Precursor to Salvation

The Book of Malachi is the last book in the Old Testament. The close of the Book of Malachi signified a period of spiritual darkness, but left the people of Israel with a promise that the Word would return, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest God smite the earth with a curse.

It gives me pause to think that our immediate reaction to this Scripture is to say "Thank God that was in the Old Testament, so we don't have to worry about that any more." In so saying, we blind ourselves willfully to the clear truth that the same prophecy refers to our current dispensation of times: the New Testament, if you will. It's a sobering thought that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. I'm amazed that this truth stands as the reason God did not consume Israel after their continuous adultery against God via departing from his paths to serve other gods, or their own pursuits. My digression is intentional here, to show that the Holy Spirit highlighted certain topics in the Book of Malachi that would powerfully relate to the Word of God which came via Christ's sacrifice, and the establishment of the New Testament. In moving from generic associations to the specific, here are a few excerpts -

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:"
 from Luke 1 -
"And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
from Isaiah 61 -
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;"
and from Luke 4 -

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

The scriptures from Malachi and Isaiah are very similar, in that they are what Biblical scholars often refer to as "telescopic prophesies": these are fulfilled more than once, either historically, or yet in the future. These prophecies can also be filled in part, with other aspects to be fulfilled later in God's timeline. In Malachi and Isaiah, the prophets described fulfillment in a time of a "dreadful day" and the "day of vengeance of our God." When Zacharias and Jesus proclaimed the coming of these promises, they were only fulfilled in part; the dreadful day, the day of vengeance of our God is yet to come, when Christ returns with his Bride to execute the final judgment upon the earth (this is yet to come, in OUR future - something to think about).

Malachi highlighted three issues in his short book of prophecy: 1) disobedience regarding tithes and offerings to God 2) Adultery via divorce and subsequent remarriage 3) The blessings of God upon those that have the fear of the Lord (as opposed to the spirit of fear). Malachi's prophecy concluded with the promise that John the Baptist would come and prepare the way for Christ. Take a moment to review what Malachi brought out regarding this issue of adultery; read chapter 2 of Malachi, and return when you're done: Malachi 2
I could quote the whole chapter, really, but I'll reference only a few verses -

"But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts."

"Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?"

"Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god."

"And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand"

"Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant."

"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously."

To be honest, it's astounding to me that anything else needs to be said on the topic. Unfortunately, the masters and the scholars of our day have so polluted the clear teaching of Christ through Malachi, Christ through John the Baptist, and Christ in the flesh, that God's Word must again be broadcast from the rooftops, as the whole of our society has embraced adultery and called it a God-honored covenant. Is it any wonder? Jesus is looking at our world today and saying, "I told you so." He told us that men would be lovers of their own selves, that men would be married and given in marriage, that seducers would creep into the church and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness... doesn't anyone fear Him? Look at John the Baptist when he spoke to the Pharisees, who were coming to be baptized under hypocrisy.

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

Do you see the correlation? In Malachi, God was not honoring their offering, though they were coming to the altar. Here in Matthew 3, John rejects the religious leaders from baptism unto repentance, as they were only doing so for show, not with sincerity. Now see why John the Baptist lost his life. Mark 6:

"And king Herod heard of him [Jesus]; (for his name was spread abroad:) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead. For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptist. And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist. And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her."

Now when John said "It is not lawful," to what law was he referring? Herod was not a Jew. John's instruction was always with regarding to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, as opposed to that contained in traditions and ordinances; if not, he would not have rejected the Pharisees and Sadducees when they came to his baptism. And how unfortunate for John, that Herod had made an oath with the girl! His hands were tied! Nevermind Herod's divorce of his own wife in order to marry Herodias, or his disrespect of his brother Philip's covenant in marrying Herodias. He was willing to honor a covenant to strike down a man of God, this wicked covenant with hell and death, while willfully violating the holiness which God loves. Matthew chapter 11 gives some insight into what John the Baptist was going through after he was sent to prison for reproving Herod's adulterous remarriage: "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Here was Christ's chance to correct John on his stance against Herod's remarriage. John must not have been aware of the 4 A's (adultery, abandonment, abuse, addiction). So let's see how Jesus counsels John on how the grace of God allows for a man to marry someone else's wife, especially since the wife and her husband were legally divorced. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." Hmm. That's not the current party line. Jesus told John "Keep your head up, you're blessed if you're not offended by My standards, though it brings you to your death."
So John the Baptist loses his head for bringing the same Word that God brought through Malachi regarding Marriage; and Jesus says "Well done." 

For the next post, research Jesus' own words regarding adultery, divorce, and remarriage. God bless you all to walk in love one toward another. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Grace vs. Abomination

It amazes me how God can use a commandment or precept that He previously established to reveal to mankind a glimpse of the depth of His love. "Deuterogamy" addresses a law that was provided to govern unrighteousness. Centuries later, God uses this same law to show an inconceivable Grace. God speaks through the prophet Jeremiah, directly referencing the law from Deuteronomy 24.
Jeremiah 3:1,8,14-15:

They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.


God has divorced his people, but if they will turn, he will accept them back: the divorce does not end the covenant - "I am married unto you."


So why does God call the return of the wife after the second marriage "abomination" (a disgusting thing). It's clear in Deuteronomy that when a woman has been defiled by marriage outside of the original covenant, she is defiled. The second marriage is not holy or God-sanctioned. Therefore, God sees her returning to her original husband as an abomination (because of the pollution caused by the second marriage). Now for some Scriptural evidence to show why the law was written the way it was. Romans 5:20-21:

Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.


So the law, in showing that God called the return of the adulteress abominable, allows the offense in His eyes to be seen by men. And in Jeremiah 3, the Father gives grace, and that more abundantly than the offense.  God doesn't say there was just one idol whereby His nation was defiled. "Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord." What Grace! God offers forgiveness for abomination prior to the repentance of the offending party! Now there are conditions to be met for the reconciliation to be complete. Namely, turning from all other gods, and serving the Lord faithfully. And within the Grace of the offer lies the power for the conditions to be met by the offending party.

Is it any wonder that Paul in II Corinthians 5 besought the believers to be reconciled to God? This reconciliation is also directly referenced in I Corinthians 7, when Paul confirmed Christ's own teaching that if the wife depart she should remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. Why is this important? This is the Gospel at its very core: Christ and the church. Covenant marriage represents Christ and the church (see Ephesians 5). But this revelation and great mystery was not a new concept from God's perspective. He wanted His church to return after adultery long before Paul revealed the purpose of marriage to Ephesus.

The defilement of adultery is the abomination. It disgusts God. God proclaimed in the beginning that if man disobeyed His commands, he would die. Purity (void of sinful actions) can be restored through faith in the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. If the sin is taken away, there is no more defilement, and therefore nothing causing abomination. For marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.


There are a few examples of this grace of  reconciling husband and wife after a second marriage or adultery in the Old Testament. One is found in II Samuel 3:12-16. Short version: Saul allowed David to marry his daughter Michal (I Samuel 18:27). When David fell out of Saul's good graces, Saul tried to kill him, and David ran, rather than raise his hand against God's anointed. When David was gone, Saul took his daughter Michal, David's wife (women didn't have much say back in the day), and gave her to Phalti to be his wife (I Samuel 25:44). II Samuel 3 gives a quick recap of why Phalti had David's wife, even though Michal was considered by the late king's commandment Phalti's wife now. Saul died, so David commanded that his wife be returned to himself, even though she was married to another by this time. This is the example of a second marriage being broken-up, so that the wife can be return to her original husband.

 The prophet Hosea was commanded by God to take a wife who was a prostitute, so that he could understand how God felt about his people Israel and their spiritual adultery against Him. Hosea showed the grace of God in the face of the abomination of adultery in taking his wife back to himself time and again. God used his circumstance to show His grace to us, should we accept the terms and conditions of surrender to His perfect will - Hosea 14:1-2,4:

O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.
I will heal their backslidings, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him.

Grace overcomes abomination by offering forgiveness, which is contingent upon repentance of (turning from) the abominable practice (adultery).

Deuterogamy

Here's a little known fact: "remarriage" has a synonym, "Deuterogamy."

Spell check didn't recognize it either. Don't believe me? Check out Dictionary.com. Or how about Merriam-Webster. Now to the history behind the word. Breaking the word down into its parts: 1) Deutero- Per the comment below,  "second"; 2) -gamy. This suffix refers to marriage or a sexual union of some kind (see polygamy, bigamy, exogamy, allogamy, etc.). While I can't prove a direct etymological relation (at the moment) of deuterogamy to the fifth book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, it is fascinating that the only Biblical provision for deuterogamy is found in Deuteronomy. I still hold that the formation of the word (it is a variation of "digamy") may be somewhat related to the location of the provision in Scripture. All also submit that I could be completely wrong, and it really is a curious coincidence. But enough about what I can't prove, onto the truth. The specific passage in which the aforementioned provision is found is Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Clearly this passage from Deuteronomy gives provision, under the concept of deuterogamy, for a man to divorce a woman, and for that woman to be married to another man. I will for the time being avoid references to Jeremiah 3, Hosea, Malachi 2, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, Romans 3, and I Corinthians 7, all of which directly contradict the law given in this scripture. Did I just say that there is a contradiction in Scripture? Why, yes, I did. The contradiction is between righteousness and unrighteousness. Does the Scripture disagree with itself? Certainly not. However, within the Law of Moses (especially Exodus - Deuteronomy) there are laws that dictate how the Hebrew leadership should preside over unrighteous behavior within a community that should always, but in practice did not always, behave righteously. Often the lawful solution was the death of the offender. Message me for references if you'd like. In the case of a writing of divorcement, a provision was made for remarriage, as seen above. This provision within the law addressed an unrighteous situation for which death was not named as the solution. The action of divorce and subsequent remarriage is nowhere justified in this passage. This passage explains how an unrighteous action (the putting away of one's wife) could be governed within the society.

Within this provision, the Lord directly addresses an action which is highlighted as unrighteous in God's eyes. That is - the returning of the original wife to the original husband. The conclusion cannot be made that, because the divorce and subsequent remarriage are not directly addressed as "abomination," such actions are condoned and justified before God. The Word must be rightly divided. So let's examine the passage describing the abomination more closely. Once the woman becomes the wife of another (following the divorce of the first marriage), "she is defiled." To explore one aspect of this statement, is it sex that has defiled the woman? This cannot be the conclusion, as a man is commanded to take his brother's wife if his brother dies childless, so that his brother would not be left without an heir (Deuteronomy 25:6). Now let's review Hebrews 13:4:

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

So marriage is undefiled. But the former wife is defiled after being married to another, according to Deuteronomy 24. But the law gave her provision to be married to another man. It is plain then that the sanction and favor of God does not rest upon the second marriage, though the civil provision allows the union. Therein rests the agreement of this scripture with Christ's answer to the Pharisees in Mark 10. The Pharisees were so consumed with what they could get away with, that they overlooked what their justification (via Deuteronomy 24) meant: Sin. Remarriage causes defilement (sin), which stands in direct contrast to marriage, which is honorable in all, and the marriage bed undefiled.

So the disruption of Genesis 2:24 via remarriage causes the offending party to be defiled, and God calls the acceptance of that which is defiled an abomination. Next time, we'll discuss David's actions in 2 Samuel 3:14, and God's reaction to the defilement of Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 3.

It's been awhile!

So I haven't posted since September 2010.
Much has occurred since then, especially the launch of two new youtube accounts.
My personal account bluizsavedsoul, and the youtube channel dedicated to Jesus Is Our Shepherd, a weekly radio broadcast focussed on the issues discussed in this blog concerning marriage. Check it out at jesusisourshepherd.
Some of the videos on the site are a bit rough. We're learning better processes as we go along.
The important thing is the message, which is the Biblical viewpoint of marriage and adultery.
Check it out!
Now to focus on Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

God will honor the Covenant

The last post focused on Abimelech, king of the Philistines, who found himself in trouble with God for almost violating Abraham's marriage covenant to Sarah. He, or his successor, was in a similar circumstance regarding Isaac and his wife Rebekah as well.
In Genesis chapter 17:7-8, God tells Abraham,
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 
God warned Abimelech that if he did not restore Sarah to Abraham, "Know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine." (Genesis 20:7).
The punishment for violating God's covenant was death. Abimelech was the king of the Philistines, a people who resided in Gerar, which was slightly southwest of Gaza in Israel. After Jacob and his family went to Egypt during the famine, the Philistines expanded their territory and moved north to further occupy the land of Canaan which God had promised to Abraham's seed, specifically through Isaac and Jacob (Israel).
Exodus 23:27, 31:

I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.

And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.
This is how God felt about those who were violating His covenant with Abraham. God gave this land to Abraham. He had warned the king of the Philistines that he and all that were his (the nation he ruled) would die for violating a man's marriage covenant. And now we see the same punishment exacted on those who were violating God's covenant with Abraham from Genesis 17.
God honored his covenant to Abraham, even though there were other nations in the way.
The covenant was between God and Abraham regarding the land. The land was a necessary part of the covenant, and although others had inhabited the land after the nation of Israel departed, God saw that the land still belonged to Israel, on account of his covenant. Those that were in the way of the covenant would be destroyed, so that the original covenant could be honored.
Next time: Deuteronomy 24, and the entrance of the divorce concept into the covenant of marriage. 

Death ends the Covenant

It is past time for this next post, so this will be one of two entries regarding the marriage covenant this weekend, if the Lord wills.

A portion of the last blog focused on  the marriage covenant being given to all mankind, as opposed to one people group, ethnicity, or nation. This discussion will focus on Abraham and Sarah's visit to a city called Gerar. The king of Gerar, whose name was Abimelech, is referred to both in Genesis 20 and Genesis 26. It is possible that both passages refer to the same person. It is more likely, however, that these were either a father and son pair, or grandfather and grandson. It has also been suggested that the name Abimelech could have been the general term for the King of Gerar, much like in nearby Egypt, where the king was always referred to as "Pharaoh."

What is clear is that Abraham and Isaac both believed that the kings of Gerar had no fear of God with regard to murder. They both feared that because they were husbands to very attractive wives, their lives might be in jeopardy. They feared that one might kill them in order to take their wives.

And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?  

Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this. 

And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.  

Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore [her] not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine. 
And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. -Genesis 20:2-7; 9-10 
***Isaac and Rebekah found themselves in a similar situation, which can be seen in Genesis 26. For the sake of time, I will limit this discussion to Abraham's episode.***

Now this particular passage of scripture provides answers to some very interesting questions about the marriage covenant, as it was viewed before the establishment of the Mosaic law. Note that Abraham operated under the concept that the people of Gerar did not fear God, meaning that they were not concerned with His opinion regarding their activities. So then why would Abraham be in fear of his life? If the people did not fear God, why wouldn't Abraham's fear rest in that someone may simply take his wife by force? He was clearly in no position to offer significant resistance. 
The answer is simple: Cultures and nations that did not fear God still understood the one flesh covenant of Marriage (with the exception of Sodom and Gomorrah which ceased to be of concern in the previous chapter). If a Godless man wanted another's wife, the only possible solution was to kill the husband, and take her to be his own. This was also David's particular method of operation after he violated Uriah's covenant (see II Samuel 11). 

Another point to be made is that Abraham was willing to allow another man to lay with his wife, rather than be killed. Why is this significant? For two reasons:  

1. In Genesis 18, God promised Abraham that he would become a great and mighty nation. This promise would be very difficult to see through if Abraham was dead.
2. Also in Genesis 18, God said that the promised child of Abraham would be conceived with Sarah his wife, and not another.

Abraham then had concluded two things: 1) he must survive his stay in Gerar; 2) if his wife were taken from him, it would not negate his covenant with her, though she became another man's; God's promise was of a son through Sarah. This way they both survive, and therefore the covenant remains in effect as well. Their survival was the determinate factor. Death, and only death, would end the covenant.


Thankfully for Abraham, Sarah, and Abimelech, God had better plans. Regarding God's warning to Abimelech, I also want to note His opening argument: "For she is a man's wife." He didn't qualify the reason by stating to whom she was married. Only that she was. And that was good enough for God to take the breath from his body. He was but a dead man, not because he was going to take the Prophet's wife. Just another man's wife. Any man's wife would be reason enough for his life to be over. That she was Abraham's wife exacerbated the issue a bit, but the core problem was that God had witnessed a one flesh covenant, which Abimelech would have violated by lying with Sarah. What's more, had God not warned Abimelech, he would have been found dead based on that fact alone, even though he was ignorant of her marriage to Abraham.
God gave Abimelech the opportunity to make amends based upon his ignorance, as God is just and good. Nevertheless that which was taken had to be restored in order for God's hand of judgment to be stayed.
 
I wonder how many in the church have taken another man's wife, and thought lightly of the consequence. God is the Lord. He changes not. He is the same today as he was when he visited Abimelech in order to spare his life. I pray someone allows God to spare their life today as well.

The next topic, coming later this weekend, will highlight the permanence of the covenant. We will see how God followed through on his warning to Abimelech regarding Abraham's covenant, centuries later.

In The Beginning

As I stated last week, I would like to start at the first Biblical passage referencing marriage, and work through the Scriptures in chronological fashion.

So let us start in the beginning, Genesis 2:20-25:

"And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

There are numerous studies that can be done regarding the nature of marriage based upon this one passage of scripture, but in keeping with the topic of God's views regarding divorce and remarriage, there is a point that I will note is established in this text, as follows. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, referred to as the Pentateuch according to the Hebrew Scriptures, and Genesis (literally, "Beginning") is the first of these books. As this passage is the first passage specifically referencing the man and his wife, it is established as what those in the legal field would recognize as precedent: 1) a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases. 2) any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations. (dictionary.com) 

Simply put, according to its original establishment by God, marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman, and the two should become one flesh, once God has joined the man with his wife. This joining of man to wife is not accomplished through intimacy, but through vows. In this case, Adam's word he and the woman would be of two, one flesh. Of the many points that can be made regarding this covenant, it is certain that this definition of marriage is the standard by which all other marriages are to be judged. 

There is something to be said for marriage in that it is existent in every human culture. There is no culture in which marriage is not practiced. This is not in reference to sexual intimacy. Specifically, marriage as a covenant is practiced in every human culture. This is because the marriage covenant was passed down to the whole earth through the first man and wife. This covenant was not given to the Jews through Moses. Moses simply recounted the historical record, so that his people would understand the origin of God's law concerning marriage, and why it should be followed.

To recognize the importance of the marriage covenant, I must note that the only thing that God saw that was not good in the making of His creation was that man was alone. Everything else until that point had been good. Days one through five were checked off the list, but on the sixth day God noted that it was "Not good that the man should be alone" - Genesis 2:18. God made special provision to cause His work to be good by instituting the marriage covenant. Once the marriage covenant had been established, God's work was done: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." - Genesis 1:31. 

Another unique attribute of this first marriage relationship that I should not neglect to mention is found in Genesis 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:". Hereafter there is only one aspect of creation that mimics God's intent to create man after His image: that is, He created woman also after His image, but not from the dust of the earth, but the rib of the man. So man and woman were both created in the image of God, and man and woman were created to display within creation the oneness of God with man. There was no separation between God and Adam before sin, as there was no separation between Adam and Eve after God brought Eve to Adam.
 

Marriage is the only institution in existence today that predates man's fall into sin. A friend of mine challenged me to resist the theoretical "perfect-world" mentality. I certainly will, as this topic applies to real life situations regarding real hurt, real betrayal, and real desire. 

That said, marriage is from God, and is perfect in its establishment. It was formed in a place that knew no sin, and represents a relationship formed without sin. It is pure unity without shame, and from the very beginning represented God's covenant with man. If our understanding of marriage breaks down, our understanding of our covenant with God will shortly follow, and already has to a large extent in the American church.

After the fall into sin, God gave mankind a promise of victory over that which drove us away from His presence in the Garden: Genesis 3:15 -

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The "seed" of the woman is a direct reference to the promised Messiah, who would save the world from their sins. The promise of Christ was given as a direct result of the sin that the man and his wife committed in departing from God. As division was caused between God and man by sin, God drove the man with his wife from the Garden. Even so, He established within their marriage relationship from that time the Biblical leadership structure of the husband as head of the family, as an earthly representation of God's leadership over those who believe. In order to show forth God's covenant that man would be given victory over sin, the Father established a recognizable pattern within the marriage covenant, as a testament to all mankind, that all mankind might have the hope of salvation exemplified through the marriage covenant.

Next time we'll talk about how the marriage covenant was viewed in the "post-perfect" world after the Fall, by reviewing episodes from the lives of the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac. I will also discuss the fundamental differences between a contract and a covenant.