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.
Never thought of it in terms of an image of the Trinity (since ... it's a duality, not a three-part relationship), but I agree absolutely that it's an important image.
ReplyDeleteNow, here's something to consider. Why didn't Moses get into the Promised Land? It was for one thing he did. What was that? He was told to talk to the rock, and instead he struck it. We learn that this rock was a picture of Christ. Christ was struck once to give living water. After that, He only needs to be called upon. Moses defied God and destroyed an important image God intended to convey, and it cost Moses the Promised Land. So, considering the importance of the image of Marriage, ought we not be very careful about destroying that image?
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAquinas' thesis on descriptive language has been extremely helpful to me. We are not God, and therefore have no means to relate to His holiness, purity, truth, nature, etc. He revels Himself through scripture through names and analogy. The only language we can use to describe God is therefore, by necessity, analogical. The pictures, the analogies presented in scripture do need to be preserved (just like of Moses and the striking of the rock and numerous others) because they were issued by God as a means of description.
This also becomes so important with preserving the truth of Old Testament scripture and not allowing it to be written off as some sort of typical mythological language of the day. God acts of His own good pleasure, for His glory. Scripture, and these analogical pictures that show what He is like, are deliberate and we should preserve them. My feeling continues to be that out of love for a God who loved us first and drew us to Himself should hold fast and act in obediance to what He has established.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI've thought about the three member picture as well. If you consider what is needed for the creation of a new life: namely man, woman, Holy Spirit; then we have a three-fold community in creation (which also speaks to man and woman in marriage as opposed to any other union since there is no natural procreation otherwise).
Also if we consider a husband, a wife and a child we have the family - three in one sense (three individuals) and one in another sense (one family unit, one community if you will). So the trinitarian concept (numerically at least) holds in these instances as well. They also speak to the necessity to preserve marriage and family; which is sorely needed as we stated earlier. It is anathema to speak of a seperation of the Godhead, as it is with divorce and the split of the family unit; marriage being a covenant and family a direct result flowing from the covenant relationship.
Just a few more steps further down the road.
Blessings.
I have been thinking of a slightly different take on marriage. Thinking out loud here: The assault, even the one just administered by the Prop. 8 judge is from the feminist camp and resides in the idea of equality. Surely there can be no better picture of equality in marriage than in same sex "marriage".
ReplyDeleteBut the real abomination in this notion, and one that is being played out in shadows so to speak, is the same old abomination that was uttered in the Garden to the first Eve: "You will be like God". I paraphrase: "you will have equality with God".
I'm reminded of the great marriage supper of the Lamb who's bride has made herself ready for his coming and taking her. I don't see this as a picture of equality wherein two equals are joining together by whimsical conditions. No. The true Bride is making herself ready with the garments given her that she, not being equal, could have never obtained on her own.
The abdominal either sees the Bride as equal in masculinity to her groom, as is being played out as a common theme of strong women and weak men in media and life style, or her groom as feminine, which is also being played out today with the down playing of masculinity. We have gone from the John Wayne, a man's man that exuded self confident masculinity, to the likes of Brad Pit, who exudes femininity. Both of these are typified by homosexuality depending on the sexes, the masculine being found in the female participants and the female being found in the male. Is the type and shadow of how the world, and worldly Christians, see Jesus demonstrated in these things, as an equal partner in the cosmos?
Like I said, I was thinking out loud here, something I do with a certain amount of trepidation. Your thoughts?
abdominal, curse you spell check :), please read as abominable.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteMy first thought would be that you haven't gone quite far enough. You wrote a great post a while back where you referenced and discussed C.S. Lewis' "Abolition of Man". I believe that is what is at work here; perhaps this is what you are seeing and thinking, you just haven't gone far enough yet. I don't know if it's that we are moving toward man and woman being equal, but that there be no differences, which ultimately leads not to a singular "humanity" but of some androgynous non-human; an abolished man, as it were.
Once again, we have to fight for the preservation of that which has been established by God. God established man, and established woman from man. The matter is forever settled. Many would try to change language in an attempt to change reality, but at the end of the day it is no more than shouting at the wind.
I studied a bit on differences between man and woman in contemporary culture and was actually pretty shocked find out that sex (in terms of male and female, as seperate from the intimate act of sexual intercourse) is not synonymous with gender in our American culture today. Gender is actually defined as something we choose for ourselves. It is a self-identified identity. So to our secular friends, sex is nothing more than pieces and parts (which through present-day surgical procedures can be altered easily enough - elective surgery no less) and gender is nothing more than a self-assigned title. So man or woman, male or female and whatever characteristics and entailments come from that are completely under our personal control.
I suppose the question that has yet to play out in the reality of those vanguard progressives is whether this self-definition and physical control will result in less confusion, or more. Biblically it is clear that more confusion and more severe bondage will be the result. I wonder how long it will take for those blinded by their lust, not to merely be like God, but to be god themselves to see the error of their ways. In fulfilling our call as followers of Christ perhaps the best we can do is stand firm on the truth, continue to preach the Gospel and pray for those so desperately lost all around us.
Thanks for your thoughts. Did I make sense?
Good points, you are right. This reminds me of Jesus' words when he said "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." As man continues to exalt himself he is increasingly humbled as he sinks into confusion. And as man humbles himself by surrendering his autonomy, he is, at the least, not confused by the events by which he is daily confronted.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth note, I think, to consider what happened at the tower of babel. I have always thought of this as in terms of God supernaturally changing their language, but as I watch things play out before us I have begun to rethink this. The Bible says that God "confused" their language. Your discovery concerning gender would seem to lend itself to just this sort of a state of confusion in language; and the confusion is not limited to just gender.
Your question: "I suppose the question that has yet to play out in the reality of those vanguard progressives is whether this self-definition and physical control will result in less confusion, or more", I think answers itself as man discovers he is no different than those ancients in that it is just as much beyond his means as it was theirs, either collectively or individually, to alter the coarse from his destiny of abolition.
As for me, I have begun to rethink my approach to this increasingly confused culture. You said it well in your last sentence.
Yes you made sense, I hope I did as well.