BACCHIOCCHI, Samuele - The Marriage Covenant
BACCHIOCCHI, Samuele - The Marriage Covenant
iblical
erspectives
THE MARRIAGE
COVENANT
A Biblical Study on Marriage,
Divorce, and Remarriage
by
Samuele Bacchiocchi
iblical
erspectives
4990 Appian
Berrien Springs
Michigan 49103
BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE CHRISTIAN AND ROCK MUSIC is a timely symposium that defines
the biblical principles to make good musical choices.
THE SABBATH UNDER CROSSFIRE refutes the common arguments used to
negate the continuity and validity of the Sabbath.
IMMORTALITY OR RESURRECTION? unmasks with compelling Biblical reason-
ing the oldest and the greatest deception of all time, that human beings possess
immortal souls that live on forever.
THE MARRIAGE COVENANT is designed to strengthen your Christian home
through a recovery of those biblical principles established by God to ensure
happy, lasting, marital relationships.
THE ADVENT HOPE FOR HUMAN HOPELESSNESS offers a scholarly, and
comprehensive analysis of the biblical teachings regarding the certainty and
imminence of Christ’s Return.
FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY presents the results of a painstaking research
done at a Vatican University in Rome on how the change came about from
Saturday to Sunday in early Christianity.
THE SABBATH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT summarizes Bacchiocchi’s exten-
sive research on the history and theology of the Lord’s Day and answers the
most frequently asked questions on this subject.
WINE IN THE BIBLE shows convincingly that the Bible condemns the use of
alcoholic beverages, irrespective of the quantity used.
CHRISTIAN DRESS AND ADORNMENT examines the Biblical teachings
regarding dress, cosmetics, and jewelry. An important book designed to help
Christians dress modestly, decently, and reverently.
DIVINE REST FOR HUMAN RESTLESSNESS offers a rich and stirring theo-
logical interpretation of the relevance of Sabbathkeeping for our tension-filled
and restless society. Translated in 15 languages.
HAL LINDSEY’S PROPHETIC JIGSAW PUZZLE refutes with compelling
logic the senselessness of the predictions made by writers like Hal Lindsey. It
received the 1987 Associated Church Press Award.
WOMEN IN THE CHURCH shows why Scripture supports the participation of
women in various church ministries but precludes their ordination to the
representative role of elder or pastor.
THE TIME OF THE CRUCIFIXION AND THE RESURRECTION examines
the time element of the Crucifixion/Resurrection as well as the meaning of
Christ’s death.
GOD’S FESTIVALS IN SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY. Vol. 1: The Spring
Festivals; Vol. 2: The Fall Festivals examine the historical development
and theological meaning of the ancient Feasts of Israel.
Each of the above books costs $20.00, mailing expenses included. To
order them, call (616) 471-2915 or mail your prepaid order to:
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES
4990 Appian Way. Berrien Springs, MI 49103, USA
Web Page: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com
E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
Cover design and layout
by Daniel Bacchiocchi
© Copyright 2001
by
Samuele Bacchiocchi
Introduction ....................................................................................... 7
CONCLUSION
Our study of the divine institution of marriage and of the teachings of the
prophets, Jesus and Paul, regarding marriage, has shown us how the Scripture
consistently upholds marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant, witnessed
and protected by God. We have found that as a sacred covenant, marriage was
The Institution of Marriage 26
effectively used in the Old Testament to portray God’s relationship with Israel
and in the New Testament to represent Christ’s relationship with His church.
If God used marriage as a metaphor to represent His commitment to His
people, He must surely have thought of it as a sacred, permanent covenant.
The recovery of the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred and permanent
covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself, is indispensable in
counteracting the secularization of marriage. This trend has influenced many
Christians to view marriage as a temporary social contract governed by civil
laws, rather than as a permanent covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God
Himself. To counteract this trend, it is essential for Christians to recover and
accept the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant. The conviction that
it is God Who has united our lives in holy matrimony and Who will help us
to stay together will motivate us to persevere in preserving the unity of the
marriage covenant.
NOTES TO CHAPTER I
1. Emphasis supplied. See also Proverbs 2:17; Ezekiel 16:8.
2. Paul E. Palmer, “Christian Marriage: Contract or Covenant?” Theo-
logical Studies vol. 33, no. 4 (December 1972): 639.
3. Emphasis supplied.
4. Ed Wheat, Love for Every Married Couple (Grand Rapids, 1980), p.
38.
5. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1942),
vol. 1, p. 137.
6. See also Proverbs 2:17.
Chapter 2
HOW TO LIVE OUT
THE MARRIAGE
COVENANT
-27-
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 28
Objective of Chapter. This chapter explores the practical implications
of the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred and permanent covenant
witnessed and guaranteed by God. In the first part of the chapter, we shall see
how the concept of marriage as a sacred covenant is not just an abstract
Biblical truth or principle but the only real and solid foundation upon which
a permanent and happy marriage can be built. In the second part, we shall
examine the kind of commitment that characterizes a marriage covenant:
namely, a total, exclusive, continuing and growing commitment. In the third
part we shall take a closer look at the obligations of the marriage covenant in
the light of the Ten Commandments. We shall see that the principles of the
Ten Commandments which express our covenant commitment to God can
also serve to manifest our covenant commitment to our spouses. The overall
objective of the chapter is to provide practical suggestions on how to live out
the marriage covenant.
PART 1:
THE IMPORTANCE OF A MARRIAGE COVENANT
The Foundation of Marriage. Marriage is like a house. If it is to last,
it needs a solid foundation. The bedrock upon which the foundation of
marriage must rest is an unconditional, mutual covenant that allows no
external or internal circumstances to “put asunder” the marital union that God
Himself has established. This covenantal commitment and conviction that
God has united our lives in holy matrimony give us reasons to believe that He
will enable us to stay together, even when our marriages appear to be “for
worse.” It is this covenant foundation that will motivate us to seek God’s help
in trying again to make successes of our marriages, even when our needs are
unfulfilled and our relationships seem to be sterile or sour.
It is this covenantal foundation that is often lacking in Christian
marriages today. “What is missing in most marriages today,” perceptively
observes Paul Stevens, “is what the Bible identifies as the heart of marriage:
a covenant. Everything is superstructure. Understanding expectations,
developing good communication (especially sexual), gaining skills in con-
flict resolution, discovering appropriate roles or creating new ones, making
our marriages fun and free, becoming spiritual friends and sharing a ministry-
-these are the walls, the roof, the wiring, the plumbing and the heating. They
are essential to the whole. But if there is no foundation, they will collapse with
the whole building.”1
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 29
The foundation ensuring the stability and permanence of marriage is the
mutual commitment of a couple to cleave to one another “for better and for
worse.” The Biblical concept of a lifelong, permanent bond between a
husband and a wife is quickly becoming an outdated, foreign concept. More
and more couples enter the marriage relationship believing that it is termi-
nable. They interpret the promise “Till death do us part” as meaning “Till
disagreement or other interests do us part.”
To resist this societal trend which is undermining the foundation of
marriage, we must recover and reaffirm the Biblical view of marriage as a
sacred and permanent covenant. Declaring our permanent commitment to
each other not only on the wedding day, but periodically throughout our lives
(especially on the wedding anniversary and each other’s birthday) will help
us to preserve our marriage covenant.
A covenant marriage is not a relational prison locking a man and a
woman into a permanent relationship. It is rather, to quote Paul Stevens again,
“an elastic link between two hearts. When they move apart, a tug reminds
them they belong. Or, a covenant is a net beneath two trapeze artists. It is a
risky business, this high-wire stunt, and they will undoubtedly fall sometime.
But the safety net beneath them holds.”2
A Covenant of Faith. A marriage covenant is a covenant of faith
because no Christian spouse knows for sure how their marriages are going to
work out. What spouses can know for sure is whether or not they have
solemnly committed themselves before God to a lifelong covenantal partner-
ship in which they shall belong together as long as they both shall live. This
covenant can only be made by spouses who share a common faith in God and
in His ability to work out His purpose in their marriage. Sharing this common
faith provides the courage to believe that God will help us to make our
marriages work, even when they seems hopelessly doomed.
A Christian couple contemplating marriage needs to determine whether
or not they are prepared fully and freely to enter into a lifelong marriage
covenant. Discerning covenantal compatibility is more important than
determining personal compatibility. When a mutual and strong covenant
commitment exists, the possibility of resolving conflicts within marriage also
exists. A covenantal marriage is not completely without conflicts. Total
commitment to your mate does not eliminate the possibility of tensions, tears,
disagreements, impatience, and conflicts. That is the bad news. But the good
news is that by the grace of God, no marital conflict is beyond solution. A
couple fully committed to God and to one another can rest in the assurance
that God will provide the enabling power of His Spirit to resolve conflicts and
restore harmony.
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 30
There are many people legally married today who have never made a
covenantal commitments to their spouses. At the time of their legal mar-
riages, some of them were not emotionally mature enough to solemnly make
before God that lifelong covenant commitment. Others may have chosen to
retain the idea of divorce in their minds as a last-ditch option. Instead of
promising faithfulness to each other “till death do us part,” they pledge to
remain together “as long as we both shall love.”
Whatever the original reason may have been for failing to enter into a
marriage covenant, now is the time to make such a covenant, even if you are
experiencing a good marriage. A refusal to make a marriage covenant
indicates a flaw in your commitment to your spouse. That flaw is like a tiny
crack that can be fatally widened by sinister forces working to destroy
marriage. To avoid such a risk, we must recover and reaffirm the Biblical
understanding of marriage as a lifelong sacred covenant, witnessed and
guaranteed by God Himself.
A Covenant Under Attack. Four major social forces today are
conspiring to undermine the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant,
reducing it instead to a temporary social contract governed by civil laws and
terminated when it no longer meets the expectations of one or both spouses.
Secularism has caused the loss of the sense of the sacred in various
realms of life, including marriage. For example, the Lord’s Day is no longer
viewed by many Christians as a “holy day” but rather as a “holiday,” a day
to seek for personal pleasure and profit, rather than for the presence and peace
of God. Life is no longer sacred for many people, as over 1,500,000 induced
abortions are performed every year in the United States alone, besides the
countless number of persons killed everywhere by senseless crimes, drugs
and violence. Similarly, marriage is no longer regarded by many as a lifelong,
sacred covenant witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself, but rather as a
temporary social contract, governed solely by civil laws.
Humanism teaches that marriage is a human and not a divine institution.
Its function is to meet a person’s needs: social, sexual, emotional, and
financial. Accordingly, when such needs are no longer met, the marriage
contract can be legitimately terminated.
Selfism tells us that we have the right to reach self-fulfillment, self-
sufficiency, and self-development. If marriage becomes a stumbling block to
self-actualization, it must be dissolved. Fritz Perls expresses it in this way:
“I do my thing, and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your
expectations, and you are not in this world to live up to mine. And if by some
chance we meet, it’s beautiful.”3
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 31
Relativism in moral issues facilitates the breaking up of marital relation-
ships and the establishing of new ones. A child of humanism and relativism
is the “no fault” divorce law which makes the dissolution of marriage so easy
that some lawyers advertise their divorce services for less than $100.00: “All
legal fees and services included in one low price.” What a sad commentary
on the cheapness of marriage today! What God has united many will put
asunder for less than the price of a good suit.
To resist the various social forces which are conspiring to break apart the
marriage covenant, reducing it to a temporary relationship of convenience,
Christians must recover and reaffirm the Biblical understanding of marriage
as a lifelong, sacred covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself. To
help us understand more fully how to live out the marriage covenant, we shall
examine first the nature of its commitment and then the ten commandments
of the marriage covenant.
PART 2:
THE COMMITMENT OF A MARRIAGE COVENANT
A marriage covenant is characterized by total, exclusive, continuing and
growing commitment. We shall take a brief look at each of these four basic
characteristics.
Total Commitment. To accept marriage as a sacred covenant means
first of all to be willing to make a total commitment of ourselves to our
marriage partners. This is why Paul in Ephesians compares marriage to the
relationship of Christ with His church (Eph 5:25-26). Christ’s commitment
to us, the church, is so total that He loved us while we were yet unfaithful (Rom
5:8) and gave up His life that we may live (Eph 5:25).
Christ’s total commitment to us, to be with us in life and death, shows us
the kind of total commitment upon which Christian marriage is to be founded.
It is a commitment based on unrelenting love. It is a love which is “patient
and kind; . . . not jealous or boastful; . . . not arrogant or rude; . . . it does not
rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. [It is a love that] bears all things,
believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor 13: 4-7). It is
this loving commitment which makes Christian marriage a sacred and
permanent covenant. A Christian married couple is called to enter intimately
into the kind of total commitment existing between Christ and His church.
Such a commitment makes possible the blending of two lives into an
existential union of marital interrelationship where they grow together in
loving unity and fidelity.
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 32
When Christian couples enter into a marriage covenant, they are commit-
ting themselves to maintaining their marital union, no matter what. This total
commitment is set forth in the marriage vows: “for better and for worse, for
richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health.”
By taking the marriage vows, Christian mates promise to each other what
is well expressed by Elizabeth Achtemeier: “I will be with you, no matter what
happens to us and between us. If you should become blind tomorrow, I will
be there. If you achieve no success and attain no status in our society, I will
be there. When we argue and are angry, as we inevitably will, I will work to
bring us together. When we seem totally at odds and neither of us is having
needs fulfilled, I will persist in trying to understand and in trying to restore our
relationship. When our marriage seems utterly sterile and going nowhere at
all, I will believe that it can work and I will want it to work and I will do my
part to make it work. And when all is wonderful and we are happy, I will
rejoice over our life together, and continue to strive to keep our relationship
growing and strong.”4
Such a total commitment is possible only by divine grace. It is God who
gives us power to hold fast to our commitment. This is the unseen factor often
ignored in marriage manuals. What is true for salvation is also true for a
committed marriage: there is both a divine initiative and a human response.
As Paul puts it, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for
God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil
2:12-13). We must work to achieve total and permanent commitment in our
marriages and yet recognize that it is God who is at work in and through us
to make this goal possible.
A most marvellous thing about a totally committed marriage is the fact
that it is solely a relationship of grace, a relationship in which I do not have
to earn my wife’s love constantly because she gives it to me as a gift. Love
is seldom deserved because most of the time we are not lovable. Yet it is given
to me, and this gives me acceptance, security, and freedom to act and to plumb
all my creativity. This manifestation of unconditional love challenges us to
respond by being more loving and lovable.
Exclusive Commitment. To accept marriage as a sacred covenant
means also to be willing to make an exclusive commitment of ourselves to our
marital partners. It means, as the marriage vows put it, “to forsake all others”
and “to keep thee only unto her [or him], so long as ye both shall live.” This
understanding of the marriage covenant is under severe attack in our sexually
permissive society where immoral connotations of illicit sexual acts have
been eliminated through the introduction of new “softer” terms. Fornication
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 33
is now referred to as “premarital sex,” with the emphasis on the “pre” rather
than on the “marital.” Adultery is now called “extramarital sex,” implying an
additional experience, like an extraprofessional activity.
A landmark survey of 100,000, women conducted by Redbook Maga-
zine and supervised by sociologist Robert Bell of Temple University, indi-
cates that about one third of all married women and almost half (47%) of
wage-earning wives reported “having sexual relations with men other than
their husbands.”5 Considering that men tend to be more promiscuous than
women, we can safely assume that the percentage of married men having
extramarital relations is even higher.
The prevailing unfaithfulness to marriage vows has led some Christians,
including some pastors, to adopt a “live and let live” attitude toward divorce
and remarriage. Some Christians assume that God will accept them despite
their infedelity to their wives or husbands by divorcing and marrying
someone else. To such persons, the church must declare that God is not
mocked. Their unfaithfulness to their marriage vows stands under the
judgment of the Lord who tells us that the ultimate destiny of the faithless will
be eternal destruction: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as
for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the
lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev 21:8).6
In view of the prevailing violation of marital vows, as Christians we face
today an unprecedented challenge to maintain by God’s grace our exclusive
commitment to our marriage partners. Exclusive commitment extends be-
yond the sexual sphere and includes forming relationships with friends or
relatives closer than those with our spouses. By taking third parties into the
confidences of our marital life, we undermine the exclusiveness of our marital
commitments. Ellen White warns that “When a woman relates her family
troubles or complaints of her husband to another man, she violates her
marriage vows; she dishonors her husband and breaks down the wall erected
to preserve the sanctity of the marriage relation; she throws wide open the
door and invites Satan to enter with his insidious temptations. This is just as
Satan would have it.”7
Continuing Commitment. To accept marriage as a sacred covenant
also means to be willing to make a continuing commitment to one’s marital
partner. Time changes things, including our looks and our feelings. When my
fiancée accepted my marriage proposal, I was rather thin with nice wavy hair.
Thirty years later I find myself considerably heavier with a shining top. I am
thankful to God that the change in my looks has not caused my wife to change
her commitment to me. Marital commitment must continue through the
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 34
changing seasons of our lives. With each change in our lives, our marital
commitments must be renewed.
To speak today of a continuing commitment may seem naive when about
half of all American marriages are dissolved by divorce or annulment every
year.8 Yet, to approach marriage with an openness to divorce is to deny the
Biblical meaning of the one-flesh, permanent covenantal relationship. In His
response to the question raised over divorce, Jesus was unequivocal in
affirming that marriage is a continuing, lasting commitment: “What therefore
God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9).
A young couple contemplating marriage needs to consider whether or
not both are prepared to make a continuing commitment to one another. But
a continuing commitment to our marriage partners is not accomplished once
and for all. It must be reaffirmed each day, when we are healthy or sick,
wealthy or poor, happy or sad, successful or failing. In all the changing moods
of life, we must determine by God’s grace to reaffirm our marriage commit-
ments until death doth us part.
Sometime ago, a woman told me that she had filed for divorce because
her feelings toward her husband had changed. She did not feel in love with
him anymore. The counsel of Ellen White to such people is to change their
dispositions, not their marriage partners: “If your dispositions are not conge-
nial, would it not be for the glory of God for you to change these disposi-
tions?”9 The good news of the Gospel is that our feelings and dispositions can
be changed through Christ’s enabling power (Phil 4:13). Divine grace makse
a continuing commitment to marriage not a possibility, but a reality.
Our continuing commitment to our marital partners must rest on our
covenantal commitments and not on feelings. David Phypers points out that
“when Paul commanded husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the
church, he understood that love was a decision and not a feeling. No feeling
of romantic love could have taken Jesus to the cross, yet he went because he
loved us. In the same way we are to love each other whether we like it or not,
and in so doing, to fulfill our consent to each other, to be husbands and wives
together as long as we both shall live.”10
Growing Commitment. To accept marriage as a sacred covenant
means also to experience a growing commitment which deepens and matures
through life’s experiences. The Christian life is a call to grow “to the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13), until we love with the
fulness of His love. The same call applies to our marriage relationships.
There must be a maturing and deepening of our commitment to each other.
When marriage commitment stops growing, it begins to wither away.
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 35
Growth in commitment to marriage is not achieved overnight. It is a
continuous daily process lasting through the whole course of our married
lives. It involves, among other things, following the model of Christ’s love
for His church by being willing to sacrifice selfish wants for the good of the
other, being willing to love even when love is not reciprocated. It involves
also accepting unsuspected flaws in the character of our partners and working
together to resolve misunderstandings, tensions, or hostilities.
Growth in our marital commitment often takes place through deaths and
resurrections. There are times in our marital relationship when communica-
tion becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Hurt, hostility, and resentment
seem to prevail. Yet, as we learn by God’s grace to put to death and to bury
all such ill-feeling, out of that dying, new life comes in our relationship. “If
a marriage is growing,” writes Thomas N. Hart, “it is growing through deaths
and ressurections. If it is not growing, it might be because there is a refusal
to die the deaths that have to be died and seek in them the direction in which
new life is breaking. If Jesus for fear, had refused to die, he would not know
the kind of life he now knows as risen Lord, nor would we have the gift of his
Spirit.”11
The sad reality is that many marriages do not grow in maturity and love.
Rather than expending energies to keep their relationships improving, some
marriage partners settle down into a dull drum routine. To find a way out of
such dullness, some partners seek for excitement and growth in extramarital
relationships. In so doing, however, they only add misery to their lives by
violating their marriage covenant and by putting asunder the marital unity
formed by God.
The solution to a dull marriage is to be found not by seeking excitement
outside marriage, but by working together to enrich the relationship. This
involves improving our communication skills by learning to express inner
feelings, by listening to the thoughts, desires and wishes of our partner, by
leaving the cares and concerns of our work behind when we go home, and by
watching for opportunities to manifest tenderness and affection.
Conclusion. To live out marriage as a sacred covenant means to be
willing to make a total, exclusive, continuing and growing commitment to our
marriage partner. Such a committed Christian marriage is not easy or trouble
free. Commitment to a marriage covenant, like our commitment to the Lord,
may result in some forms of cruficixion. But there is no other way to enter into
the joys of Christian marriage. When we commit ourselves to honor by God’s
grace our marriage covenant of mutual faithfulness until death, then we will
experience how God is able mysteriously to unite two lives into “one flesh.”
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 36
PART 3:
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF
A MARRIAGE COVENANT
Both the covenant between God and His people and the covenant
between marital partners entail privileges and obligations. The privileges of
the old covenant included God’s choice of the Israelites as His special people,
His promise to bless them, to give them the land of Canaan, to send them a
Redeemer, to reveal to them His will and to make them His chosen instru-
ments for the conversion of the world. The obligations consisted of the
commitment of the people to obey the principles of conduct God gave to them
in the form of commandments (Ex 24:3). God’s choice of the Hebrew slaves
as His own people was unconditional: “The Lord your God has chosen you
to be a people for his own possession, out of all the people that are on the face
of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other
people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the
fewest of all peoples; but it was because the Lord loves you . . .” (Deut 7:6-
8)
While God’s covenantal commitment to Israel was unconditional, the
blessings of the covenant were conditional. If the people obeyed God’s
commandments, then “the Lord your God will keep with you the covenant .
. . he will love you, bless you, and multiply you . . .” (Deut 7:12-13). God
spelled out the obligations of the covenant in terms of commandments. These
included the Ten Commandments as well as other regulations governing their
social and religious life.
A Double Concept of the Law. The terms “law” and “commandments”
are almost dirty words today. They are generally associated with the Old
Covenant in which allegedly the Israelites had to earn their salvation through
strict obedience. Many Christians believe that in the New Covenant they do
not need to be concerned about obeying the law because they are “justified by
faith apart from works of law” (Rom 3:28). Such a reasoning creates a false
antithesis by assuming that salvation was offered on the basis of human
obedience in the Old Covenant and is now offered on the basis of divine grace
in the New Covenant. Why would God offer salvation in two mutually
exclusive ways? The truth of the matter is that salvation has always been a
divine gift and never a human achievement.
Those who appeal to Paul to negate the role of the law in the New
Covenant fail to realize that Paul does not attack the validity and value of the
law as a moral guide to Christian conduct. On the contrary, Paul emphatically
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 37
affirms that Christ specifically came “in order that the just requirements of the
law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4). What Paul criticizes is the
soteriological understanding of the law, that is, the law viewed as a method
of salvation.
When Paul speaks of the law in the context of the method of salvation
(justification—right standing before God), he clearly affirms that law-
keeping is of no avail (Rom 3:20). On the other hand, when Paul speaks of
the law in the context of the standard of Christian conduct (sanctification—
right living before God), then he maintains the value and validity of God’s law
(Rom 7:12; 13:8-10; 1 Cor 7:9).
Law as a Loving Response. Many Christians fail to realize that the Old
Covenant made at Sinai contained not only principles of conduct (command-
ments to be obeyed—Ex. 20-23), but also provisions of grace and forgiveness
(instructions on how to receive atonement for sin through the typological
services of the tabernacle—Ex. 25:40). God’s biddings are accompanied by
His enablings.
The commandments of the covenant were given not to restrict the
Israelites’ delight and joy in belonging to God, but to enable them to
experience the blessings of the covenant. The Psalmist declares as “blessed”
or “happy” the man whose “delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law
he meditates day and night” (Ps 1:1-2). The function of the commandments
was not to enable the Israelites to become God’s covenant people, but to
respond to God’s unconditional choice of them as His covenant people. The
law is designed to spell out the lifestyle of those who already belong to God.
The relationship between covenant and commandments appears to be a
vicious circle: God chooses us to be His people but in order really to belong
to Him we must obey His commandments. In reality, however, as Gordon
Wenham points out, what looks like a vicious circle is a gracious circle,
because “Law both presupposes and is a means of grace.”12 It presupposes
God’s unconditional election and it provides a means for the reception of the
blessings of the covenant.
Obedience to God’s commandments is our love response to God’s
unconditional choosing of us. It is because God showed “his love for us . . .
while we were yet sinners” (Rom 5:8) that He commands us to love Him by
living according to the principle of conduct He has graciously revealed to us
(John 14:15).
Our love response to God’s covenantal commitment to us is shown
through worship and law. Through worship we bless God for His goodness
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 38
to us. Through the law we love God by living in harmony with the principles
He has revealed for our well being. Both worship and law find their parallel
in the marriage covenant. As Paul Stevens rightly explains: “The first,
worship, has its parallel in marriage in the different languages of love. The
second, the law, is paralleled in marriage by its own ‘laws’—without which
the full blessing of the covenant cannot be appropriated. These are not the
conditions of the marriage relationship but conditions of blessings within the
relationship. They are lifestyle statements for persons in covenant. These
marriage ‘laws’ are the structure of the marriage house, which is built on a
covenant foundation.”13
Sinai Covenant and Marriage Covenant. It is an enlightening exercise
to compare the Sinai covenant with the marriage covenant by interpreting the
Ten Commandments as ten principles of conduct for married people. Paul
Stevens has produced a most perceptive comparison between the two cov-
enants by means of the following table:
CONCLUSION
Christian marriage, to be stable and permanent, needs to be built upon the
foundation of an unconditional, mutual covenant commitment that will not
allow anything or anyone “to put asunder” the marital union established by
God. To accept this Biblical view of marriage as a sacred covenant means
to be willing to make total, exclusive, continuing, and growing commitments
to our marriage partners. Such commitments are not easy or trouble free. Just
as our covenantal commitment to God requires obedience to the principles
embodied in the Ten Commandments, so our covenantal commitments to our
marriage partners demand obedience to the principles of the Ten Command-
ments which are applicable to our marriage relationships.
There is no other way to enter into the joys of Christian marriage than by
assuming its covenantal obligations. When we commit ourselves to honor our
marriage covenants of mutual faithfulness “till death do us part,” then we
experience how God is able mysteriously to unite two lives into “one flesh.”
Honoring our marriage covenant is fundamental to the stability of our family,
church and society.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. R. Paul Stevens, Married for Good (Downers Grove, Illinois, 1986),
p. 17.
2. Ibid., p. 20.
3. Quoted in E. A. Griffin, The Mind Changers (Wheaton, Illinois,
1983), p. 32.
4. Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Committed Marriage (Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, 1976), p. 41.
How to Live Out the Marriage Covenant 45
5. “The Redbook Report on Premarital and Extramarital Sex,” Redbook
Magazine (October 1975): 38.
6. Emphasis supplied.
7. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home (Mountain View, California,
1951), p. 338.
8. According to the National Center for Health Statistics in 1986 there
were in the United States 2,400,000 marriages and 1,159,000 divorces
(Monthly Vital Statistics, vol. 35, n. 13 (August 1987): 3. This means that the
divorce rate is slightly less than 50 percent. Considering, however, that some
divorce more than once, the actual divorce rate is somewhat lower.
9. Ellen G. White (n. 7), p. 345.
10. David Phypers, Christian Marriage in Crisis (Bromley, Kent,
England, 1986), p.59.
11. Thomas N. Hart, Living Happily Ever After (New York, 1979), p. 31.
12. Gordon Wenham, “Grace and Law in the Old Testament,” in Bruce
Kaye and Gordon Wenham, eds., Law, Morality and the Bible (Downers
Grove, Illinois, 1978), p.17.
13. R. Paul Stevens (n.1), pp. 87-88.
14. Ibid., p. 86
15. Ibid., p. 88-94.
Chapter 3
MARRIAGE
AND
SEX
-46-
Marriage and Sex 47
will be marital relationships in the world to come. The overall objective of
the chapter is to counteract the secular and hedonistic view of sex by helping
Christians understand and experience sex as God intended it to be.
CONCLUSION
Sex is seen in the Bible as part of God’s good creation. Its function is both
unitive and procreative. It serves to engender a mysterious oneness of body,
mind, and spirit between husband and wife while offering them the possibility
of bringing children into this world.
Scripture strongly condemns sex outside marriage because it is a sin
affecting a person more deeply and permanently than other sins (1 Cor 6:18).
It leaves a permanent mark in the consciousness that cannot be removed. Sex
outside of marriage is sin because it is sex without commitment. It reduces
a person to an object to be used for personal gratification. Such a selfish use
of sex impairs, if not totally destroys, the possibility of using it to express and
experience genuine love and commitment toward one’s marital partner. At a
time when sexual permissiveness and promiscuity prevails, it is imperative
for Christians to reaffirm their commitment to the Biblical view of sex as a
divine gift to be enjoyed only within marriage.
Marriage and Sex 68
NOTES ON CHAPTER 3
1. Rollo May, “Reflecting on the New Puritanism,” in Sex Thoughts for
Contemporary Christians, ed. Michael J. Taylor, S.J. (New York, 1972),
p.171.
2. For a discussion of the attitude toward sex of the early church, including
Augustine, see Derrick Sherwin Bailey, Common Sense About Sexual Ethics:
A Christian View (New York, 1962); Donald F. Winslow, “Sex and Anti-sex
in the Early Church Fathers,” in Male and Female: Christian Approaches
Sexuality, eds. Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse and Urban T. Holmes III (New
York, 1956).
Chapter 4
HOW TO HANDLE
MARITAL CONFLICTS
CONCLUSION
Some conflicts are inevitable in every marriage because no two
persons have exactly the same personality, attitude, and values. A successful
Christian marriage is not necessarily one in which there are no conflicts, but
rather one in which partners have learned to handle their conflicts construc-
tively, turning them into opportunities for improving communication and
building a stronger marriage covenant. We have found that seven basic rules
can help in turning conflicts into constructive opportunities.
First, we must be totally committed to preserving our marriage cov-
enant. It is only within the context of a loving and steadfast commitment that
marital conflicts can be successfully resolved.
Second, we must be honest and fair in handling marital conflicts, avoid
hitting below the belt or lying to win the argument. Our concern should be
to find the best solution to the problem, irrespective of who wins or loses.
How to Handle Marital Conflicts 91
Third, we must learn to keep our anger under control, avoiding
outbursts of anger, insulting language, and cutting remarks. If the conflict
gets out of control, the more spiritually mature partner will seek to still the
storm by refusing to retaliate for the hurt received.
Fourth, we must choose an appropriate time to discuss a problem,
avoiding raising issues just before anything that would not provide adequate
time to deal with them satisfactorily.
Fifth, we must learn to stick to the issue at hand, and not use the
occasion to bring up past grievances. This includes avoiding sweeping
generalizations and accusations.
Sixth, we must learn to listen carefully to the words of our mates and
to speak tactfully. Such an approach will make it possible to uncover hidden
feelings which may be the cause of the conflict.
Seventh, we must be willing to forgive and to forget the wrongs of our
mates, not because we are morally upright, but because we have experienced
God’s forgiving grace in our lives. By learning to forgive and to forget, we
become free to love, to trust, and to grow into a stronger covenant relationship.
How to Handle Marital Conflicts 92
NOTES ON CHAPTER 4
1. Cecil Osborne, The Art of Understanding Your Mate (Grand Rapids,
1970), p.36.
2. James H. Jauncey, Magic in Marriage (Grand Rapids, 1966), p.42.
3. Dwight Hervey Small, Design for Christian Marriage (Westwood,
New Jersey, 1959), p. 89.
4. Tim and Beverley LaHaye, The Act of Marriage (Grand Rapids,
1976), p. 22.
5. See, for example, Robert O. Blood and Donald M. Wolfe, Husband
andWife (New York, 1960), p. 245; Marcia Lasswell and Thomas E. Lasswell,
Marriage and the Family (Lexington, Massachussetts, 1982), p. 503.
6. Lloyd Saxton, The Individual Marriage and the Family (Belmont,
California, 1980), p. 547.
7. W. Clark Ellzey, “Money, Marriage and Romance,” in The Mar-
riage Affair, ed. J. Allan Petersen (Wheaton, Illinois, 1971), p. 353.
8. Tim LaHaye, How to Be Happy Though Married (Wheaton, Illinois,
1968), p.29.
9. Stephen A. Grunlan, Marriage and the Family. A Christian
Perspective (Grand Rapids, 1984), p. 209.
10. George R. Bach and Peter Wyden, The Intimate Enemy: How to
Fight Fair in Love and Marriage (New York, 1968), p. 70.
11. Stephen A. Grunlan (n. 9), p. 208
Chapter 5
ROLES
WITHIN MARRIAGE
The stability of the marriage covenant depends largely upon the way the
husband and the wife fulfill their respective roles. Marriage counselors often
point to “role conflicts” as a major cause for the breaking up of marriages.
“Those of us who do marriage counseling,” writes Paul Stevens, “realize that
many marriages are struggling deperately at just this point. Some men insist
that the Bible makes them responsible to God for the family. They are boss.
Some women believe this is true and try for years to submit to a weak man or
a tyrant. But there comes a day, almost inevitably, when the woman revolts.
She may revolt by having a nervous breakdown, by getting a plane ticket and
flying away, or by leaving him for another man.”1
On a similar vein Robert C. Williamson writes: “In some cases the
inability or failure to carry out a given role or a number of roles proves
disastrous to the marriage. Differences in role perception are illustrated when
the husband prefers the patriarchal pattern, and the wife looks forward to
the equalitarian one. Divorce may be the only outcome for these role
discrepancies.”2
At the root of much of the role conflicts within marital relationships, are
the different interpretations and applications of the Biblical teaching on
husband-headship and wife-submission. The very mention of the terms
“headship/submission” is anathema for many who during the last three
decades have made the quantum leap from “Adam’s rib to women’s lib.” Any
one who dares to drop the phrase “submission of the wife” into a conversation
with a “woman’s libber” risks the danger of being “categorized as some
ignorant weirdo who believes in slave chambers of torture and one who
promotes chaining women in a washroom. The very idea! I mean, what
thinking person today can possibly imagine squashing a woman under the
heels of a man . . . or shoving her in a corner, reducing her activities to
changing diapers, doing dishes, checking off a grocery list, and mopping
floors?”3
-93-
Roles With Marriage 94
The widely publicized misrepresentation and rejection of the Biblical
view of roles within marriage has been largely influenced by the Women’s
Liberation Movement which received renewed impetus in 1966 with the
founding of the National Organization of Women (NOW). The radical
groups in the movement promote the liberation of the wife from her submis-
sive role through the abolition of marriage itself. Shelia Cronan, a leader in
the Women’s Liberation Movement, unequivocally states: “Since marriage
constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must
concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won
without the abolition of marriage.”4
The more moderate groups take issue with the radicals who reject
marriage altogether, promoting instead “role interchangeability” within
marriage and full political, economic and civil equality of women in society.
It must be said that many American women do not support the cry for equality
of the Women’s Liberation Movement. They realize that being the “weaker
sex” entails privileges denied to men, thus, making women “the favored sex.”
Elsieliese Thorpe expresses this view, saying: “If they [the Women’s
Liberation Movement] don’t stop their commotion, their rumbling of discon-
tent and pleas for equality, we might end up getting what they are asking for.
And who wants equality when we women are doing so much better now?
Biologically, legally, temperamentally, and just about every other way that
matters, we women are the favored sex.”5
In some ways Thorpe’s prediction is being fulfilled today as more and
more women are treated as men in the working place by being asked to
perform heavy manual tasks such as loading and unloading baggage at
airports or by being expected to be back at work a few days or at the most a
few weeks after the birth of their babies. Even worse more and more women
find themselves deserted by men who have been free of their marital
obligations by the feminist movement.
In her article “The Failure of Feminism” published in Newsweek, Kay
Ebeling laments: “Today I see feminism as the Great Experiment That Failed,
and women in my generation, its perpetrators, are the casualties. Many of us,
including myself, are saddled with raising children alone. The resulting
poverty makes us experts at corn meal recipes and ways to find free
recreation on weekends . . . Feminism freed men, not women. Now men are
spared the nuisance of a wife and family support. After childbirth, if his wife’s
waist does not return to 20 inches, the husband can go out and find a more
petite woman. It’s far more difficult for the wife, now tied with a baby, to find
a new man.”6
Roles With Marriage 95
In the face of the “role confusion” existing in our society, it is not difficult
to realize why Christian couples are also confused about their roles and often
seek greater self-fulfillment by assuming different roles. To resist the societal
trend bent on eliminating or reversing roles within marriage, it is imperative
for Christian spouses and young people planning for marriage to study what
God has to say in the Scripture regarding the proper roles for the husband and
the wife. The Biblical view of marital roles, as we shall see, derives not from
ancient patriarchal culture but from divine revelation. The acceptance of such
a view provides the only solid foundation for a marriage covenant.
Objectives of the Chapter. This chapter examines the meaning,
implications, and applications of the Biblical principle of husband-headship
and wife-submission. The chapter is divided into two parts. The first part
considers the major New Testament passages concerning the roles of husband
and wife. An attempt will be made to interpret the Biblical meaning of
“headship” and “submission.” The second part examines the practical
implications and applications of the Biblical principle of headship/submis-
sion. Specifically, we shall consider what it means from a practical standpoint
for the husband to practice headship and for the wife to practice submission.
PART I:
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HEADSHIP/-
SUBMISSION TEXTS
The major New Testament passages concerning the roles of husband and
wife are Ephesians 5:18-33, Colossians 3:18, and 1 Peter 3:1-7. These
passages are known as the “household codes” (in German, Haustafeln), since
they summarize the duties of the various members of the household: the
husband, the wife, the children, masters, and slaves. A strenuous effort has
been made in recent times to reinterpret these and other passages in accor-
dance with the “partnership paradigm” promoted by the Women’s Liberation
Movement. Three major interpretations are espoused by three different
groups of scholars whom I shall designate as: (1) Liberal Feminists, (2)
Evangelical Feminists, and (3) Biblical Feminists.
1. Three Interpretations
“Liberal Feminists.” Most liberal feminists concede that Scripture
teaches the principle of husband-headship and wife-submission, but they
argue that such a principle need not be taken seriously because it is time-
bound, culturally conditioned, adrocentric (male-centered), rabbinic in ori-
Roles With Marriage 96
gin, anti-feminist in nature, and hopelessly conditioned by a patriarchal
mentality. Thus they reject the Biblical teaching on headship and submis-
sion.7 Their final authority is their own critical, socio-cultural interpretation
of Scripture which ultimately makes them victims of their own culturally
conditioned interpretation. No attempt will be made to examine the argu-
ments of Liberal Feminists since their rejection of the authority and applica-
bility of Scriptures offers no basis for any fruitful dialogue.
“Evangelical Feminists.” For the most part, Evangelical Feminists
respect the authority of Scriptures, but they reinterpret those passages which
speak of male-headship and women-submission in accordance with the
partnership position. Husbands and wives are to be mutually submissive to
one another and share responsibility in the home on a 50-50 arrangement.8
Their arguments will be examined below.
“Biblical Feminists.” Whereas Liberal Feminists reject the Biblical
teaching on headship and submission and the Evangelical Feminists reinter-
pret it, the Biblical Feminists reaffirm it. They maintain that the Bible clearly
teaches that God has established functional role distinctions between hus-
bands and wives—distinctions which do not imply superiority or inferiority
but complementarity.9
This chapter is written from a Biblical Feminist’s perspective. I will
endeavor to examine the “household codes” texts in order to establish the
Biblical meaning and contemporary application of the husband-headship and
wife-submission.
2. Head as “Source”
What did Paul mean when he wrote that “the head of a woman is her
husband” (1 Cor 11:3) and that “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph
5:23)? Historically these texts have been understood to mean that husbands
have “authority over” their wives. Recently this interpretation has been
challenged, especially by liberal and evangelical feminists who contend that
the word “head” in such passages means “source” or “origin” rather than
designating “authority over.”10 The implication of this interpretation is that
Paul was not teaching that man “has authority over” (= head over) his wife,
but rather that he is her “source” and consequently he must be especially
concerned for her.
This interpretation is used by feminists to reject any form of wives’
submission to their husbands and to argue for sexual equality and role-
interchangeability. For example, Scanzoni and Hardesty write: “If we think
of the term ‘head’ in the sense of arche (beginning, origin, source), we are
Roles With Marriage 97
again reminded of the interdependence of the sexes, each drawing life from
the other.”11 This interdependence supposedly allows both spouses to fill the
roles of father, mother, breadwinner, housekeeper in the home and the roles
of pastor, elder or priest in the church.12
Modern Authors. The first to propound that “head” (kephale) in 1
Corinthians 11:3 should be understood as “origin” or “source” seems to have
been Stephen Bedale in an article published in 1954.13 Since then, numerous
writers have expressed the same view.14 Among them, the most influencial
have been Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen. In several articles, they have
argued that Paul used the term “head” not in the sense of “authority or
hierarchy” but rather in the sense of “source, base, derivation” in 1 Corinthians
11:3 and of “one who brings to completion” in Ephesians 5:23.15 The
implication of this interpretation is that the “head texts” do not preclude wives
from serving as “head-leader” in the home and women from serving as “head-
pastor, elder” in the church.
Arguments for “Source”. Briefly stated, the various arguments ad-
vanced for interpreting “head” as “source” or “origin” rather than as “ruler or
authority,” fall into four categories:16
(1) Linguistic. In classical and contemporary Greek, “head” (kephale)
does not normally mean “ruler” or “authority over.”17 The Mickelsens
support this claim by appealing to the Liddell-Scott lexicon where the
meaning of “authority over” is not listed. Instead, this lexicon cites two
examples (Herodotus 4, 91 and Orphic Fragments 21a) where “head” is used
with the meaning of “source.”18 Thus, it is argued that the meaning of “head”
as the ruling part of the organism “would be unintelligible to St. Paul or his
readers.”19
(2) Cultural. The ancient world did not view the head as the seat of
thinking and the executive part of the body. “In St. Paul’s day, according to
popular psychology, both Greek and Hebrew, a man reasoned and purposed,
not ‘with his head,’ but ‘in his heart.’”20 Consequently, the metaphor of
“source” is supposedly present in the “head texts” (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23).
(3) Septuagint. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old
Testament) supposedly shows that “head” (kephale) can mean “source.” The
main support of this conclusion is that when the Hebrew word ro’sh (“head”)
means “ruler” or “chief,” it was translated by either kephale (“head”) or arche
(“beginning” or “ruler”). Since arche sometimes means “source,” then
kephale in Paul’s writings may mean “source” as well.21
Roles With Marriage 98
(4) Parallelism. The word “head” (kephale) is supposedly used by Paul
in Colossians 2:19 and Ephesians 4:15 with the meaning of “source of life.”
Christians are exhorted in Colossians 2:19 to hold fast “to the Head, from
whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and
ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” The Mickelsens argue that
in this passage Christ is the “head” in the sense that He is “the source of life,”
and not of “superior rank.”22 They believe that the same meaning applies to
1 Corinthians 11:3, since in verses 8 and 12 of the same chapter Paul says that
“woman was made from man.”
Analysis of the Linguistic Argument. The above arguments have been
examined and compellingly refuted by Wayne Grudem. He discredits the
linguistic argument that “head” in Greek (kephale) normally means “source”
rather than “ruler,” by quoting thirty-two examples in which the term is used
to mean “authority over” or “ruler” in Greek writings outside the New
Testament (seventeen are from Greek translations of the Old Testament and
fifteen are from other literature).23
The absence in the Liddell-Scott lexicon of “authority over” as a
meaning for “head” is not conclusive evidence for the non-existence of such
a meaning. The reason is, as Wayne Grudem rightly explains: “Lidell-Scott
is the standard lexicon for all Greek literature from about 700 B.C. to about
A.D. 600 with emphasis on classical Greek authors in the seven centuries
prior to the New Testament. Liddell-Scott is the tool one would use when
studying Plato or Aristotle, for example; but it is not the standard lexicon that
scholars use for the study of the New Testament. (The standard lexicon for
that is Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker).”24
Analysis of the Cultural Argument. While it is true that in the ancient
world “the heart” rather than “the head” was generally viewed as the seat of
thinking (Prov 14:33; 22:17, in Hebrew and KJV; Luke 5:22), there is also
significant evidence that the “head” was regarded as the thinking and ruling
part of the body. Plutarch (A.D. 46-120), a prominent Greek author contem-
porary to the New Testament period, explains why the words “soul” (psyche)
and “head” (kephale) can be used to refer to the whole person: “We
affectionately call a person ‘soul’ or ‘head’ from his ruling parts.”25
Similarly the Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 30 B.C.—c. A.D. 45) writes:
“As the head in the living body is the ruling place, so Ptolemy became head
among kings.”26 Examples such as these discredit the claim that the metaphor
of the head as the ruling part of the organism would have been “unintelligible
to St. Paul or his readers.”
Roles With Marriage 99
Analysis of the Septuagint Argument. The argument that “head” in
the Septuagint sometimes means “source” is a gratuitous assumption, devoid
of any textual support. The reader will search in vain for examples in the
articles by Stephen Bedale and by the Mickelsens showing that “head”
(kephale) was ever used with the meaning of “source” in the Septuagint. The
fact that kephale is sometimes used in the Septuagint interchangeably with
arche, which can mean “source,” or “beginning,” does not per se demonstrate
that kephale generally means “source.”27
Wayne Grudem explains this inconsistency by using a fitting example
from the English language: “A parallel to Bedale’s argument in English
would be if I were to argue (1) that ‘jump’ and ‘spring’ could both be used to
translate some foreign word when it referred to a ‘leap in the air,’ and (2) that
therefore there is a virtual equation of ‘jump’ and ‘spring’ in English.” I
would then go on to argue that ‘jump’ also can mean ‘a fountain of water,’
or ‘a coil of metal,’ or ‘a pleasant season of the year when flowers begin
to bloom.’”28
Analysis of the Parallelism Argument. The metaphor of Christ as “the
Head” of the church, which is compared to the word “body” in Colossians
2:19 and Ephesians 4:15, does allow for “Head” to mean “source,” but it
certainly does not exclude the meaning of “authority over.” The context of
Colossians 2:19 indicates that Paul encourages his readers to abandon the
worship of angels and serve only Christ as the true “Head.” In this context of
allegiance to Christ instead of to angels, the reference to Christ as the “Head”
best implies “authority over” the church. Moreover, even if it meant “the
source” of the church, it would still imply “authority over” the church by
virtue of the very fact that the church derives her origin and sustenance from
Christ.
Similarly, the context (vv. 8, 10-12) of Ephesians 4:15 shows that Christ
is “the Head” of the church in the sense that He is the sovereign Lord who rules
the church and nourishes her growth. The fact that Christ as “the Head”
is the source of growth of the church presupposes that He is also the leader
of the church.
This brief analysis of the four arguments used to interpret “head” in 1
Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 as meaning that husbands are “the
source” rather than “the leaders” of their wives, suffices to show that this
interpretation lacks textual, contextual and historical support.
Roles With Marriage 100
3. Head as “Authority Over”
Several lines of evidence indicate that “head” is used in 1 Corinthians
11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 as meaning “authority over.” This means that when
Paul writes that “the head of a woman is her husband” (1 Cor 11:3) and “the
husband is the head of the wife” (Eph 5:23), he means that the husband
functions in a position of authority with respect to his wife. Such a position,
as we shall see, entails not domination but a leadership of sacrificial love. This
conclusion rests on the following five major considerations:
(1) New Testament Lexicons. All the standard lexicons and dictionar-
ies for the New Testament do list the meaning of “authority over,” or “ruler,”
or “superior rank” for “head” (kephale). The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich lexicon
gives the following definition under the word kephale: “in the case of living
beings, to denote superior rank.”29 Thirteen examples are then listed of such
usage, including 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23.
The same meaning is given by Heinrich Schlier in the Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. Referring to the use of kephale in the
Septuagint, he writes: “kephale is used for the head or ruler of a society.”30
Again, with reference to 1 Corinthians 11:3, Schlier says: “kephale implies
one who stands over another in the sense of being the ground of his being.”31
Similar definitions are given by The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology and by the older New Testament lexicons by Thayer
and Cremer.
(2) Textual Evidences. Ample textual evidences from ancient Greek
literature attest to the use of “head” (kephale) with the meaning of “authority
over.” Wayne Grudem conducted a painstaking survey of 2,336 examples,
by utilizing a computerized database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae at the
University of California-Irvine. This listing included the major classical
Greek authors, in addition to the Septuagint, Philo, Josephus, the Apostolic
Fathers, the New Testament and others.
The results of the survey are very significant. In the vast majority of
instances kephale refers to an actual physical head of a man or animal (87%).32
Of the 302 instances where kephale is used metaphorically, 49 times it is used
to denote a “ruler” or a “person of superior authority or rank.” “The other
interesting conclusion from this study is that no instances were discovered in
which kephale had the meaning ‘source, origin.’”33 This data openly
contradicts the Mickelsens’ statement that “a more common meaning [of
“head”] was source, or origin, as we use it in the ‘head of the Mississippi
river.’”34
Roles With Marriage 101
` (3) Patristic Testimonies. The early Christian writers who referred to
1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 understood the word “head” used in
these texts to mean “authority, superior rank.” The testimonies of such writers
as Clement and Tertullian, who lived about a century away from the time of
the New Testament, deserve consideration. Ruth A. Tucker, though an
Evangelical Feminist herself, concludes her survey of the patristic usage of
“head,” saying: “It [kephale] was generally interpreted by the church fathers
and by Calvin to mean authority, superior rank or pre-eminence. These
findings bring into question some of the Mickelsens’ assumptions—particu-
larly that the ‘superior rank’ meaning of kephale is not ‘one of the ordinary
Greek meanings’ but rather a ‘meaning associated with the English word
head.’ . . . it seems clear that the fathers used this so-called English
meaning long before they could have in any way been influenced by the
English language.”35
(4) Contextual Evidences. The context of both 1 Corinthians 11:3 and
Ephesians 5:23 excludes “source” as a possible meaning of “head.” In 1
Corinthians 11:3, Paul presents three sets of parallels: Christ/man, man/
woman, God/Christ: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man
is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
If “head” is taken to mean “source,” as James Hurley convincingly shows,
“there is no way to construct a satisfactory set of parallels.”36
Adam could be the source of Eve in the sense that she was physically
taken out of him, but Christ cannot be the source of Adam in the sense that
Adam was physically taken out of Him. Nor can God be the source of Christ
in the sense that Christ was physically created from a piece taken out of God.
The latter is not only incompatible with other Pauline teachings but was also
specifically rejected at the time of the Arian controversy.
On the other hand, if “head” means “authority or head over,” a consistent
set of parallels can be established. The husband is the head over his wife in
the sense that she is “subject” to him (Eph 5:22). Christ is head over every man
in the sense that every man is subject to Christ after whom he must model his
behavior (Eph 5:25). God is head over Christ in the sense that the incarnate
Son of God was obedient to God’s authority (headship), even to the point of
death (Phil 2:8).
The meaning of “source or origin” is excluded also by the context of
Ephesians 5:23, where Paul calls upon wives to be subject to their husbands
“for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his
body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:22-23). In this context, the language
of headship and submission precludes the notion of “origin or source” for
three major reasons.
Roles With Marriage 102
First, the idea of subjection to an authority (“head”) is implied by the very
verb “be subject” (hypotasso)—a verb which implies a relation to authority
(cf. Eph 1:22). Second, while Adam was in a sense the source of Eve,
husbands in the New Testament were not the physical source of their
wives. Third, even if the husband was the actual source of his wife, that
would make his authority more rather than less complete, contrary to what
some wish to argue.
(5) Unnecessary Opposition. The attempt to interpret the meaning of
“head” as “source” to the exclusion of “authority, head over” creates an
unnecessary opposition between the two meanings. This fact is recognized
even by Stephen Bedale himself, who is often quoted by those who argue
against the meaning of “authority” in Paul’s use of “head” in Ephesians 5:23
and 1 Corinthians 11:3. Having stated that Paul saw man as kephale (“head”)
of the woman in the sense of being her arche (“source, beginning”), Bedale
goes on to say: “In St. Paul’s view, the female in consequence is ‘subordinate’
(cf. Eph 5:23). But this principle of submission . . . rests upon the order of
creation. . . . That is to say, while the word kephale (and arche also, for that
matter) unquestionably carries with it the idea of “authority,” such authority
in social relationships derives from relative priority (causal rather than merely
temporal) in the order of being.”37
It is obvious that Bedale offers no support to those who quote his article
to prove that the idea of authority is not inherent in Paul’s use of kephale
(“head”). Even if it could be proven that Paul uses “head” with the meaning
of “source,” such a conclusion would still carry with it the idea of man’s
“authority, leadership” role in marriage and in the church.
4. Mutual Submission?
The foregoing considerations have shown that “head” is used by Paul in
Ephesians 5:23 and in 1 Corinthians 11:3 with the meaning of “authority
over.” Before examining the nature of the husband’s headship role and of the
wife’s submissive role, we need to consider the meaning of the opening
statement of the “household code” found in Ephesians 5:21-33, which reads:
“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21).
This statement is seen by many Evangelical Feminists as the key that
interprets the whole passage in terms of mutual submission. In other words,
Paul is supposedly calling upon husbands and wives to be mutually submis-
sive by serving one another in love. This interpretation obviously excludes
the notion of the husband’s headship over the wife. Though the idea of mutual
submission is not foreign to the intent of the passage, in my view it does not
represent the main teaching of the passage. Verse 21 can best be understood
Roles With Marriage 103
as a general heading for the whole section which deals with the role relations
of wives/husbands, children/parents, slaves/masters (Eph 5:21—6:9). I have
four basic objections to the mutual submission interpretation of the passage:
Structure of the Passage. First, the whole passage (Eph 5:21-6:9)
consists of a series of three exhortations in which wives, children and slaves
are urged to submit to or obey respectively husbands, parents and masters.
These exhortations negate the notion of mutual submission, especially in the
case of children/parents and slaves/masters. They can best be understood as
explanations of what is meant by being subject to one another.
Exhortation to Subordinate. Second, the exhortation to be submissive
or to obey is given to the subordinate partner, not to both. The corresponding
exhortations to husbands/parents/masters are not for them to be submissive
but to respect and love their subordinates. Thus both the structure and context
of the passage recognize a distinction of roles. This view is also strengthened
by the absence of the corresponding exhortation for masters and husbands in
the parallel passage of 1 Peter 2:18-3:2.
Meaning of Verb. Third, the New Testament use of the verb hypotasso,
translated “to make subject” in the active and “to be subject” in the passive,
consistently expresses the idea of exercising or yielding to authority.38 “Each
of the more than forty New Testament uses of the verb carries an overtone of
authority and subjection or submission to it.”39 The meaning of the verb “to
be subject” then, contains the idea of an order where one person submitting
himself or herself to the leadership of another.
Meaning of “to one another.” Fourth, the phrase “to one another,”
which is the basis for the idea of mutual submission, does not always require
identical reciprocity. An example of this is found in James 5:16 where the
same phrase occurs: “confess your sins to one another.” This instruction is
given in the context of a sick person confessing his or her sins to an elder as
part of the healing process. There is no indication in the context of a reciprocal
confession of sin, that is, of the elder also confessing his sins to the sick
person. In the same way the exhortation “Be subject to one another” does not
necessarily require the idea of identical reciprocity. In the light of the above
structural, contextual, and verbal considerations, the phrase “Be subject to
one another” simply refers to the general principle of mutual respect for and
submission to one another’s authority.
5. The Nature of the Wife’s Submission
The admonition to “Be subject to one another” is followed immediately
by Paul’s exhortation to wives: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the
Roles With Marriage 104
Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
church, his body and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:22-23). In what sense are
wives to be subject or submissive to their husbands? There are different kinds
of submission and for different motivations. There is the calculating kind of
submission designed to achieve the fulfillment of secret desires through the
practice of “feminine wiles.” There is the submission of conciliation which
is accepted for the sake of peace. There is the submission of resignation
to bitter necessity. There is the submission to the superior wisdom of
another person.
Submission for the Sake of Christ. Paul rejects the worldly patterns of
submission, substituting for them a new definition: “as to the Lord.” This
does not mean that a wife’s submission to her husband must have the same
unconditional ultimacy of her commitment to Christ. This would be an
idolatrous form of submission. The phrase suggests two possible meanings.
First, the manner of a wife’s submission to her husband should be similar in
quality to her devotion to the Lord. This meaning is supported by the parallel
text, Colossians 3:18, which states: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as
is fitting in the Lord.”
Second, the reason for a wife’s submission is “because the Lord wants
it.” This meaning is suggested by the preceding and following verses. In the
preceding verse (v. 21) the reason given for being submissive is “out of
reverence for Christ.” “Reverence” is a soft translation of the Greek phobos which
means “fear.” The KJV retains the literal meaning: “in the fear of God.”
In Scripture, the “fear of the Lord” is the response which produces
obedience to His commandments. Thus, submission “in the fear of Christ”
means to accept the authority of another (in this case, the husband) out of
obedience to Christ who has delegated that authority. This interpretation is
supported by the following verse (v. 23) which says, “For the husband is the
head of the wife,” that is to say, because the Lord has appointed the husband
to function as the head. The recognition of this fact leads Paul to conclude his
exhortation by urging wives again to fear their husbands: “Let the wife see
that she respects [literally “fears”—phobetai] her husband” (Eph 5:33).
Theological, not Cultural Reasons. The main conclusion relevant here
is that a wife’s submission to her husband rests not on cultural but on
theological reasons. Wives are asked to submit not for the sake of social
conventions or the superior wisdom of their husbands, but for the sake of
Christ. Paul grounds his injunction not on a particular culture, but on the
unique relationship of loving mutuality and willing submissiveness existing
between Christ and the church.
Roles With Marriage 105
Christ has appointed the husband to function as the “head,” so that when
the wife subordinates herself to him, she is obeying Christ. This does not
mean that a wife is to relate to her husband as if he were Christ. Paul’s
exhortation is “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord,” and not
“because they are the Lord.” Husbands are human beings, but are appointed
by the Lord to act as “heads” in the marital relationship. Thus, Paul takes what
could be a natural submission and places it within a spiritual order, an order
that Christ stands behind.
The wife’s submission to her husband is not based on the husband’s
superiority or the wife’s inferiority but, as we have seen, on the husband’s
headship role established by God at creation (1 Cor 11:8-9). This order has
been established because it affords greater harmony and effectiveness in the
marital relationship. The authority to which a wife bows is not so much that
of her husband as that of the creational order to which both of them are subject.
Voluntary Submission. A wife’s submission to her husband is not
imposed, but consciously chosen. It is a free, willing and loving submission.
It is not subservience, but loving assistance. The voluntary nature of her
submission is indicated by two facts: first, by the command to the husband
to love his wife rather than to make her obey; second, by the model of the
submission of the church to Christ which Paul gives as an example for the
wife’s submission to her husband. This means that as the church willingly
chooses to obey Christ in response to His creative and redeeming love so the
wife willingly chooses to obey the husband as a response to his caring and
self-sacrificing love. This form of active obedience is not self-demeaning, but
self-fulfilling and upbuilding.
The purpose of this submission is not to suppress the individuality of the
wife, but to ensure a deeper and more solid oneness between husband and wife
as they function together in the household. Elisabeth Elliot perceptively
points out that “To say that submission is synonymous with the stunting of
growth, with dullness and colorlessness, spiritlessness, passivity, immatu-
rity, servility, or even the ‘suicide of personality,’ as one feminist who calls
herself an evangelical has suggested, is totally to miscontrue the biblical
doctrine of authority.”40
In the Christian faith, authentic self-realization for men and women is
found in the willing submission to the divinely-established roles grounded in
creation and clarified by Christ’s redemption. This liberating dynamic is
exemplified in the life of the Trinity and expressed in the Scriptures.
Roles With Marriage 106
6. The Nature of the Husband’s Headship
The exhortation “Wives, be subject to your husbands” is followed by
Paul’s admonition to husbands: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved
the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). It is noteworthy that Paul
speaks of the headship role of the husband only when exhorting wives and not
when addressing the husbands themselves. In other words, the wives are
reminded that “the husband is the head of the wife” (Eph 5:23), but that
husbands are not exhorted to exercise their headship role by keeping their
wives in submission. Instead, Paul chose to confront husbands with the
headship model of Christ’s sacrificial love (Eph 5:25-27).
Paul’s approach reveals his sensitivity to human abuse of power. He was
aware of some men’s over-concern with asserting their authority. Conse-
quently, he chose to emphasize not the husband’s right to be the head over the
wife, but rather his obligation to exercise his headship through care for his
wife. Paul acknowledges the headship role of the husband in the marital
relationship as an indisputable principle: “the husband is the head of the wife”
(Eph 5:23). There was no need to restate this principle when addressing the
husbands. What husbands needed to hear was what it means to be the head
over their wives.
Headship Clarified. Paul clarifies the meaning of headship by calling
upon husbands to imitate the sacrificial leadership of Christ Himself: “Hus-
bands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her,
that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with
the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot
or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish ”(Eph
5:25-27).
Paul here goes into great detail to explain how Christ exercises His
headship role over the church, namely, through the sacrificial giving of
Himself for her redemption and restoration. In the same way, the husband’s
authority is to be expressed in self-giving love for the well-being of his wife.
The husband who follows Christ’s leadership will exercise his headship, not
by forcing his wife into a mold that stifles her initiative, her gifts, her
personhood, but rather by encouraging her to develop her mental and
spiritual potential.
Paul further clarifies the meaning of headship by shifting back to the
head/body analogy (vv. 28-30). The husband should care for his wife as he
does for his own body. This means that a husband must be dedicated to his
wife’s welfare by providing for all her needs. This kind of loving and
sacrificial leadership eliminates all the evils associated with hierarchical
marriage and enables the two to “become one flesh” (Eph 5:31).
Roles With Marriage 107
Biblical headship is for the sake of building others and not for one’s own
benefit. Headship means that the husband assumes a responsibility for the
family in a way that is different from that of the wife’s. The husband serves
as the provider and the wife as the home-builder. The two are not superior or
inferior but complementary. Each supplements the special gifts and respon-
sibilities of the other.
Headship and Submission. The model of Christ’s sacrificial love for
the church provides a most eloquent example of how headship and submis-
sion can be compatible in marital relationships. Christ’s headship over the
church is not diminished by his self-sacrificing love for her. By the same
token, the church’s submission to Christ does not diminish the possibilities
for her fullest development, but rather enhances them.
The comparison between the relationship of Christ-the-church and
husband-wife points to the ultimacy of the authority structure in marriage.
The latter, however, must always mirror the relation of Christ to the church.
“It was not the design of God” writes Ellen White, “that the husband should
have control, as head of the house when he himself does not submit to Christ.
He must be under the rule of Christ that he may represent the relation of Christ
to the church.”41
Neither headship nor submission must crush or distort the possibilities
for self-growth or personal fulfillment. Effective leadership in any organiza-
tion must encourage the fullest development of the abilities of those under
authority. This requires that a leader be aware of the concerns of those under
him and that the subordinates respect the wishes of the leader. As Christians
we need to maintain the delicate balance between the exercise of authority
(headship) and the response to authority (submission).
7. Reasons for the Rejection of Husband-Headship
A Gross Misunderstanding. Why are some feminists so offended by
the Biblical principle of husband-headship that they even call for the abolition
of marriage? “Marriage,” states a feminist declaration, “has existed for the
benefit of men and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over
women . . . the end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for
the liberation of women.”
At the root of the rejection of husband-headship, there is a gross
misunderstanding of its Biblical meaning. In the Bible, husband-headship
relates to function not to value. If male headship in the home and in the church
meant that man was innately more valuable than woman, then something
would be terribly unjust in the Bible. But male headship in the Bible does not
mean that women are inferior or of lesser value than men.
Roles With Marriage 108
The value of a human being is not determined by office or function. The
head of a department is not of greater worth than a regular teacher in the
department. Human worth in the Scripture is determined not by our office or
function but by our status before God by virtue of creation and redemption.
By virtue of creation, both men and women are equal before God because both
have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Similarly, by virtue of
redemption, both men and women are equal before God because, as we read
in Galatians 3:28, we “are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Difference Between Value and Function. The divine order of headship
has nothing to do with men being of greater worth than women, for they are
not. The issue is the different and yet complementary functions God has
assigned to men and women. Weldon M. Hardenbrook perceptively observes
that “The failure to differentiate between value and function lies behind much
of the power struggle that ravages families across America. Men who actually
think they are more valuable because God asks them to be head of the family
unit are deceived. And women who feel reduced in personhood because they
are not in charge are equally deceived.”42
The Trinity provides a perfect model of how equality in worth can coexist
with submission in functions. God the Father is the Head in the Trinity (1 Cor
11:3), but His headship does not lessen the value of the Son, because both are
equally God. Some argue that the Son’s functional submission to the Father
was temporary, limited only to the time of His incarnation and/or of the
completion of His redemptive mission. This argument is untrue, because 1
Corinthians 15:28 clearly tells us that at the consummation of His redemptive
mission, Christ who has been reigning until He subjects all things under His
Father’s feet, will Himself be subject to God: “When all things are subjected
to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things
under him, that God may be everything to everyone” (1 Cor 15:28).
The Son is not of less value because of His functional submission to the
headship of the Father, since both fully share the divine nature. Similarly, a
woman is of no less value because of her functional submission to her
husband, since both men and women are “joint heirs of the grace of life” (1
Pet 3:7), having been equally created and restored in God’s image (Gen 1:27).
Irresponsible Male Headship. A major reason that husband-headship
is hotly contested today is that all too often men demand submission from
their wives without in turn submitting themselves to the headship of Christ.
With complacency, men will quote the Scripture which says “the head of the
woman is man” (1 Cor 11:3, NIV) to assert their authority, forgetting the
preceding statement which says: “the head of every man is Christ” (1 Cor
Roles With Marriage 109
11:3). Before a man can serve as an effective head of his wife and children,
he must himself submit to the headship of Christ. “Proper headship operates
within a clearly defined chain-of-responsibility. If the chain is broken at any
link, authority becomes impaired.”43
One can hardly blame wives who resent being under the irresponsible
headship of husbands who are not accountable to Christ. That is not only
unfair but also unchristian. Biblical husband-headship, however, is patterned
after the sacrificial headship of Christ over the church, manifested in the
sacrificial giving of Himself for her redemption and restoration (Eph 5:25-30).
It was through His act of love and self-sacrifice that Christ became Lord
and Master of the church. Similarly a man cannot rightfully claim to be the
head of a home unless he is willing to give himself for the well-being of all
the members of his family. As Christ is both the Head and Servant of the
church, moving from one role to the other, so a man who lives under the
headship of Christ must be willing to exercise both headship and servanthood
in the home. (Phil 2:8-9; Matt 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43).
Conclusion. Ephesians 5 presents the headship of the husband and the
submission of the wife as an order established by God to ensure unity and
harmony in the home. Paul defines and defends headship and submission in
marriage on a theological and not on a cultural basis. By utilizing the model
of Christ and the church, Paul effectively clarifies the meaning of headship
and submission in marriage. The purpose of this clarification, however, was
not to do away with role distinctions in marriage, but rather to ensure their
proper expression in accordance with God’s intended purpose.
PART II:
THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
HEADSHIP AND SUBMISSION
1. Practicing Headship
To appreciate more fully the validity and value of the Biblical principles
of headship and submission, we shall now reflect on the practical implications
and applications of such principles in marital relationships.
Leadership in Love. We noticed earlier that Paul clarifies the meaning
of headship by exhorting husbands not to exercise authority over their wives,
but to love them “as Christ loved the church” (Eph 5:25). Putting it
differently, Paul exhorts husbands to exercise not a headship of power,
Roles With Marriage 110
control, competence or domination, but a leadership of love. The model is the
headship of Christ over the church manifested in His willingness to sacrifice
Himself for her sanctification (“that he might sanctify her”--v.26), purifica-
tion (“having cleansed her”--v.26), and glorification (“that he might present
the church to himself in splendor”--v.27).
This is the way I am to be the head of my wife, by loving her with the
sacrificial and unconditional love of Jesus. Jesus so loved the church that He
gave up everything for her— equality with God, heaven’s majesty and glory,
the right to an earthly family, the understanding and appreciation of his
fellows, a fair trial and a humane death. This is a headship of total sacrificial
and unconditional love, without rights. As a husband, am I the kind of head
who is willing to give up everything for the well-being of my wife and
children?
Christ’s love cleanses and improves the church. Through His Spirit,
Christ works to “present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or
wrinkle” (Eph 5:27). Jesus loves to make every believer as pure and perfect
as He is. “Does my love for my wife wash away her inner wounds and hurts
and bring out the best in her character? Do I make it easy or difficult for Jesus
to make her radiant and blameless? Jesus does not repress and inhibit my
character but enables it to flower and realise its full potential. Is my wife
suppressed or enriched through my relationship with her?”44
Should God ask me or you one day, “Did you love your wife uncondi-
tionally as I loved you?” What are we going to say? Shall we look for excuses,
saying, “Well, Lord, you know that I loved my wife in many areas. I provided
for all her material needs and I supported many of her plans and initiatives.
But it was difficult to love her completely because she was not always
submissive. Sometimes she insisted in doing things her own way, disregard-
ing my feelings or instructions. And remember God, she was not always
trustworthy. Sometimes she left me and the kids at home to go out to have fun.
How could I love her unconditionally?” The Lord will reply, “I never asked
you about your wife’s weaknesses. I asked you, Did you love your wife
unconditionally as I love you?”
God knows our spouse’s weaknesses as well as our own. Yet He calls
us as husbands to exercise a headship of love by loving our wives no matter
what their weaknesses might be. He calls us to exercise our headships by
being first in forgiving our spouses’ mistakes, first in nurturing and building
our marital relationship, first in assuming responsibility for the physical,
social, emotional, and spiritual needs of our wife and children. Exercising
such a headship of love is not easy. In fact, it is impossible on our own. It can
Roles With Marriage 111
only be done by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. That is why Paul
introduces his discussion of the proper relationships between husband and
wife, parents and children, and servants and masters by exhorting Christians
to “be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). It is only by the enabling power of
His Spirit that a husband can begin to love his wife as Christ loved the church
and that a wife can submit herself to her husband as to the Lord.
Leadership in Service. The husband-headship of sacrificial love is
manifested especially through his willingness to serve his wife and children.
This does not mean that he is under the authority of his family members or that
he takes orders from them. Rather, it means that he serves his family by giving
them a loving, intelligent and sensitive service of leadership.
Headship in the Scripture presupposes a leadership of service. Christ is
the head of the church because He came not to be served by the church, but
to serve her (Matt 20:28). There is a radical difference between God’s view
and the world’s view of leadership. “You know,” Jesus explained, “that those
who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great
men exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you; but
whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would
be first among you must be slave of all” (Mark 10:42-44).
A husband fulfills the headship of service by leading, encouraging,
protecting, providing, and caring for his wife and children. As the wife has
a unique role in procreation, so the husband has a unique role in provision and
protection. “The Lord,” writes Ellen White, “has constituted the husband the
head of his wife to be her protector; he is the house-band of the family, binding
the members together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Savior
of the mystical body.”45 Peter emphasizes this point, saying: “Husbands, in
the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with
respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life,
so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (1 Pet 3:7, NIV).
The wife is “the weaker partner,” not morally, spiritually or intellectu-
ally, but physically. The considerate husband will protect her from such
heavy tasks as moving furniture, repairing automobiles, transplanting trees,
building fences, doing masonry. Sometimes the husband must protect his
wife’s health by taking over some of her burdens. If the wife works outside
the home or if she is not well, the considerate husband will alleviate his wife’s
burdens by assuming responsibility for some of them.
Speaking of the husband, Ellen White writes, “If he wishes to keep her
fresh and gladsome, so that she will be as sunshine in the home, let him help
her bear her burdens. His kindness and loving courtesy will be to her a
Roles With Marriage 112
precious encouragement, and the happiness he imparts will bring joy and
peace to his own heart.”46 She continues, noting that if a mother is deprived
of the care and protection of her husband, “if she is allowed to exhaust her
strength through overwork or through anxiety and gloom, her children will be
robbed of the vital-force and of the mental elasticity and cheerful buoyancy
they should inherit.”47
Leadership as Management. An important aspect of the headship of
the husband is to provide a caring and competent management to the family.
This involves establishing and maintaining directions, setting priorities and
delegating responsibilities. In his book Christian Living in the Home , Jay
Adams writes: “The husband as the head of the home is its manager. He is
the head; the head does not do the work of the body. The husband is not to
answer every question or think every thought for his wife— exactly not that.
Rather, he is to recognize that God gave him a wife to be a helper. A good
manager will look at his helper and say, ‘She has certain abilities. If I am going
to manage my household well, I must see that every last one of those gifts is
developed and put to use as fully as possible.’ He will not want to squash her
personality; rather, he will seek to bring it to the fullest flower.”48
In a well-ordered family a husband exercises his headship by delegating
and not by abdicating responsibilities. This involves taking into consider-
ation the ideas, the talents and convictions of his wife and children. Wives are
expected to “rule their household” (1 Tim 5:14) by properly managing their
homes. The wise woman of Proverbs 31 is emotionally and physically able
to work creatively and sacrificially.
“Part of the conflict and confusion which we see in homes today,” write
Larry and Nordis Christenson, “stems from a too simplistic exercise of
headship. To be head of the house means more than a man occupying the
captain’s quarters and barking out orders. It means learning to shoulder the
responsibility for giving informed and intelligent direction to the family.
A husband won’t have all the good ideas. His wife and children, as well
as people from outside the immediate family, may have important things to
say about what the family ought to be doing. It is the husband’s
responsibility to weigh every suggestion, determine what should be done,
and see that it happens.”49
The husband bears a heavy responsibility of the outcome of his decisions.
If the family does not gather for worship or does not attend church, God holds
the father responsible. If the children are disobedient and rebellious, the
father is primarily to blame. It was Eli and not his wife, who came under God's
condemnation for raising two evil sons (1 Sam 3:13).
Roles With Marriage 113
A family without the competent and dedicated leadership of a father is
like a corporation without a capable president. In both instances the
organization disintegrates very quickly. One of the greatest needs of America
today is for husbands and fathers who provide to their families not only
financial support but also moral and spiritual leadership.
Leadership as Provider. An important part of the husband’s leadership
of service is his responsibility to provide his wife and children with food,
clothing, shelter and educational opportunities. This is a sacred obligation
placed upon the husband by God. “If anyone does not provide for his relatives,
and especially for his own immediate family, he has denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8, NIV).
Providing only a living, however, is not enough. A common misconcep-
tion husbands have goes something like this: “I work hard to provide my wife
and children for all their needs. What more could they ask of me?” Or,
“My wife has no reasons to complain because she has much more than
most women have.”
Providing a living for our wives and children is not a valid substitute for
sharing our personal lives with them. Our wives marry us, not our paychecks.
What many wives miss most is not the paycheck, but the personal attention,
presence, and fellowship of their husbands. They wait to be noticed,
appreciated, and given time. It is the feeling of being neglected that often will
tempt a wife to look for another man willing to give her time and attention.
Peter’s counsel to husbands is clear: “Be considerate as you live with
your wives” (1 Pet 3:7). The Greek verb translated “live” (sunoikountes),
literally means “being at home with.” Just “being at home with” the wife
instead of going out with friends, however, is not enough. A husband may be
home and yet ignore his wife by being totally absorbed in reading the
newspaper or watching a game on television. As the head of his home, a
husband must learn to exercise leadership in self-sharing. He must learn to
set aside a block of time each day to give undivided attention to his wife
and children. The benefits that will accrue from such a practice are
beyond estimation.
Leadership in Discipline and Instruction. As the head of the home, the
husband must take responsibility for the moral and spiritual development of
his family. In the Old Testament, God instructs fathers to be diligent in
teaching His commandments to their children: “These words which I
command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them
diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house,
and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise”
Roles With Marriage 114
(Deut 4:7). A similar exhortation is given to fathers in the New Testament:
“Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the
discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).
The two areas in which a husband must take “first responsibility” is
“discipline and instruction.” The enforcement of proper discipline is funda-
mental to the character development of a child. All too often husbands
abdicate their responsibility as the moral and spiritual leaders of the home,
expecting their wives to fulfill these functions. The result is that more and
more wives have to serve as the moral and spiritual heads of the home. When
this happens, the children suffer and the marital relationship is strained. The
children suffer because they are deprived of the important role model of father
as the authority figure and leader of the home. The marital relationship is
strained because the wife may resent her husband’s inability to function as the
moral and spiritual head of the family, and the husband may react to his failure
by seeking fulfillment outside the home.
Despite all the anti-male-headship propaganda of the women’s libbers,
“it is precisely the absence of male authority.” as Larry and Nordis
Christianson point out, “which plagues American families.”50 We are fast
becoming a matriarchal society where women are primarily responsible for
teaching and disciplining children, for supporting the family, for main-
taining the house, for leading out in worship, and for participating in
church and civic affairs.
“The problem,” as aptly stated by the Christiansons, “is mass abdication
on the part of husbands. The need in American families today is not some kind
of manufactured ‘equality’ between husband and wife. The equality is
already there—God-given, waiting to be discovered. The need is for
headship. Let men accept the responsibility of being head of the family, and
wives will find under their authority a freedom, a liberation, such as no
constitutional amendment could ever guarantee.”51
Leadership as Lawmaker and Priest. A Christian father must not
betray his sacred trust to be the lawmaker and priest of the home. Ellen White
emphasizes this important function, saying: “All members of the family
center in the father. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing
the sterner virtues: energy, integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence,
and practical usefulness. The father is in one sense the priest of the household,
laying upon the altar of God the morning and evening sacrifice. . . he is a
laborer together with God, carrying out the gracious designs of God and
establishing in his children upright principles, enabling them to form pure and
virtuous characters, because he has preoccupied the soul with that which will
Roles With Marriage 115
enable his children to render obedience not only to their earthly parent but also
to their heavenly Father.”52
As husbands we are ultimately responsible for the moral and spiritual
development of our families. Children naturally look to their father for moral
directions. The larger size, greater strength, and deeper voice of the father
bespeak to them of authority and leadership. This is why mothers need the
involvement of their husbands in enforcing didcipline. Fathers serve as a basis
upon which parental authority is constructed.
As fathers we need to be involved in the discipline of our children,
watching for power struggles between our wives and children. We must take
responsibility for any of our children’s behavioral problems that cause
emotional stress to our wives. We must take time to communicate with our
children in order to find out their moral and spiritual needs. We must serve
as the priests of the home by leading the family in a daily worship experience
and renewed commitment to Christ. Family worship is the symbolic center
of a family’s spiritual commitment. By bringing the family together for
worship, the husband teaches his family members to look up to God for
wisdom and strength and to make God first and supreme in their lives.
Conclusion. Practicing headship, as we have seen, means not to lord
over the family by barking out orders to the wife and children but rather to
shoulder the responsibility of providing them with a caring and intelligent
leadership. This includes a leadership in loving, shown by loving our wives
with the unconditional and sacrificial love of Jesus; a leadership in service
manifested in our willingness to give intelligent and sensitive service to our
wives and children; a leadership in the management of the home shown by
our setting priorities and delegating authority; a leadership in providing our
wives and children not only with food, clothing , and shelter, but also with our
personal attention, presence and fellowship; a leadership in discipline and
instruction, shown by our taking first responsibility in enforcing proper
discipline and in providing instruction to the children; a leadership as
lawmaker and priest manifested in taking responsibility for the moral and
spiritual development of our family members. In a word, practicing headship
means being willing to serve our family by providing for the physical,
emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual needs of our wives and
children. This is the kind of headship exemplified by Christ, the model of
the husband’s headship.
Roles With Marriage 116
2. Practicing Submission
Few Biblical injunctions can stir up as much emotion and controversy as
the command for the wife to submit to her husband (Eph 5:22, 24; Col 3:18,
1 Pet 3:1). Both liberal and evangelical feminists are shocked and offended
by this command. They view this command as a basic denial of women’s
rights to equality with men. To correct this alleged evil, the women’s
liberation movement is promoting marriages where roleless partners match
their career goals. The very titles “husband” or “wife” are obsolete in such
marriages. Each spouse has a right to terminate the relationship when it is no
longer beneficial to his or her self-fulfillment.
The traditional roles of wife, mother, and homemaker are being deliber-
ately and systematically dismantled, especially through the influence of the
Women’s Libaration Movement on the public media. James Dobson offers a
most graphic description of this process, saying: “The image of women now
being depicted by the media is a ridiculous combination of wide-eyed fantasy
and feminist propaganda. Today’s woman is always shown as gorgeous, of
corse, but she is more–much more. She roars around the countryside in a racy
sports car, while her male companion sits on the other side of the front seat
anxiously biting his nails. She exudesself-confidence from the very tip of her
fingers, and for good reasons: she could dismantle any man alive with her
karate chops and flying kicks to the teeth. She is deadly accurate with a pistol
and she plays tennis (or football) like a pro. She speaks in perfectly organized
sentences, as though her spontaneous remarks were planned and written by
a team of tiny English professorssitting in the back of her pretty head. She is
a sexual gourmet, to be sure, but she wouldn’t be caught dead in a wedding
ceremony. She has the grand good fortune of being perpetually young and she
never becomes ill, nor does she ever make a mistake or appear foolish. In
short, she is virtually omniscient, except for a curious inability to do anything
traditionally feminine, such as cook, sew, or raise children. Truly, today’s
screen heroine is a remarkable specimen, standing proud and uncompromosing,
with wide stance and hands on her hips. Oh, yeah! This baby has come a long
way, no doubt about that.”53
Have Women Been Really Liberated? A fundamental problem with
the Women’s Liberation Movement is that it assumes to liberate women by
doing away with divine plan for successful marital relationships. The plan
consists, as we have seen, of a relationship based on loving leadership and
loving submission. Women’s libbers reject this divine plan, promoting
instead a contractual inter-relationship where each partner is free to come or
to go, to live in or to live out.
Roles With Marriage 117
In their struggle for women’s rights, women’s libbers, including some
evangelical Christians, have made the mistake of absolutizing their own
freedom. They have failed to realize that real freedom is to be found, not by
becoming centers of absolute will, but by living according to the order of
relationships established by God.
The result of the women’s liberation movement has been not a greater
liberation for women, but a rise in women’s frustration, juvenile delinquency,
and divorce rate. Elizabeth Achtemeier offers the following perceptive
description of the results of feminist ideologies: “Some modern so-called
‘liberated’ women have absolutized themselves by being so concerned about
their own rights that they have trampled over the rights of their husbands and
children. There is nothing more tragic these days than those homes in which
the marital relationship is being destroyed by feminist ideologies. The wife
has suddenly realized that she is an ‘incomplete’ or ‘unfulfilled’ person. So
she has precipitously rushed out and found a job, or is spending hours in
women’s meetings, or has abandoned all those little courtesies, amenities, and
mutual services which make the life between a husband and wife possible.
She has become an absolute center of self-assertion, with no regard for the
welfare and feelings of her husband. Marriage is not possible under such
circumstances, and it is not surprising that many of the militant feminists are
also divorced.”54
Finding Life by Losing it. Militant feminists have forgotten Christ’s
counsel that we find our lives by losing them (Mark 8:35); we find a “better
relationship” not by fighting for our rights but by assuming our God-given
responsibilities. Biblical faith is concerned not with rights but with respon-
sibilities. A woman who insists on fighting for her rights may eventually end
up losing protection, sympathy, love, security, and even her husband.
From a Biblical perspective, we have no rights. All that we have—life,
love, forgiveness, freedom, companionship, and salvation—are precious
gifts offered to us by our gracious Savior so that we may use them to bless
others. This applies to God’s command, “Husbands, love your wives” and
“Wives, be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:21, 25). They were given not
to secure our rights, but to ensure a harmonious, happy relationship.
“When God said love and submit,” writes Don Meredith, “there was only
good intended! Without love and submission, God cannot meet our ‘aloneness’
needs. Without love and submission, Christians are divided and the cause of
Christ is seemingly thwarted. If I do not submit myself to you in humility, then
I am a threat, a discouragement, a source of rejection and judgment in your
life. Unless I love you unconditionally, it will be hard for you to submit to me.
There are no agape relationships without both love and submission.”55
Roles With Marriage 118
The Model of Submission. Christ is the perfect model of both loving
headship and loving submission. Both of these roles function in Christ not as
limitations but as opportunities for greater service and blessings. In his letter
to the Philippians, Paul exhorts us to follow the example of Christ’s submis-
sive attitude to find oneness with God and others: “Your attitude should be
the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not
consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself
nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became
obedient to death—even death on the cross! Therefore God exalted him to the
highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.” (Phil 2:5-11, NIV).
Christ’s submissive mental attitude enabled Him not to question his
Father’s headship or to grasp for equal authority, even though He shared the
same divinity of the Father. He did not question the right of His Father to
function as His head, nor did He attempt to redefine the notion of headship and
submission through a “careful exegesis.” Instead, he submitted Himself to the
Father by being obedient to the point of death on the cross. The result of
Christ’s obedience is that the Father exalted Him to the highest honor.
Christ’s example teaches us that in God’s order, submission is the way to
glorification. The submission of Christ to the headship of His Father
provides us a model to understand the nature and manner of a wife’s
submission to her husband.
Submission as Loving Response. The headship of a husband consists,
as noted earlier, in providing a sacrificial and loving leadership to his family
members. Such a leadership provides the basis for a loving and joyful
submission on the part of the wife. The common abuse by men of their
headship as a “club” over their wives has led many women to see God’s
command to submit as irrational and discriminatory. Some women will
submit to their husbands half-heartedly; that is, as a necessary divine
requirement rather than as a loving response. They hope that God will reward
their unwilling submission. Such legalistic submission is joyless, frustrating,
and often results in the dissolution of marriage.
Legalistic submission fails to see that headship and submission were
given by God not to deprive us of something but to ensure a happy and
harmonious marital relationship. Without loving leadership and loving sub-
mission, no successful relationship can be maintained. The fundamental
cause of legalistic headship or submission is self-centered, unyielding wills
Roles With Marriage 119
clashing with God’s commands. When by God’s grace the battle of the wills
is dissolved, then we are able to accept and experience God’s command to
love and submit, not as a source of strife, but of joy, order, blessing, and
security. The conflict over roles in marriage is caused not by a mistake in
God’s job description of husbands and wives, but by sin, manifested in self-
centered, unyielding dispositions.
God’s plan for husbands to be loving, sacrificial heads and for wives to
be loving, respectful helpmates is designed to promote not competition and
conflicts, but completion and harmony. The two roles can be compared to the
lock and the key. If the lock wants to be the key or the key wants to be the lock
because either or both of them are unhappy with their assigned roles, both of
them become useless. It is only when the lock and the key function as
designed that they work properly. In the same way, it is only when husband
and wife function as loving head and responsive helpmate, that their marital
union will work properly in accordance with God’s design. Each spouse is
unfulfilled alone, but together they make a whole.
Submission as Respect. The submission of a wife to her husband is
manifested especially through her respect for him. Paul summarizes his
exhortation to husbands and wives, saying: “Let each one of you love his wife
as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Eph 5:33).
Respect is something that must be gained through proper conduct. When a
Christian husband exercises a loving, sacrificial headship, his wife finds him
worthy of trust, honor, and respect.
Respect is an essential quality of love. If love is to grow through the
years, it must be based on mutual respect. In his epistle to Titus, Paul
encourages older women to teach younger wives “to love their husbands”
(Titus 2:4). The fact that Paul exhorts wives “to respect” their husbands in
Ephesians and “to love” them in Titus shows that in the apostle’s mind, love
and respect go hand in hand.
A wife can show respect toward her husband in different ways: by
accepting and affirming his moral and spiritual leadership in the home; by
deferring to him certain decisions, questions, or problems; by admiring and
praising him for his achievements; by putting him first when planning
activities; by supporting his financial plans. When a man knows that his wife
respects, supports, and admires him, no sacrifice will be too great for him.
Submission as Acceptance. The submissive wife accepts her husband
the way he is, without conditioning her love to changes in his behavior. We
learn to accept and love unconditionally our husbands or our wives by
realizing how God accepts us: “God shows his love for us in that while we
were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).
Roles With Marriage 120
At times a wife may feel that it is impossible for her to accept her husband
the way he is. Humanly speaking this may well be true, but as she accepts and
experiences God’s unconditional love, she is empowered to accept and love
her husband unconditionally.
In her book, You Can Be the Wife of a Happy Husband, Darien Cooper
says: “When you accept your husband the way he is, you will give him the
freedom to be the man he wants to be. He will have freedom to come and go
as he pleases and to make his own decisions. In other words, true love is letting
go! Your husband will love you freely as he did when he chose to marry you
unless you stifle that love with your possessiveness.”56
As a plant needs good soil, water, and sun to grow healthy, so a man needs
the unconditional love and acceptance of his wife to live a healthy, happy, and
satisfying life. When a husband feels that he is constantly on trial, that he has
to constantly prove himself worthy to his wife, he becomes discouraged and
tempted to look for another woman who will accept him the way he is.
It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict a person of his or her
wrongdoings (John 16:8-11). When we take upon ourselves the job of
convicting our spouses of their mistakes, we get in God’s way and hinder the
work of His Spirit. This does not mean that a wife should ignore her husband’s
wrongdoing. To do so would be morally irresponsible. The submissive wife
can and must express her concerns and views freely. In fact, a mature husband
will want her to do so. But once a wife has told her husband in what way she
thinks he is wrong, she should not continue to nag him on that matter. Instead,
she should place her trust in God’s ability to convict and change her husband.
“It might be comforting to realize,” rightly observes Darien Cooper,
“that negative traits are distorted positive traits. If negative traits can be
modified or channeled in the right direction, they can become strengths.
Stubbornness can become perseverance. Cowardice can be turned to gentle-
ness. Tactlessness can be turned to frankness. If you trust Jesus Christ to take
care of your husband’s problems and fix your mind on his assets, you can help
him turn bad traits into good ones.”57
Submission as Putting Husband First. As believers, we submit
ourselves to Christ by placing Him first in our lives. Our submission to Christ
is presented in Ephesians 5:24 as the model of the wife’s submission to her
husband. When Jesus is first in a woman’s life, He will enable her to place
her husband first in her thoughts and actions. A man who has the assurance
of being first in his wife’s life will be able to face challenges with greater
courage and self-confidence.
Roles With Marriage 121
Placing your husband first means avoiding certain negative attitudes and
actions. One of these is criticism of your husband’s character or performance,
especially in front of others. This can hurt him even more than a slap on the
face. True “love does not delight in evil but rejoices with truth. It always
protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (1 Cor 13:6-7).
Another negative attitude to avoid is selfishness. A submissive wife will
consider her husband’s likes or dislikes when purchasing clothes, planning a
meal, accepting or rejecting an invitation to a program or social function.
Darien Cooper asks wives: “Do you plan your activities so you can stop and
visit with him if he should need to talk when he gets home from work?
Remember, he can easily tell if he does not have your complete attention when
he talks to you. The uninterested look on your face, glancing at the clock
or out of the window, or yawning will give you away. Your interest must
be sincere.”58
A submissive wife will also avoid jealousy and possessiveness. She will
not deny her husband some legitimate pleasures that could draw him away
from her. A wife who resents the time consuming career or activities of her
husband may be loving herself more than her husband.
Putting your husband first means also centering all your activities around
the husband. Good things such as children, homemaking, in-laws, appear-
ance, church or civic functions can easily get out of balance, controlling the
time and interest of a wife. It is therefore essential for a wife to learn to balance
her activities in such a way that they are the spokes circling the hub, which is
the husband, and not vice versa. If the spokes are well-proportioned and
balanced, the wheel, that is, marital life, will roll smoothly. On the contrary,
if the spokes are out of adjustment and unbalanced, the wheel will wobble and
eventually will smash in pieces.
Putting your husband first means also supporting his financial plans.
This may require making the dollar stretch by being thrifty, as described in
Proverbs 31:13-14: “She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands.
She is like the ships of the merchant, she brings her food from afar. She
rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and tasks for
her maidens.”
Submission as Role-Acceptance. Headship and submission are roles
established by God to ensure order, peace, and harmony in the home. The
submissive wife accepts her role as homemaker and mother, finding joy in
fulfilling such roles creatively, efficiently, and lovingly.
Roles With Marriage 122
Radical feminists belittle the role of homemaker and mother, promoting
instead the male’s roles. For them, the only life worth living is a man’s life.
To be successful, a woman must strive to achieve the attributes, goals, and
performances of a man. In their striving to be like men, women are in danger
of losing their feminine qualities which make them attractive to men. Women
who become hard and aggressive in competing with men often discover to
their sorrow that they are treated as if they were men. Competition
damages something which is basic and precious to a right relationship
between men and women.
Our families, churches, and societies need women who are willing to
accept their vital role as wives, homemakers, and mothers. God has equipped
women with unique biological and spiritual resources needed for the survival
and growth of the home. Biologically, God has endowed every woman with
the marvelous capacity to conceive and nourish human life in her womb.
Spiritually, God has endowed every woman who becomes a mother with the
unique power to mold her children’s characters for time and eternity.
A woman who willingly and joyfully accepts her role of wife, mother,
and homemaker can experience greater reward and fulfillment than any
academic or business career can provide. No greater joy and satisfaction can
come to a woman than to have her children rising up and calling her “blessed”
and her husband praising her, saying: “Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all” (Prov 31:28-29).
Submission as Acceptance of the Husband’s Leadership. God’s
order for the home is for the husband to serve as a loving leader and for the
wife to accept his leadership (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). This order has been
divinely established to ensure harmony, happiness, and protection. A home
with two heads or with the wife as the head is an abnormality because it
distorts the distinctive male-female roles.
“As homes have become more wife-dominated,” writes Darien Cooper,
“there has been a rise in juvenile delinquency, rebellion, homosexuality, the
divorce rate, and the number of frustrated women because the home was
designed by God to run efficiently with the man as the leader. Ignoring this
principle of his leadership or devising substitutes creates untold problems.”59
The wife who accepts and responds to her husband’s leadership finds
protection and satisfaction in the role God designed for her. She enjoys
freedom from pressures and problems she is not supposed to carry. A major
concern of my wife when I am away from home is that she may have to deal
with some unexpected problems that I usually handle: a burned water pump,
a stalled furnace, malfunctioning air-conditioning, leaking faucets or roofs,
Roles With Marriage 123
flat tires, disciplining children. It is reassuring for her to know that “I am
around” to take care of such unexpected problems. This gives her peace of
mind and freedom to pursue her various activities which do not conflict with
her role of wife and mother. By accepting my leadership in the home, my wife
is relieved of many worries while I am challenged to develop my God-given
strengths and abilities.
Submission Is Not Slavery. A Christian woman, who by God’s
enabling grace submits to her husband, is not in danger of becoming a slave.
On the contrary, she may discover that her submissive attitude inspires her
husband to be more thoughtful and kind toward her. Usually, a submissive
wife enjoys a happier relationship with her husband than does a dominating
wife. She will certainly enjoy a closer walk with God when she knows that
she obeys God’s command by being submissive to her husband than when she
disobeys God by dominating her husband.
Domineering wives have caused great misery to themselves and to their
partners. A woman who is aggressive and dominates her husband in the early
years of marriage may discover to her disappointment that later in life, she will
loathe the man she has trained to be submissive to her because she has no one
to lean upon.
Submission does not mean that a woman cannot voice her opinion.
Rather, it means that she will speak “the truth in love” (Eph 4:15) and comply
with her husband’s decisions to the best of her abilities. “Always remember,”
writes Tim LaHaye, “you reap far more than you sow. If you sow submission
in obedience to God, you will reap blessings in abundance; if you sow
rebellion in disobedience to the will of God, you will reap abundant misery.”60
CONCLUSION
The rejection of the Biblical view of role distinction within marriages is
a major cause of marriage break ups today. Scripture clearly presents the
headship of the husband and the submission of the wife as an order established
by God to ensure unity and harmony in the home. Practicing headship does
not mean lording over the wife or family members but rather providing a
caring leadership which ensures the physical, emotional, social, intellectual,
and spiritual needs of our wives and children. Similarly, practicing submis-
sion does not mean serving the husband as a slave but rather willingly and
joyfully to accept the husband’s loving leadership.
The fact that God has given a different roles for husbands and wives to
fulfill does not mean that one is inferior to the other. Each role is equal in
Roles With Marriage 124
importance though different in function. The role of a husband complements
that of a wife as a key complements a lock. Either is incomplete without the
other. Respecting the husband/wife role distinctions is essential to ensuring
the stability of the marriage covenant.
NOTES ON CHAPTER 5
1. R. Paul Stevens, Married for Good (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1986), p.113.
2. Robert C, Williamson, Marriage and Family Relations (New York,
1966), p.322.
3. Charles R. Swindoll, Strike the Original Match (Portland, Oregon,
1980), p. 42.
4. Quoted in Margaret M. Poloma and T. Neal Garland, “The Married
Professional Woman: A Study in Tolerance of Domestication,” Journal of
Marriage and the Family (August 1971), p. 533.
5. Elsieliese Thorpe, “But Women Are the Favored Sex,” Reader’s
Digest (May 1972), p. 82.
6. Kay Ebeling, “The Failure of Feminism,” Newsweek (November
19,1990), p. 9.
7. Among the writers representing this position are Rosemary Radford
Ruether, Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Adela Yabro Collins, Mary Daly,
Josephine Ford, Albertus Magnus McGrath, Phyllis Trible and George
Tavard.
8. Some of the representatives of the Evangelical Feminist approach are
Gilbert Bilezikian, Mary J. Evans, Letha Scanzomi and Nancy Hardesty, Paul
K. Jewett, Patricia Gundry, Virginia Mollenkott, Ruth A. Tucker, Richard N.
Longenecker, Berkeley and Alvera Mickelson, David M. Scholer and Aida
Besancon Spencer.
9. Among the large number of writers supporting the Biblical feminist
position, the following may be selected as representatives: Stephen Clark,
Susan T. Foh, James B. Hurley, George W. Knight, Wayne Grudem, Douglas
J. Moo, and Charles Caldwell Ryrie.
10. See Philip Barton Payne, “Response to Berkeley and Alvera
Mickelsen Chapter ‘What Does Kephale mean in the New Testament?’” in
Roles With Marriage 125
Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove,
Illinois, 1986), pp.118-132; Richard and Joyce Boldrey, Chauvinist or
Feminist? Paul’s View of Women (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976), p. 34;
Margaret Howe, Women and Church Leadership (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1982), p. 60; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London, 1971), p. 248; Letha
Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach
to Women’s Liberation (Waco, Texas, 1975), pp. 30-31, 100.
11. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty (n.10), p. 100.
12. Ibid., p. 110.
13. Stephen Bedale, “The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles,”
Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954): 211-215.
14. See above n. 10.
15. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “What Does Kephale Mean in the
New Testament?” in Women, Authority and the Bible (n. 4), pp. 106-109; also
by the same authors, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish Our Translations?”
Christianity Today (October 1979): 23-29; “The ‘Head’ of the Epistles,”
Christianity Today (February 20, 1981): 20-23.
16. For a compelling refutation of the various arguments advanced for
interpreting “head” as “source” or “origin” rather than as “ruler” or “author-
ity,” see Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Author-
ity Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” appendix 1, in
George W. Knight III, The Role Relationship of Men and Women (Chicago,
1985), pp. 49-80.
17. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish
Our Translations?” Christianity Today (October 5, 1979): 23, 25; Stephen
Bedale (n. 13), p. 211.
18. H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th
ed., with Supplement (Oxford, 1968), vol. 1, p. 944.
19. Stephen Bedale (n. 13), p. 212.
20. Ibid.
21. Stephen Bedale (n. 13), p. 213.
22. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “What Does Kephale Mean in the
New Testament?” (n. 15), pp. 105-106.
Roles With Marriage 126
23. For the listing and quotation of each passage, see Wayne Grudem (n.
16), pp. 72-76.
24. Wayne Grudem (n. 16), p. 62.
25. Plutarch, Table-Talk 692, D, 11.
26. Philo, Life of Moses 2, 30. For other examples see Wayne Grudem
(n. 16), pp. 73-74.
27. Stephen Bedale speaks of a “virtual equation of kephale with arche”
without giving one text to prove it (n. 13), p. 213.
28. Wayne Grudem (n.16), p. 56.
29. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, trans.
and eds. William F. Arndt and F. Wilber Gingrich (Chicago, 1979), s. v.
“kephale,” p. 430.
30. Heinrich Schlier, “Kephale,” Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 3, p. 675.
31. Ibid., p. 679.
32. Wayne Grudem (n. 16), p. 67.
33. Ibid., p. 68. Grudem questions the meaning of “source” in the two
instances given by Liddell-Scott (Herodotus 4, 91 and Orphic Fragments
21a). See his reasoning on pp. 57-61.
34. Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, “Does Male Dominance Tarnish
Our Translations?” (n. 17), p. 23.
35. Ruth A. Tucker, “Response to Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen’s
article ‘What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?’” in Women,
Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Illinois,
1986), p. 117.
36. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1981), p. 166.
37. Stephen Bedale (n. 13), p. 214 (emphasis supplied).
38. For a general discussion of the use of the term, see Gerhard Delling,
“Hypotassso,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, eds., Gerhard
Kittel and Hergard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974), vol. 8, pp. 41-46.
39. James B. Hurley (n. 36), p. 142.
Roles With Marriage 127
40. Elisabeth Elliot, “Why I Oppose the Ordination of Women,” Chris-
tianity Today 19 (June 6, 1975): 14.
41. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home (Nashville, 1952), p. 117.
42. Weldon M. Hardenbrook, What Every Man Should Know About
Fatherhood, (Arcadia, California, 1987), p. 13.
43. Larry and Nordis Christiansen, The Christian Couple (Minneapolis,
1977), p. 142.
44. David Phypers, Christian Marriage in Crisis (Whitstable, Kent,
England, 1985), p. 23.
45. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 215.
46. Ibid., p. 218
47. Ibid.
48. Jay Adams, Christian Living in the Home (Grand Rapids,1972), p. 77.
49. Larry and Nordis Christiansen (n. 43), p. 151.
50. Ibid., p. 158
51. Ibid., p. 159
52. Ellen G. White, The Adventist Home, p. 212.
53. James C. Dobson, Straight Talk to Men and Their Wives (Dallas,
1984), p.153.
54. Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Committed Marriage (Philadelphia,
1976), pp. 97-98.
55. Don Meredith, Becoming One (Nashville, no date), p. 120
56. Darien B. Cooper, You Can Be the Wife of a Happy Husband
(Wheaton, Illinois, 1978), p. 29.
57. Ibid., p.35
58. Ibid., p. 48.
59. Ibid., p. 58
60. Tim LaHaye, How to Be Happy Though Married (Wheaton, Illinois,
1968), p. 109
Chapter 6
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
IN THE BIBLE
-128-
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 129
have been married by ministers of other denominations? Isn’t it better to
suffer the pain of divorce than the tragedy of a marriage without love?”
Pastors, teachers, and Christian writers often contribute to the prevail-
ing confusion about divorce and remarriage with their conflicting interpreta-
tion of key Bible passages. Some teach, like the ancient Pharisees, that the
Bible allows divorce and remarriage for “every cause,” while others maintain
that the Bible prohibits divorce and remarriage under any circumstance. A
reason for such conflicting interpretations is that many interpret the Bible
more in the light of their experience in dealing with divorce than in the light
of their study of what the Bible actually teaches on this subject.
The time of cultural transition and confusion in which we live offers
unprecedented opportunities to seek truly Biblical answers to the questions
Christians are asking. We must not allow the extremes of radicalism or
liberalism to impede progress in understanding and applying what the Bible
teaches on the important subject of divorce and remarriage affecting so many
lives. Encouragement for such an effort comes to us from the growing number
of conservative Christians who are seeking truly Biblical answers to their
questions. My aim in this chapter is to meet the expectations of these
Christians by examining the Scriptures in order to come to a more definite and
concrete understanding of its teaching on divorce and remarriage. The reader
must decide whether or not I have succeeded in “rightly handling the word of
truth” (2 Tim 2:15).
Objectives of Chapter. The objective of this chapter is to ascertain
what the Old and New Testaments teach regarding divorce and remarriage.
We shall pursue this investigation by examining all the relevant passages. In
the following chapter we shall consider how we can apply the Biblical
teachings to concrete situations today.
He further observed that it was because of the “hardness” of human heart that
Moses “allowed” divorce (Matt 19:8). To allow a practice is not the same as
instituting it. When divorce first appears in the Bible, the practice was already
in existence. What God did through Moses was to regulate divorce in order
to prevent its abuse. This does not mean that God winked at divorce. Rather,
it means that God acknowledged its existence and regulated it to prevent a bad
situation from becoming worse.
The fact that God did not lay down a specific law in the Pentateuch
prohibiting divorce reveals His realistic approach to human failure. It shows
God’s willingness to work redemptively on behalf of those who fail to live up
to His ideal for them. Before considering the implications of God’s attitude
toward divorce in the Old Testament for us today, we want to examine the most
explicit Old Testament passages concerning divorce.
1. The Teaching of Moses
In the pre-Mosaic period, divorce was common among the heathen
nations. A man could divorce his spouse for any reason simply by telling her
before witnesses, “You are no longer my wife.” The divorced wife would have
no recourse but to leave her home with only the few belongings she could
carry on her back. This explains why women wore all their rings, jewelry,
and coins on their bodies, since these provided a financial resource in the
case of divorce.2
The practice of easy divorce became common among the Hebrews,
encouraged by the absence of regulations restricting it. “Men were divorcing
their wives for a ‘weekend fling’ and then taking them back again when the
dirty laundry had piled up and the house needed cleaning.”3 It was this
situation that occasioned the legislation found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The
chief concern of the law is to discourage hasty divorce by preventing
remarriage after divorce. The law contains three elements: (1) the grounds for
divorce (Deut 24:1a), (2) the process of divorce (Deut 24:1b), and (3) the result
of divorce (Deut 24:2-4).
The Grounds for Divorce. “When a man takes a wife and marries her,
if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in
her, and he writes her a bill of divorce . . .” (Deut 24:1a). Note that the law
does not prescribe or encourage divorce. It simply assumes the course of
action a husband would take if he found “some indecency in her.”
The precise meaning of the phrase “some indecency” (literally, “the
nakedness of a thing”) is uncertain. Rabbinical interpretation of this phrase
was sharply divided. The school of Shammai interpreted it as unchastity,
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 131
It is important to note that Moses did not require a man to divorce his
wife if he found “some indecency” in her. He simply permitted it due to the
hardness of the Israelites’ hearts (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5) who had rejected
God’s original plan for marriage (Mark 10:9; Gen 2:24). What Moses required
was that a divorce document be written to discourage hasty divorces and
to mitigate the hardship of divorce. Even when the divorce document was
given, the way for reconciliation was still open as long as the woman did
not form a second marriage.
The Result of Divorce. The primary purpose of the divorce procedure
was to close the way forever for the man to remarry his former wife once she
had remarried: “And if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the
latter husband dislikes her and writes her a bill of divorce and puts it in her hand
and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be
his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again
to be his wife, after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the
Lord, and you shall not bring guilt upon the land which the Lord your God
gives you for an inheritance” (Deut 24:2-4).
The main point of this legislation is to prohibit a man from remarrying
his former wife if she had married another man. Even if her second husband
divorced her or died, she could not return to her first husband. To do so would
be an “abomination before the Lord” (Deut 24:4) on the same level as
fornication. The reason is that if a husband could easily remarry the same
woman, divorce would become a “legal” form of committing adultery. Later
prophetic writings confirm this truth set forth by Moses. For example, the
prophet Jeremiah says: “If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and
becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not that land be
greatly polluted?” (Jer 3:1).
Another possible reason for the Deuteronomic ban on the remarriage of
divorcees to each other after one of them had married someone else is that such
a marriage would constitute an incestuous relationship. From Leviticus 18, we
learn that prior to the Israelite conquest, the land of Canaan had been “defiled”
by “incest” among the Canaanites (Lev 18:25-26). On the basis of this
connection, Heth and Wenham argue that Deuteronomy prohibits the remar-
riage of a divorced couple after one of them had married someone else, because
such a remarriage constituted incest. A blood relationship was formed by the
first marriage which made them not only husband and wife but kin relatives
as well. Consequently, if they divorced and remarried each other again, that
remarriage was akin to the marriage between a brother and sister.6 If this
interpretation is correct, then Deuteronomy 24 supports Genesis 1 and 2 by
showing that divorce cannot break the bond established by marriage.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 133
may not divorce his wife unless he has discovered something unchaste about
her, for it is written, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her’ (Deut
24:1). But the school of Hillel said: He may divorce her even if she spoiled a dish
for him for it is written, ‘Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.’”7
It is remarkable to see how the same Biblical text (Deut 24:1) was
interpreted in two radically different ways. The Pharisees wanted to force
Christ to choose between the two schools so that they could use His answer to
accuse Him either of laxity or narrow rigorism. Jesus, however, chose not to
take sides. Instead, He answered by calling attention to God’s original plan for
marriage: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the
beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall
leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become
one flesh?’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has
joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt 19:4; cf. Mark 10:6-9).
Christ’s answer is characteristic. He immediately calls attention to
God’s original plan for marriage, almost chiding them for failing to realize that
divorce is totally alien to such a plan. God’s original plan consists of a man
and a woman being united in a marriage bond so strong that the two actually
become one flesh (Gen 2:26; Matt 19:6; Mark 10:8). The “one flesh” unity of
the couple is reflected especially in their offspring who partake of the genetic
characteristics of father and mother, and the two are absolutely insepa-
rable. Jesus affirms that it is God Himself who actually joins together a
couple in marriage and what God has joined together no human being has
the right to separate.
Moses’ Permission. It is significant that Christ answered the Phari-
sees’ question as to whether it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife by
affirming the permanence of the God-ordained marriage union. Such an
answer, however, provoked another question on the part of the Pharisees:
“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put
her away?” (Matt 19:7). By this question the Pharisees apparently intended to
challenge the position Christ had just enunciated by assuming that Moses did
command divorce. The argument of the Pharisees could be paraphrased as
follows: if according to its original institution, marriage is a permanent union
that cannot be dissolved by human authority, why then did Moses command
divorce? Is not Your teaching contradicted by Moses’ commandment?
Christ’s answer is of fundamental importance because it clarifies the
whole question of the Old Testament Mosaic provision. “He said to them, ‘For
your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the
beginning it was not so’” (Matt 19:8; cf. Mark 10:5-6).
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 137
Two features of Christ’s reply should be noticed. First, the phrase “for
the hardness of your hearts” implies that the Mosaic permission was occa-
sioned by the insubordination and stubbornness of the Israelites. The latter did
not invalidate the original institution of marriage as a permanent union. The
bill of divorce was intended to regulate a perverse situation and not to abrogate
the divine institution of marriage.
A second significant element of Jesus’ reply is the distinction between
the verb He used to describe Moses’ provision and the verb used by the
Pharisees. Jesus said that Moses “allowed” divorce while the Pharisees said
that Moses “commanded” divorce.8 The verb Jesus used implies sufferance
or tolerance of divorce but not a sanction of its practice. In the Mosaic
economy, divorce was permitted because of the hardheartedness of the
Israelites, but from the beginning there was no such permission. This means
that the Mosaic permission was a departure from the creation ordinance of
marriage which no man has the right to put asunder.
Jesus utterly condemns divorce as contrary to the divine institution of
marriage. Divorce is the sundering by man of a union God Himself has
constituted. As John Murray puts it, “Divorce is the breaking of a seal which
has been engraven by the hand of God.”9
A Clarification for the Disciples. Christ’s condemnation of divorce
as a violation of God’s original plan for marriage apparently perplexed the
disciples. Presumably they were wondering what would be the moral
consequences if a man divorced his wife. Later that day when Jesus had found
lodging (“in the house”), the disciples began questioning Him on this subject.
And Jesus said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,
commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries
another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11-12).
The unconditional form of Christ’s statement in Mark 10:11-12 (and
Luke 16:18) where no exceptions are allowed for divorce serves to emphasize
the abrogation of the Mosaic permission for divorce (Deut 24:1-4). Jesus
declares to His disciples in no uncertain terms that, contrary to the Mosaic
concession, divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife is a sin
of adultery clearly condemned by God’s law. A man who divorces his wife
and marries another woman is sinning not only against God but also against
his former wife. He “commits adultery against her” because by marrying
another woman, he is violating his covenant of commitment to his wife.
Mark applies the same rule to both the husband and the wife, a truth not
expressed in Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Matt 19:9). The reason is that Matthew
was writing for Jews among whom it was most uncommon for a wife to divorce
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 138
her husband. But what was most uncommon among the Jews was common in
the Graeco-Roman world where, in matters of divorce, wives enjoyed equal
rights with their husbands. Since Mark writes for a predominantly Gentile
readership, he records the application of Christ’s teaching to both the husband
and the wife.
With a few simple words in Mark, Jesus overrides the Mosaic conces-
sion and its rabbinic interpretations by pointing back to the great marriage
charter of Genesis. In view of the fact that in the beginning when God
established marriage, divorce was not permitted, for a husband or a wife to
divorce his/her spouse means to act against the will of the Creator for marriage.
Jesus envisions marriage not as a mere social or civil contract that can
be terminated through a legal proceeding but as a sacred and lifelong covenant.
Those who divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery. Such a radical teaching,
as Hugh Montefiore points out, “was revolutionary to Jewish ways of thought.
So far as we know, Jesus was alone among Jewish teachers when He asserted
that marriage was intended by God to be lasting and permanent.”10
The Contribution of Luke 16:18. In Luke, the teaching of Jesus on
divorce is placed in a different context, namely, in the context of the
proclamation of the Gospel of the kingdom of God which began with John the
Baptist: “The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news
of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently” (Luke
16:16). The subject matter that was expanded by the religious leaders until the
beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry was the Law and the Prophets. But
with the appearance of John, the proclamation of the good news of the
kingdom of God began.
Some of the Pharisees mistakenly concluded that John and Jesus taught
the termination of the Law and the Prophets. Jesus, however, emphasizes in
Luke 16:17 that the inauguration of the kingdom of God does not set aside
God’s law: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one dot
of the law to become void.”
In the following verse Jesus drives home His point using divorce as an
illustration. The Pharisees thought they were upholding the letter of the law
by arguing about what constituted legitimate grounds for a divorce. Jesus
reveals the permanence and true spirit of God’s law by condemning divorce
and remarriage as a sin of adultery: “Every one who divorces his wife and
marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from
her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). In this statement, Jesus
condemns as adultery not only the act of divorcing one’s wife but also the act
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 139
of marrying a divorced woman. The reason for the latter is that divorce does
not destroy the indelible bond formed when a man and a woman enter into a
marriage covenant.
The teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 makes no
allowance for divorce and remarriage by either the husband or the wife.
Marriage for Jesus is not a mere civil contract that can be terminated but a
divinely established covenant relationship that must not be put asunder. God
is not interested in divorce but in the permanence of our marital relationship.
If we divorce and remarry, we commit adultery.
4. The Teaching of Jesus in Matthew
The Contribution of Matthew. Matthew makes three significant
contributions about Jesus’ teachings on divorce which are not found in Mark
or Luke. Before looking at them, we must understand why Matthew provides
some of the Lord’s teaching on divorce not found in Mark 10. The apparent
reason is the different readership. Mark wrote for Gentile readers while
Matthew for Jewish readers. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, each
writer recorded those elements of the teaching of Jesus that would apply to
their audiences. This is indicated by the fact that Matthew frequently quotes
Old Testament scriptures while Mark cites them only in a few instances,
obviously because the Gentiles had little appreciation for the sacred Scrip-
tures. Mark takes pains to explain certain Jewish tradition and terms (cf. Mark
7:2, 11,34; 5:41; 9:43; 14:12, 36) unfamiliar to Gentile readers.
We noted earlier that only Mark mentions the possibility of a woman
divorcing her husband (Mark 10:12) because that was common in the Graeco-
Roman world. Matthew omits that part of Jesus’ teaching because Jewish law
made no allowance for a woman to divorce her husband. It is evident, then,
that each gospel writer selectively recorded those elements of Jesus’ teaching
that would apply to his Christian community. Since Matthew is writing to
Jewish-Christian readers he mentions three significant aspects of Jesus’
teaching on divorce and remarriage which are omitted by Mark and Luke.
The first significant Matthean contribution regarding Jesus’ teaching
on divorce and remarriage is found in the context of the Sermon on the Mount.
Here Jesus encourages living in conformity to the spirit of the law rather than
to its letter. Contrary to the Pharisees who allowed divorce by appealing to the
letter of the Mosaic concession (Matt 5:31; cf. Deut 24:1-4), Jesus disallows
divorce but for one exception (Matt 5:32) by revealing the true intent of God’s law.
The second significant Matthean contribution is the response of the
disciples to Jesus’ teaching: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 140
not expedient to marry” (Matt 19:10). Apparently, the disciples had been
following either the rabbinical view of Shammai which allowed divorce only
on the ground of adultery or of Hillel which permitted divorce for any reason.
When they understood that Jesus in essence made no allowance for divorce,
they responded in astonishment, “If one cannot get out of marriage, then it is
better not to marry in the first place.” Jesus then declared that not all can accept
a celibate life (Matt 19:11-12). This brief dialogue between Jesus and the
disciples recorded by Matthew reveals, indirectly and yet forcefully, that Jesus
taught the permanence of the marriage relationship.
The Exception Clause. The third significant Matthean contribution is
the exception clause of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 which teaches that to divorce
and to remarry, “except for unchastity [porneia]” is adultery: “But I say to you
that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity,
makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits
adultery” (Matt 5:32). “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except
for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt 19:9).
The exception clause found in these two texts has been the object of
countless studies. A major reason is that many find in this clause the only
legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage. Scholarly opinion on the
meaning of the exception clause is divided, reflecting the lack of unanimity
among scholars about the precise meaning of the key word of the clause,
namely porneia. The word is generally translated as “fornication” (KJV),
“unchastity” (RSV), and “marital unfaithfulness” (NIV).
The Greek word porneia, from which we derive the word “pornogra-
phy,” comes from the root word pernemi—“to sell.” The original idea was to
offer one’s body for a price. The word was used especially of slaves and meant
“a harlot for hire.”11 Historically, porneia has been used with wider and
narrower meanings. The wider meaning includes unlawful extra-marital
intercourse such as prostitution, fornication, and adultery. The narrower
meaning can refer to sexual aberrations such as homosexuality (cf. Rom 1:29),
incest (cf. 1 Cor 5:1) , and unlawful marriages within the forbidden degrees of
relationship (Acts 15:20,29). The question then is, what is the exact meaning
of porneia in the exception clause (Matt 5:32; 19:9)? Is Jesus using the term
in its wider or narrower meaning? Scholarly opinion differs on this matter as
indicated by the five major interpretations of the exception clause.
Adultery or Sexual Misconduct. The traditional and most popular
interpretation of the exception clause takes porneia in its wider meaning of
sexual misconduct. Thus, Jesus allows divorce when one party has been guilty
of marital unfaithfulness. This view is reflected in most translations where
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 141
three Synoptic Gospels, the Gentile readers of Mark’s or Luke’s Gospels, who
did not have access to Matthew’s Gospel which circulated primarily among
the Jewish-Christians, had no way of knowing that Jesus made allowance for
divorce and remarriage in the case of marital unfaithfulness.
A third problem with interpretating the exception clause as sexual
misconduct is that it contradicts Paul’s “no divorce” teaching in 1 Corinthians
7:10-11. In this passage, Paul claims to give Christ’s own command by
enjoining the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to
divorce his wife. The total prohibition of divorce by Paul reflects the teaching
of Jesus found in Mark and Luke.
A fourth problem with the interpretation of porneia as sexual miscon-
duct (adultery) is that this term is not the normal word for adultery, though it
may include it. The normal Greek term for adultery is moicheia, a term used
by Jesus in all the divorce texts to describe the outcome of divorce and
remarriage, namely, “commits adultery.” If Jesus intended to permit divorce
specifically in the case of adultery, He would probably have used the explicit
term moicheia. The fact that He used another term suggests that porneia may
refer to something other than adultery.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that there is no provision in the
Pentateuch for divorce in the case of adultery. The penalty for proven adultery
was death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22, 23-27) and not divorce. The same was true
in the case of a woman who had engaged in premarital sex before marriage
(Deut 22:13-21). She was stoned to death and not divorced. There are no
indications in the Pentateuch that divorce was ever allowed for sexual misconduct.
A fifth problem with interpreting the exception clause as sexual
misconduct is that it fails to take into account the astonishment of the disciples
at the saying of Jesus. As Edward Schillebeeck points out, “If Matthew 19:9
is taken to mean that Jesus was siding with the followers of the school of
Shammai, who permitted divorce on grounds of adultery, then the astonish-
ment expressed in the apostles’ answers would be incomprehensible—‘then
it is not expedient to marry’ (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if
Christ in fact rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage. His
rejection is reinforced by the statement: ‘Not all men can receive this precept,
but only those to whom it is given’” (19:11).12 In the light of the foregoing
considerations, we are bound to conclude that it is most unlikely that by the
exception of porneia, Jesus meant to allow for divorce and remarriage on the
grounds of adultery or sexual misconduct. Respect for the astonishing and
radical teaching of Matthew 19:3-9 requires that porneia be interpreted in a
narrower sense.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 143
unlawful marriages were dissolved. The prohibition would not preclude the
possibility of violation and the need to deal with an illegal incestuous
situation.”18
This view appears to me as the most satisfactory and enjoys consider-
able scholarly support. Among the scholars who advocate this view, mention
can be made of J. Bonsirven, H. Cazelles, M. Berrouard, J. Kahmann, W. K.
Lowther Clark, and more recently Charles Ryrie and the noted New Testament
scholar, F. F. Bruce.19 Commenting on the use of porneia in Acts 15:20,29,
Bruce notes: “But fornication could bear a more technical sense of marital
union within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity laid down by
the Hebrew ‘law of holiness’ (Lev 18:6-18). There are one or two other places
in the New Testament where fornication may have this technical sense—e.g.
the concession ‘except on the ground of fornication’ added in the Matthean
version of Jesus’ prohibition of divorce for his followers (Matt 5:32; 19:9).”20
Four major arguments support this view of the exception clause.
(1) New Testament Use of Porneia. One of the possible lexical
meanings of porneia is “incest” or “incestuous marriage.”21 We find this
meaning in 1 Corinthians 5:1 where Paul demands the expulsion of a Christian
who has married his stepmother, a clear violation of Leviticus 18:8. The same
meaning of porneia appears in Acts 15:20, 29 where the Jerusalem Council
recommends that Gentile converts should abstain from idol sacrifices, blood,
meat of strangled animals, and porneia. It is significant to note, as Carl Laney
points out, “the order suggested first by James (Acts 15:20) and then given by
the Council (Acts 15:29):
James
Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9
Porneia Lev. 18:6-18
Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14
Blood Lev. 17:10-12
The Council
Idol Sacrifices Lev. 17:8-9
Blood Lev. 17:10-12
Things Strangled Lev. 17:13-14
Porneia Lev. 18:6-18
allowed divorce to the creational design of the law which excluded divorce,
would be nullified if in the end He simply returned to Deuteronomy again. On
the other hand, it would be consistent with what Christ had just declared for
Him to say that God’s plan for marriage aloowed for divorce only in the case
of an illegally contracted marriage to a near relative. In all other instances,
marriage is a lifelong and binding covenant commitment.
The possibility of marrying a near relative was very real in the tribal
Jewish society which consisted of large blood-related families. I was made
forcefully aware of this fact while teaching in Ethiopia. Students belonging
to the same tribe often referred to one another as brothers or sisters because to
some degrees they were all related to one another. The situation was not much
different in tribal Jewish society where it was relatively easy to marry a near
relative. This can explain why Jesus in Matthew—a gospel written for Jewish
Christians—would make allowance for divorce in the case of an illegally
contracted marriage to a near relative.
Another aspect of the immediate context, which indirectly supports the
unlawful marriage view of porneia, is the reaction of the disciples: “If such
is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Matt 19:10).
Such a reaction is only explicable if Jesus rejected the possibility of divorce,
except in the rare cases of marriage among near relatives where marriage
should not have taken place in the first place.
Had Jesus permitted divorce for sexual misconduct, He would have
hardly provoked such a reaction on the part of His disciples, since such a view
was widely known and promoted by the rabbinical school of Shammai. The
astonishment of the disciples indirectly proves that they understood Christ’s
standard for marriage to be immeasurably higher and more exacting than that
of the stricter rabbinical school of interpretation.
Conclusion. Our study of the Jewish setting, historical and geographi-
cal background, and the immediate context of Matthew 19:1-12 suggests that
by the exception clause (“except for porneia”) Jesus permitted divorce only in
the case of an unlawful marriage to a near relative. By means of the porneia
exception, Christ did not intend to impose the Levitical norms for legitimate
marriage, but simply to declare that when such norms were violated, there was
a valid reason for the dissolution of marriage.
This view is consistent with the absolute value that Mark, Luke, and
Paul place on the saying of Jesus. We are bound to conclude that by the
exception phrase about porneia, Jesus did not intend to open the way for
divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual misconduct. Rather, He wished
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 149
husband and wife are one flesh and what God has joined together no man
should put asunder.
Paul recognizes, however, that human nature is perverse and that even
a Christian husband or wife can make marriage intolerable for the other
partner. A spouse who is out of fellowship with God can become intolerant,
abusive, unfaithful, domineering, inconsiderate. Undoubtedly, Paul had run
into situations of this kind and recognizes that sometimes separation may be
inevitable. However, if separation becomes a necessity, Paul leaves Christian
partners with two options: (1) to remain permanently unmarried, or (2) to be
reconciled to one’s partner.
It is important to note that Paul appeals to the teaching of Jesus (“not I
but the Lord”) in ruling against the possibility of divorce for a Christian couple.
On this regard, F. F. Bruce comments: “For a Christian husband or wife,
divorce is excluded by the law of Christ: here Paul has no need to express a
judgment of his own, for the Lord’s ruling on this matter was explicit.”27
To appreciate the revolutionary nature of such teaching, it is important
to remember that divorce and remarriage was allowed in both the Jewish and
Roman society. Yet Paul affirms the no-divorce principle for Christians as a
word of the Lord which will be accepted without challenge. This goes to show
that within twenty-five years of the crucifixion itself, the Apostolic Church
believed and taught that Christ had proclaimed the permanence of the marriage
union. This belief played an important role in the Christian mission to
revolutionize the values of the existing society.
In Paul’s day, there was no provision for a wife to be legally separated
from her husband without being divorced. Fortunately today, the law provides
for legal separation as an alternative to divorce. Legal separation offers to a
Christian the protection of the law while leaving the door open for reconcili-
ation. Such a door must be left open because Christians believe that no marital
conflict is impossible for God to solve.
Since there was no legal separation in Paul’s day, the apostle recom-
mends a legal separation—type of divorce. This is indicated by his use of the
verb koridzo (“to separate”) rather than the normal verb for divorce apoluo
used by Jesus. By recommending a legal separation-type of divorce, Paul
respects the spirit of Christ’s teaching while at the same time providing
protection for the believing wife until a reconciliation with her husband
can be realized.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 152
Divorce of a Believer Married to an Unbeliever Who Does Not
Want a Divorce. The second situation that Paul addresses is that of a believing
spouse married to an unbeliever: “To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any
brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consent to live with him, he
should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and
he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (1 Cor 7:12-13).
Since the Lord had not given instruction concerning marriage between
believers and unbelievers, Paul exercises his own apostolic authority and
inspiration (“I say, not the Lord”) in enjoining again the principle of no
separation. The personal nature of Paul’s instruction does not weaken its
binding authority because he speaks as one who had received mercy of the
Lord to be faithful (1 Cor 7:25) and one who had the Spirit of God (1 Cor 7:40).
Cognizant of this divine mandate, Paul openly declares without fear of
presumption: “This is my rule in all the churches” (1 Cor 7:17).
The instruction of Paul is clear: if the unbeliever does not want a
divorce, the believer should not seek for it. The reason given for preserving
the marriage union is the sanctifying influence of the believing partner upon
the unbelieving spouse and children: “For the unbelieving husband is
consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through
her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are
holy” (1 Cor 15:14).
The reason given by Paul for maintaining the marriage union is
pertinent to the fears entertained by Corinthian converts regarding a possible
defilement contracted by being married to an unbeliever. Paul puts such fears
to rest by revealing the sanctifying power of the Christian faith. The faith of
the believing spouse becomes a channel of saving grace to the unbelieving
partner. The presence of a believer in the home sets it apart (“sanctifies”) and
gives to it a Christian influence that can bring the unbelieving partner and
children to Christ. As Paul puts in verse 16: “Wife, how do you know whether
you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will
save your wife?”
Divorce of a Believer Married to an Unbeliever Who Wants a
Divorce. The third situation that Paul addresses is that of an unbelieving
partner who wants a divorce. His instruction in this case is: “But if the
unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother
or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace” (1 Cor 7:15). Paul is
not commanding the unbelieving partner to separate. The permissive impera-
tive “let it be so” (kopisesto) presupposes that the unbelieving spouse has
already willfully initiated or accomplished the separation. Consequently, Paul
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 153
advises to let the separation take its course and become an accomplished fact.
The believer need not pursue the deserting spouse and is free from all marital
obligations. The Greek verb ou dedoulotai, literally “no longer enslaved,”
implies that cohabitation with such a person is slavery for the believing
partner. Since Christ has called us to peace, the believer may withdraw from
slavery in such a case.
This introduces us to one of the most debated questions in the interpre-
tation of a New Testament passage. The question centers on the exact meaning
of the verb “is not bound” or “is not enslaved” (ou dedoulotai). Does it mean
that the believing party is free in the sense of being permitted to remarry after
the separation , or in the sense of being free to separate but not remarry? In
other words, is Paul granting to the believing spouse only the right to separate
from bed and board or the right to separate and marry another? Does desertion
give to the innocent partner the right of divorce with the liberty to remarry?
Some maintain that Paul grants to the deserted believer only the
freedom to separate but not to remarry. They appeal to the fact that “Paul says
nothing in verse 15 about a second marriage for the deserted spouse.”28 They
interpret the silence of Paul as indicating that he offers to a deserted believer
the same two alternatives given to separated believers, namely, reconciliation
or lifelong single life (1 Cor 7:11).
This view ignores the striking difference between the conditional
separation of believing spouses mentioned in verses 10 and 11 and the
unconditional separation caused by the desertion of an unbelieving spouse
envisaged in verse 15. In the former case, Paul strictly enjoins the spouse who
has separated to remain unmarried or be reconciled. In the latter case, Paul
recognizes the finality of the separation caused by the deserting party by
saying, “Let it be so.” In other words, “let the case be closed and the
separation take place.”
“In verse 15,” as John Murray points out, “we find a terseness and
severity of terms which, viewed from the standpoint of the separation envi-
sioned, are indicative of decisiveness and finality—‘let him (or her) depart,’
that is, ‘let him (or her) be gone.’”29 Because the separation is final, it is
unconditional. That is to say, there is no injunction to remain unmarried or be
reconciled. Instead, there is the affirmation that the deserted spouse “is not
bound” (1 Cor 7:15).
The phrase “not bound” (ou dedoulotai) presupposes the dissolution of
the marriage bond and consequently the freedom of the deserted spouse to
remarry. This conclusion is supported by Paul’s affirmation in verse 39 of the
same chapter that a husband’s death releases the wife from the marriage bond
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 154
and frees her to marry again: “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he
lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only
in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39).
The dissolution of the marriage bond by a willful and obstinate
desertion is somewhat similar to the dissolution of the marriage bond by death.
In both instances, the marriage relationship is terminated by the permanent
departure of a spouse. Whether such a departure is caused by death or by the
obstinate desertion of an unbelieving partner, the outcome is the same. The
surviving spouse is released from the marriage bond and is free to remarry.
Some argue that if Paul taught that the desertion by an unbelieving
partner dissolved the marriage bond, then he would be setting up a double
standard of ethics: one which excludes the dissolution where two believers are
involved and one which includes dissolution where an unbelieving partner
deserts the believing spouse. This apparent contradiction can be resolved by
recognizing the substantial difference that exists between the two cases. In the
first case, the initiative in the separation is taken by a Christian who knows that
marriage is a sacred, lifelong covenant that can and must be preserved. In
the second case, the initiative in the separation is taken by a non-Christian
partner who does not accept the Christian view of marriage as a sacred,
lifelong covenant.
To a believer, marriage has a deeper and more radical meaning than to
an unbeliever. A believer marries “in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39), that is, according
to the will of God who joins together two partners into a sacred, lifelong
covenant, enabling them to become “one flesh.” An unbeliever marries “in the
pagan society” which views marriage as a civil or social contract that can be
terminated through a legal proceeding. Since a believing spouse cannot
impose his/her Christian view of marriage upon the unbelieving partner, if the
latter is obstinately determined to desert his/her believing spouse, then the
marriage union is dissolved.
The difference that Paul makes between the marriage of two believers
which cannot be dissolved and the mixed marriage of a believer to an
unbeliever which can be dissolved, when the latter deserts the believing
partner, offers perhaps the strongest biblical evidence for the sacred, perma-
nent nature of the Christian marriage. This does not mean that a mixed
marriage is automatically less sacred than a Christian marriage. Paul explains
that a believing partner exercises a sanctifying influence upon the marriage
relationship (1 Cor 7:14). What it means is that marriage has a special
character for two believing partners. Their common faith and commitment to
God unites them in a real, objective, and lifelong marriage bond. Such a
permanent commitment is possible because their faith in Christ offers
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 155
them the means for fulfilling God’s original design of marriage: the two
shall be one flesh.
Conclusion. Paul’s teachings on the question of divorce in 1 Corinthians
7:12-16 not only closely reflects Jesus’ teachings concerning the permanence
of marriage, but also reveals its full depths. It does this by showing how the
Christian faith causes the marriage covenant to become a sacred and lifelong
relationship. There is for Paul an intimate connection between the permanence
of the marriage bond and the Christian faith.
A Christian couple who marries “in the Lord” accepts the responsibility
to honor by divine grace their covenant commitment both to God and to one
another. It is the sacred and permanent nature of the Christian covenant
commitment to God that makes a Christian marriage sacred and permanent.
On account of this fact, a Christian couple experiencing marital problems may
separate with the hope of reconciliation but may not divorce and remarry. This
condition does not apply to a mixed marriage where the unbelieving partner
deserts his believing spouse, because by the very act of desertion the unbe-
liever rejects the Christian view of marriage as a sacred and permanent union.
Summing up, like Jesus the apostle Paul affirms the principle that
Christian marriage is a union binding and permanent for life. If a separation
should occur, Paul presents only two alternatives to believing partners: be
reconciled to one another or remain single.
7. The Teaching of Paul on Divorce and Church Leadership
Paul’s view of Christian marriage as a lifelong union which admits no
divorce and remarriage, is indirectly supported by the marriage qualifications
he sets forth for church leaders: “Now a bishop must be above reproach, the
husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2; cf. Titus 1:6). “Let deacons be the husband
of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well” (1
Tim 3:12).
The basic qualifications given by Paul for the church office of elder (or
overseer) and deacon were designed to enable Timothy in Ephesus and Titus
on Crete to appoint church leaders qualified to serve in such offices. The first
qualification for the office of elder is that the man must be “above reproach.”
His blameless lifestyle is to serve as a role model to the congregation and is to
offer no reason for criticism in the community. The first important aspect of
his role modeling is his marital status, which Paul defines as “husband of one
wife” (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). This qualification occurs both in 1 Timothy and
Titus immediately after the demand for blamelessness thus indicating the
prominence Paul gives to the marital status of a church leader.
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 156
married only once, it seems safe to assume that the same qualification applied
to the office of elder. The linguistic similarity between the two phrases
(“husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband”) strongly suggest that in
both instances the person was to have been married only once.
Historical Support. This view was commonly held in early Christian-
ity. Tertullian, for example, writing at the beginning of the third century says:
“Among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they
who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage; which
rule is so rigidly observed that I remember some removed from their office for
digamy.”33
Tertullian then argues that the same rule should apply to the laity
because in a sense all Christians are priests. While his extension to the laity
of the “one marriage” principle may have been influenced by his Montanistic
views, his reference to the rigid application of such a principle to the clergy,
provides historical support for the “married only once” interpretation of the
phrase “husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6).
Another example can be found in the fourth century collection of
ecclesiastical laws, known as The Apostolic Canons. The seventeenth canon
establishes that “He who has been twice married after his baptism, or has a
concubine, cannot be made a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon.”34 The same rule
appears in the related work, known as The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
which states: “We have already said, that a bishop, a presbyter, and a deacon,
when they are constituted, must be but once married, whether their wives be
alive or whether they be dead.”35 Historical testimonies such as these strongly
support the “married only once” interpretation of the Pauline requirement
“husband of one wife.”
Objections. Some object to this interpretation because it reflects a low
view of marriage. The prohibition of a second marriage after the death of one’s
spouse would seem to make marriage almost a necessary evil that can be
allowed only once. Such a view of marriage is contradicted by the Scripture
which presents marriage as a divinely established, honorable institution.
However, this objection ignores that the restriction against a second marriage
applies not to Christians in general but to elders and deacons in particular.
Their leadership responsibilities place some restrictions on their personal
liberty in the area of marriage. While a lay member is permitted to remarry
after the death of his or her spouse (1 Cor 7:39; 1 Tim 5:14), a church leader
is advised not to remarry.
The reason for the “married only once” requirement could be that a
second marriage after the death of one’s spouse, would entail additional family
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 158
CONCLUSION
In this chapter we have found that both the Old and New Testaments
clearly and consistently condemn divorce as a violation of God’s original plan
for marriage as a lifelong union that enables a man and a woman to become
“one flesh.” Respect for this fundamental principle demands that a Christian
couple experiencing marital conflicts should not seek to resolve them through
divorce. If a marriage relationship becomes intolerable, a Christian couple can
consider a legal separation. The purpose of the separation should be to provide
an opportunity for the couple to work toward a possible reconciliation. It is
only when reconciliation is no longer possible that divorce and remarriage are
permissible.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
1. Jay E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Phillisburgh,
New Jersey, 1980), p. xiii.
2. See Fred H. Wight, Manners and Customs of the Bible Lands
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), p. 125.
3. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minneapolis, 1981), p. 29.
4. Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v. “Divorce.”
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, The Gospel According to Matthew
Explained (London, 1884), p. 145.
6. William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce
(London, 1984), pp. 106-110.
7. Talmudic Tract Gittin 9:10.
8. There is an apparent discrepancy in the form of the Pharisees’
question and of the Lord’s reply between Matthew 19:7,8 on the one hand, and
Mark 10:3-5 on the other. In Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees ask: “Why then did
Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” In
His reply Jesus says: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to
divorce your wives.” But in Mark 10:3-5 the verbs appear in the reverse order.
Jesus asks, “What did Moses command you?” and the Pharisees reply, “Moses
allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and put her away.” To which
Jesus replies, “For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment”
(Mark 10:5).
Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible 160
-162-
Divorce and Remarriage Today 163
The condemnation of divorce expressed by Malachi (2:13-16) in the
Old Testament and by Jesus (Matt 5:39; 19:3-9; Mark 10:3-12) and Paul (1
Cor 7:10-10:14) in the New Testament is based on the Creator’s vision of the
institution of marriage as an indissoluble union.
Difficult Application. The application of the Biblical prohibition of
divorce and remarriage is a most difficult task. A major reason is the fact that,
in our secular society, marriage is seldom viewed as a sacred, divine
institution designed to merge two personalities into an indissoluble union.
For the most part, marriage has been “desacralized.” It is no longer a
permanent, sacred covenant, witnessed and guaranteed by God Himself, but
rather a social contract that can be easily terminated. The goal of marriage in
our society is not to achieve a spiritual union but to enjoy mutual satisfaction.
If one or both partners no longer feel satisfied by the performance of their
spouses, they feel free to terminate their relationships and to establish new ones.
CONCLUSION
Faithful to her calling, the church must hold high the banner of marital
permanence. It must resist the prevailing secular view of marriage by
aggressively promoting the Biblical view of marriage as a sacred, lifelong
covenant. Such a program should actively engage all the preaching, teaching,
and counseling resources of the church.
To be faithful to her calling, however, the church must not only
proclaim God’s will for marriage to be a sacred, lifelong covenant, but it must
also extend God’s forgiving grace to those who have sinned by divorcing and
remarrying. It is part of the mission of the church to help divorced and
remarried persons to experience repentance, forgiveness, cleansing, and
reconciliation with God, the church, and themselves. Our churches should be
filled to capacity with sinners who are saved by grace and reconciled to God,
and who can then become Christ’s agency for the salvation and reconcili-
ation of others.
NOTE TO CHAPTER 7
1. S. Kenneth Chi and Sharon K. Houseknecht, “Protestant Funda-
mentalism and Marital Success,” Sociology and Social Research 69 (1985):
351-375.