I have had some thoughts in my head for some time regarding marriage and how the Christian understanding of marriage is unique and just recently typed them out. It was all based on a question I had asked myself, and later asked some others. Below is the original question and the text of my mental exercise:
"Considering Genesis 2:24, discuss the biblical Christian ontological basis of marriage and it's uniqueness."
The verse given for consideration (namely Genesis 2:24) is the key to my answer, but not where I begin (we'll get back to this verse a bit later). Genesis 1:26 says "Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness...", and continues in verse 27 with, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female, he created them.". This is our starting point for looking at the ontological basis of marriage and it's uniqueness. God created man in His image, in His likeness.
We know from reading through the entire creation narrative that what God created was good. At the end of each day, He says that what He created was good. After creating man we are told He looked over all He had made and said it was very good. We see in chapter 2 that as man is in the garden working and caring for it, he says in verse 18 that "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." And so woman is created from man to which the man replies in verse 23, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man."
At this point, i'll make a brief departure to talk about language and in particular descriptive language of God. Thomas Aquinas wrote of three ways to use language: univocal, equivocal and analogical. Very briefly, the first usage - univocal - is when the same word is used in the same way (with the same meaning) but in different situations. For example, on a daily basis I tell my wife "I love you", I also tell my children "I love you". Love is the same word used in the same way just in different situations. The second usage - equivocal - is when we use the same word but with a different meaning in different situations. An example here would be something like if I were to say "Wynton Marsalis is a good trumpet player" and then I were to say "I am a good trumpet player". If someone were to think 'good' meant the same thing in both situations and then heard myself and Wynton Marsalis playing the same song they would quickly know something was dreadfully wrong. Finally, the third usage - analogical - this is using language descriptively by analogy. Something is like a certain example. Aquinas said man is not God, so we cannot use either univocal language, or equivocal language when we talk about God, we must use analogical language. God is like this or that.
Back to our question. Verse 24 of chapter 2 says "For this reason (the reason being woman was created from man, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh) a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." Here is the point, as I try to tie these threads together.
Marriage is an analogy for the triune nature of God. God is one in one sense (only one God, we are monotheistic, we do not worship multiple deities) and three in another sense (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). We cannot describe this relationship either univocally or equivocally because we are not God and we cannot even wrap our brains around even the possibility of how this can be possible. We can say, however, that we are created in the image of God, in His likeness, and marriage (where man and woman become one flesh) by analogy (in that a couple are one in one sense {one flesh} and two in another sense {husband and wife}) gives a glimpse, or picture of what the trinity is like. This is unique to a Christian understanding of marriage.
This then is the ontological basis for marriage and how Christianity is unique. The nature of the existence of marriage is to provide a glimpse, a picture, an analogical expression of the trinity. The ramifications are profound. Why would God hate divorce? Because husband and wife are a picture of the trinity and so divorce would be analogous to a fracturing of the Godhead! This can never be, because God's existence is within Himself. God, as He has revealed Himself in scripture, can never cease to be. Divorce, then, is anathema. This is why the traditional vows spoken in marriage are so important; "What God has brought together, let no man put asunder." Man and wife become one flesh, one in one sense and two in another sense; a union never to be severed.
Why do we in the church today seem to take marriage lightly? Perhaps because we don't see the union, the covenant of marriage in the light of it's ontological basis; and don't take seriously enough the gravity of preserving what God has established and blessed.
