any dissolution should be viewed as de-creative and thus opposing God’s redemptive efforts. As part of the new creation, our marriages are intended to last until death parts us, so that the world can see the powerful Christian love that binds us together, and can then envision the powerful love of God to His people that binds us to Him for eternity.
Christian marriages should be showplaces of true Christlike love and unity, not broken, dysfunctional, self-serving pseudo-unions in which one or both partners seek an exit. The way we conduct our marriages is a testimony. It is intended to be a beautiful testimony of Christ’s love for us. It shouldn’t testify of impurity, discord, rage, hatred, dissention and sexual immorality.
By contrast, our marriages should show forth the fruit of the Spirit, that which is appointed to last through all eternity. Our marriages testify whether we truly are of Christ. Our marriage testifies to our belief that Christ is truly soon-returning. If we believe He has inaugurated a new creation and given us a new heart, our faith in Him should be in evidence to all by the spiritual fruit we bear in our marriages.
It is the thinking of the prophets who envisioned God’s people as a bride, made pure and chaste by Christ. It is particularly evident in John’s contrast between the impure harlot that is unaware, and thus unprepared for the Lord’s imminent Parousia, and the bride adorned in robes of righteousness prepared to meet her husband, consistent with the wedding parables of Christ, which emphasize preparedness and readiness. Those prepared and ready gain entrance into the wedding feast. Those unprepared, are excluded, despite receiving an invitation. Those with pure hearts are faithfully about their Lord’s business. Those unprepared are abusive, seeking the things of the old world – riches, power and fame. For them, lowly service to the least in the world is of little interest.
When this picture of a pure bride is conflated with images of God’s people as a living temple, requirements for purity are enhanced. God’s temple is His house and God will not dwell in a house that is defiled with filth and sin. Purity’s demands upon God’s house are manifestly seen in the various provisions for cleansing of the temple and its articles. There is nothing upon which blood is not sprinkled as a purifier. As we are God’s temple, it reinforces that “without holiness, no man will see God” (Hebrews 12:14).
This truth often stands in tension with current teachings emphasizing God’s forgiving power and unending love for His people. While God is faithful to forgive those who repent, we should not abuse God’s grace. We must remember that those God loves, he disciplines, and He chastens those He accepts as his son (Hebrews 12:6). The chastening and disciplining, is to bring us to holiness.
Paul’s use of betrothal in his description of the Corinthian church may also have eschatological significance. It suggests that we should view ourselves not as already married to Christ but betrothed, awaiting that great day when He returns. Betrothal implies that we have agreed to marry and thus, there should be no turning back from serving Christ. The highest levels of fidelity must be observed during the probative period of our betrothal.
It follows then, that all idolatry must be purged immediately from our lives given its symbolism as adultery. Idolatry is often subtle. It is too easy to have a divided heart or divided loyalties idolatrously manifesting themselves in our hearts. [64]
If during our betrothal we are found unfaithful and impure, should we expect entrance to the marriage feast of the Lamb? Joseph resolved to divorce Mary upon realization of her pregnancy while they were betrothed. Scripture states that Joseph was “faithful to the law”, confirming he was justified in seeking a divorce (Matthew 1:19). It offers a warning to God’s people that covenantal unfaithfulness provides justification for divorce within the law. The tension it creates with Christ’s words bring us to more deeply analyze divorce and remarriage.
[1] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 105
[2] Mitchell, T.C., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 1, Eve, Names of, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 487
[3] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 68. See also Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 141
[4] To the Ancients, “deep sleep” was common (1 Samuel 26:12; Job 4:13; Proverbs 19:15). Deep sleep was often associated with mighty acts of God (Genesis 2:21; Genesis 15:12; Job 33:15; Jonah 1:5; Actis 20:9) or with prophetic revelation (Isaiah 29:10; Daniel 8:18; 10:9). Some have argued that the deep sleep is symbolic of death.
[5] Hooke, S. H., In the Beginning, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947, p. 26
[6] Walke, Bruce k., Creation and Chaos, An Exegetical and Theological Study of biblical Cosmogony, Portland OR, Western conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974, p. 60. See also Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 142 and Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 70.
[7] Naming may represent more than the establishment of dominion. It may also represent relationship between the one naming and the one named. In naming each aspect of creation, God establishes his dominion over creation. However, secondarily it may define the role of each aspect of creation in accomplishing God’s redemptive purpose, and thus their relationship with God. All creation is to glorify God. This is done through the heavens keeping the times faithfully and nature fructifying faithfully to provide food. The heavens can withhold rain as judgment on sin and the cosmos is decreated due to sin. These functions must be faithfully accomplished by creation to accomplish God’s redemptive ethic and teaching. Likewise in naming man, God defines a cooperative relationship between the parties where man has responsibility for the earth, serving as priest and king. The same argument can be made with the renaming of captured individuals by kings (e.g. Daniel). These individuals were given specific responsibilities in the king’s court that they were to faithfully accomplish – those roles and relationships defined in renaming. The penultimate example may be the renaming of Abram, coincident with the establishment of Yahweh’s covenant with he and Sarai. Their renaming coincident with the establishment of the covenant defines their new relationship with Yahweh and each parties’ responsibilities in the relationship (cf. Genesis 17:2-11).
[8] Block suggests that the use of tsela` for the boards of the temple may have resulted from their appearance, planks that may have had a ribbed look. Block, Daniel I., The Book of Ezekiel, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eeredsmans Publishing Co., 1997, p. 547 (Footnote 42).
[9] A. R. Habershon, The Study of the Types, London and Glasgow, Pickering & Inglis, Seventh Edition, p. 43-44
[10] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 90
[11] If John intended an allusion to the cleansing of the leper (or the cleansing of a “leprous home”) is difficult to say (Leviticus 14).
[12] Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 28, 33. Concerning leaving a father and mother, Wenham suggests the word “leave” is better translated “forsake” and notes: “The traditional translation ‘leaves’ suggests that the man moves from his parents and sets up home elsewhere, whereas in fact Israelite marriage was usually patrilocal, that is, the man continued to live in or near his parents’ home. It was the wife who left home to join her husband.” Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 70. Similarly, “By marriage, a woman left her parents, went to live with her husband, and joined his clan, to which her children would belong. Rebecca left her father and mother (Genesis 24:58-59), and Abraham would not allow Isaac to go to Mesopotamia unless the wife chosen for him agreed to come to Canaan (Genesis 24:5-8).” Wright, J.S. & Thomson, J.A., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Marriage, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 955
[13] So Davies, W.D., and Allison, Dale C., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 3, The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh Scotland, T&T Clark Ltd, 1997, p. 14
[14] The Hebrew for joined or united is דָּבַק dabaq which can mean “stay with” or “cleave”. To stay with one’s wife seems well suited in meaning to God’s intent.
[15] See Chapter 9: Developing a Theology of Divorce and Remarriage and Chapter 10: Marriage – Final Typological Implications
[16] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 110. See also Cohick, Lynn H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2009, p. 62
[17] Wright, J.S. & Thomson, J.A., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Marriage, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 955. A good example of the legal obligations is seen in Joseph and Mary in Matthew 1: 18-19: ”This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Joseph considered divorce though they were technically not yet married.
[18] Van Henten, Jan and Brenner, Athalya, Families and Family Relations, Leiden Germany, Deo Publishing, 2000, p. 14
[19] Stuart goes to great lengths to list the Pentateuchal covenantal blessings (he finds ten) and curses (he finds 27) that serve as basis for Hosea’s indictments where the prophet announced near term curses for covenantal violations with the promise of end-time blessings of restoration. Stuart, Douglass, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 31, Hosea-Jonah, Waco TX, Word Books, Publisher, 1987, p. xxxiii-xlii, 7-11, 56-62. Hosea was announcing curses upon Israel for her covenantal infidelity with the eschatological promise of restoration after the completion of the full measure of God’s divine judgments/punishments. Thus, when Hosea marries a prostitute to illustrate Israel’s idolatrous infidelity, it is with an eye to their failures to honor the Sinaic covenant. For Hosea, marriage then, is symbolic of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh and His people. Yahweh is faithful, Israel is not.
[20] Or perhaps as friend of the groom, who acts as an escort, assisting as a groomsman. So Martin, Ralph P. , Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 40, 2 Corinthians, Second Edition, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2014, p. 517
[21] Note the blessing included in the betrothal passage just presented in Hosea 2.
[22] Many expositors note that this beatitudinal blessing is one of seven given in John’s Apocalypse. That it also serves as a wedding blessing enhances the richness and depth of meaning in John’s work.
[23] Among the many espousing this view are Fee, Gordon D., Revelation, A New Covenant Commentary, Eugene OR, Cascade Books, 2011, p. 268. Aune, David E., Word Biblical Commentary, Revelation 17-22, Vol. 52C, Columbia, Thomas Nelson, Inc, 1998, p. 1034, Ladd, George Eldon, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Grand Rapids MI,William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1972, p. 250. This view is hardly outrageous given Christ’s similar comparison in Mark 2:19 in which He pictured His disciples as wedding guests. The view does not fall in line with that of dispensationalists who argue that the church is the bride and those invited are the saints from other ages (righteous Jews before Christ and tribulation saints). This view is based upon the assumption that the church is unique and saints of other ages are treated differently, a view often presented as obvious from Scripture but without support. See for instance, Walvoord, John F., The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Chicago IL, Moody Press, 1966, p. 270-272. His view is inconsistent with Scripture and lacks support from the Adamic type of marriage. While the most likely possibility is that those invited is a parallel picture of the church, could it also be that those invited are the righteous angelic powers?
[24] The fulfillment of the wedding supper may also point back to earlier miraculous feasts of Jesus, which may have only foreshadowed the great final wedding feast spoken of by John.
[25] That God clothes them post-fall, when they know good from evil, supports this view.
[26] See Joseph and Asenath 3:9-10 available @ http://www.piney.com/DocEgJosAsen.html. Joseph and Asenath, which describes a royal wedding, includes in Asenath’s wedding attire a golden girdle and pants (cf. Psalm 45:13). Similarly, an epitath from Leontopolis speaks of a woman who dies before marriage lamenting that she will not wear white linen for her wedding day. Cohick, Lynn H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2009, p. 59
[27] Ezekiel 9:2-3, 9:11, 10:2, Daniel 10:5, 12:6-7 and Revelation 15:6 all reveal angels dressed in linen rather than men. However, in these passages, angels appear to perform priestly duties in God’s heavenly temple (see particularly Revelation 15:6), making the garments of linen appropriate. Likewise Ezekiel 44:17-18 is a messianic reference.
[28] Cohick, Lynn H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2009, p. 59 notes woven work on a coverlet in “hyacinth and purple”, which she describes as priestly colors from an epitath from Leontopolis of a woman who dies before marriage.
[29] Fine linen had such high valuable that it was used in the garments of the king and worn by royalty. Both Joseph and Mordecai were given royal apparel, a sign of the great power invested in them by the Pharaoh/King. Kings often served as priests for their people, opening the possibility that the royal garments of linen had priestly symbolism as well.
[30] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 110; Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 34; Morganstern, Julian, Rites of Birth, Marriage, Death and Kindred Occasions Among the Semites, New York, KTAV Publishing House Inc, 1973, p. 109, 110, 116. Morganstern highlights these practices as still in evidence today among bedoins. He also claims that ancient Arabs called marriage sabâe, “seven” because the event lasted seven days or multiples thereof. Of the Jews of North Africa, Morganstern notes that the wedding spanned from Sabbath to Sabbath, with the festivities taking place in the home of the bride’s father, each night through till daybreak.
[31] See Hagner, Donald A, Word Biblical Commentary, Matthew, Dallas TX, Word Books Publisher, 1993, p. 728. Note also some expositors have suggested that there are two feasts, one at the bride’s home and one at the groom’s home with the processional occurring from the home of the groom’s father to the home of the bride’s parents.
[32] Wright, J.S. & Thomson, J.A., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 2, Marriage, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 956
[33] Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, New York, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1961, p. 810
[34] Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 33-34
[35] Ibid, p. 34
[36] John’s envisionment of the bride’s fine linen as the righteous acts of God’s holy people (Revelation 19:8) likely points back to these parables.
[37] The practice seemed to be propagated more by kings then citizens. While there were limiting financial considerations making it infeasible for many, it seems unlikely financial limitations brought the practice into disfavor as Judaism was not without its wealthly families. It seems more likely kings considered it a right or a privilege of power, allowing them exclusive practice.
[38] Perhaps most telling is that Deuteronomy 24 does not directly address divorce and remarriage as much as to deal with the exceptional case restricting remarriage to a divorced spouse who during her divorce from her first husband, had married another.
[39] Consider Josephus, a priest of the first century, was twice divorced, seemingly without public repercussions. Cohick, Lynn H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2009, p. 116
[40] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 118
[41] Evans, Craig A., Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34B, Columbia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001, p. 86, referencing Brewer
[42] Satlow, Michael L., The Metaphor of Marriage in Early Judaism, published in Van Henten, Jan and Brenner, Athalya,Families and Family Relations, Leiden Germany, Deo Publishing, 2000, p. 16
[43] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 110; Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 31
[44] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 117
[45] Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 33
[46] Cohick, Lynn H., Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2009, p. 116
[47] Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 32
[48] Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961, p. 32
[49] Many have noted that Israel rarely enforced the death penalty, particularly in her later history. If porneia is taken to mean only adultery, then there would be no need for the Matthean exception if the Levitical punishment were enforced. It is possible porneia has a broadened meaning, or there may be more to the Matthean exception-passages than is immediately apparent.
[50] Hagner notes an interpretation of porneia as illicit marriage due to incest (too close of kin). This explanation has gained acceptance particularly among Catholic scholars though Hagner offers a sound refutation of this position. Hagner, Donald A., Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33A, Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1993, p. 124-125. Allison & Davies also conclude against incest. Davies, W.D. and Allison, Dale C., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Volume1, Edinburgh, T&T Clark Limited, 1988, p. 529-531. It is mentioned here only as it highlights the complexity of meaning of porneia.
[51] Feldman, L.H., Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Books XVIII-XIX, IX, Cambridge MA Harvard University Press, 1981, p. 92
[52] So Hagner, Donald A., Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33A, Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1993, p. 123. He notes (p. 549) the possibility that Matthew included the exception clause specifically to address his Jewish-Christian readers as Jews were lawfully required to divorce an unfaithful wife. This view is also shared by Evans, Craig A., Mark 8:27-16:20, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34B, Columbia, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2001, p. 80. While this view seems widely accepted, Allison has posited another possibility, that Matthew, who earlier had testified that Joseph was “righteous” and yet sought to divorce his betrothed, Mary, had little choice but to add the exception clause to maintain Joseph’s standing as righteous. An advantage to Allison’s position is that it derives directly from Scripture, and at that, directly from Matthean testimony. Allison, Dale C. Jr., Studies in Matthew, Interpretation Past and Present, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Academic, 2005, p. 165-167
[53] Hagner, Donald A., Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33A, Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1993, p. 550
[54] Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary of the New Testament, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eermans Publishing, 2014, p. 323
[55] Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary of the New Testament, Revised Edition, Grand Rapids MI, Wm. B. Eermans Publishing, 2014, p. 326-327. A key for Fee is that those who violate the command regarding divorce are not put out of the congregation. Interestingly, he is silent on whether one who remarries should be put out of the congregation.
[56] Consistent with other expositors, Fee sees the unity of “one flesh” as Jesus’ basis for an unbreakable union, affirming Paul’s position in Ephesians 5 as consistent with that of Jesus.
[57] Nolland, John, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35B, Dallas TX, Word Books, 1993, 821-822. In his view, the Matthean exception clause has stood in the way of understanding the text as divorce in order to remarry.
[58] Nolland, John, Luke 9:21-18:34, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 35B, Dallas TX, Word Books, 1993, 821-822
[59] Ezekiel borrows language from Ruth that also suggests eschatological importance. Ruth 3:9 uses a semitic phrase “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family”, which is an invitation for Boaz to serve as her Kinsman-redeemer in marriage. The phrase seems to point to inclusion of Ruth in his household and under his protection and provision as husband. That this phrase is used in Ezekiel 16:8 regarding Israel’s covenantal failures contrasted against Yahweh’s love “I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body . . . I . . . entered into a covenant with you . . . I dressed you in fine linen . . . I adorned you with jewelry . . . your food was honey, olive oil and the finest flour . . . but you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute . . . you adulterous wife” shows Ezekiel sees acceptance by God to serve as Israel’s kinsman-redeemer. It is inherently eschatological, seen in the pronounced judgments to fall on Israel (vss 27-43) before the promise of restoration through the establishment of a new (end-time) covenant (vs 61).
[60] Though it may seem strange that man would be barred from the assembly of God, the assembly post-fall is perhaps best envisioned as God together with the assembly of His angels, from which the descendants of Adam were barred until the tenth generation, until the fullness of the curse was reached and then reversed through the work of Christ.
[61] Satlow, Michael L., The Metaphor of Marriage in Early Judaism, published in Van Henten, Jan and Brenner, Athalya,Families and Family Relations, Leiden Germany, Deo Publishing, 2000, p. 33 quoting from b. Sanh 22a-b.
[62] Pilkington, C. M., Judaism, Lincolnwood IL, NTC Publishing Group, 1995, p. 109-110
[63] Satlow, Michael L., The Metaphor of Marriage in Early Judaism, published in Van Henten, Jan and Brenner, Athalya,Families and Family Relations, Leiden Germany, Deo Publishing, 2000, p. 28-29 quoting from t. B Qam 7:4 (ed S. Lieberman, The tosefta, vol. 4, New York 1955-88, 29).
[64] John 9:13-34 records where a blind man from birth was questioned by the Pharisees who were “divided” regarding his healing, some arguing Jesus could not have been a man of God since He healed on the Sabbath while others argued the authenticity of the miracle. The irony is that what divided the Pharisees was the idolatry of their traditions, which divided their hearts. They coveted the idolatry of their traditions, showing the subtlety of idolatry even among the most pious.
What’s up to all, how is the whole thing, I think
every one is getting more from this web site, and your views are nice designed for new viewers.
Thanks Danielle, Appreciate your feedback. Let me know if there’s other subjects of interest on which I can study and write.
Greetings from Los angeles! I’m bored to
death at work so I decided to check out your blog on my iphone
during lunch break. I love the info you provide here and can’t wait
to take a look when I get home. I’m surprised at how quick your blog loaded
on my phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G ..
Anyhow, superb site!
Hey . . . thanks so much for your feedback! Nice to hear that your boredom paid off! And welcome aboard. Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to assist your Bible studies. I’m happy to research areas that may be of interest to you!