The Covenant of Marriage

The Covenant of Marriage

Genesis 2:18-25 and Malachi 2:10-16

It is arguable that never before in the history of mankind have more

persons been less clear on the concept of marriage. There is heartening
news that the divorce rate in America has begun to level off. Nevertheless, a
study from Rutgers University entitled “The State of Our Unions: The Social
Health of Marriage in America,” concludes that the institution of marriage is
continuing to weaken, with a smaller portion of the population getting married
than at any other time in our nation’s history. In fact, since 1970 the rate of
marriage has declined by one third. Perhaps even more worrisome is the
discovery that fewer married couples than in any previous study report
being “very happy” in their marriage. What makes this level of
unhappiness surprising is that since 1969, when no-fault divorce was
instituted, the rate of divorce has tripled. The population of married
persons has been reduced by a vast number of unhappy marriages, and
yet those who are still married are less happy than ever.

What is Marriage?
These downward trends are not simply a reflection of the age-old problem of the
disparity between theory and practice. Of course, that problem still exists, but in
our day it has been greatly compounded by the fact that we have lost our grip on
the theory itself. Even within the Christian community often we are as confused
as everyone else about what a marriage should look like. We are “persons unclear
on the concept.” We need to go back to the drawing board and ask the most
basic question: “What is marriage?”

How is it possible that we have come so far from the biblical view regarding
marriage? What has become of the excitement for marriage in passages
such as Proverbs 18:22, ”He who finds a wife finds what is good and
receives favor from the LORD,” or Ecclesiastes 9:9, “Enjoy life with your
wife, whom you love, all the days of this fleeting life, for she is your
greatest consolation in life for all your earthly toil”? These attitudes reflect
a radically different theory of marriage. What is marriage? Is it just a manmade
concoction with which people may tinker? Or is it, in fact, a divinely mandated
ordinance?

Malachi 2:14 explicitly affirms: marriage is a covenant. Here Malachi

responds to those who are complaining that their prayers seem to bounce off the
ceiling. Through the prophet, God tells his people, “You ask, ‘Why?’ It is because
the LORD is acting as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, because
you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your
marriage covenant.” The quickest way to destroy communion between heaven
and earth is to destroy communion between a man and his wife. Likewise,
Proverbs 2:16-17 and Ezekiel 16 identify marriage as a covenant in

1
explicit terms, while 1 Samuel 18-20 and other texts do so by
implication.

What is a Covenant?
Common usage of “covenant” is greatly influenced by modern legal parlance. In
property deeds, covenants are those clauses that limit the use of land. In biblical
use, however, a scholarly definition of “covenant” is “an elective (something
chosen, rather than natural), typically family-like relationship of obligation
established under divine sanction.”

It is helpful to compare this definition of “covenant” to that of a “contract.” A

“contract” involves a relationship of obligation between individuals and,
sometimes, involves privileges as well. The relationship is conceived, however, in
linear or horizontal terms between two parties. In contrast, a covenant is not a
linear relationship; it is a triangular one. It adds a third party to the
arrangement, and the third party is God. He is the witness to the
covenant commitment at its inauguration. He is also the witness to the
performance of the stipulations of the covenant, assessing the fidelity
of the partners to their vowed obligations. A covenant is a triangular
relationship with God as the witness, as Malachi 2 says, and the one
who enforces the terms of the relationship.

In the Bible and the ancient Near East, covenants were used for
relationships or obligations that would not be judicable in a human
court. For example, if you wanted to promise not to covet, you would be
unable to do so in a contract. No human court could ever decide
whether you were guilty or innocent of breech of contract; only God
could decide. So covenants would be used for relationships where the
obligations involved not only outward acts, but also matters of the
heart.

The Bible describes God’s relationship with his people as a covenant. In

this case, God acts at two apexes of the triangle: he is both the witness and the
partner in his covenant with his people. In a marriage covenant, he is only the
witness, the one who holds husband and wife accountable to their covenant vows.
Should one partner prove unfaithful, God sees to it that any harm brought to the
other will recoil on the offender.

The Roles of Wife and Husband

In our day a number of scholars have accepted this understanding of covenant,
but debate whether the marriage between Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 could be
so dignified. They say that this marriage cannot be covenantal because, among
other problems which prohibit that identification, there are too many features
denigrating to women.

For instance, one objection is that the passage indicates the wife has been
created to “help” the husband. In verse 18: “The LORD God said, ‘It is not
good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” This is

2
misunderstood, however, as if it were a license for an abusive tyranny
of the husband over the wife. Eve is not created to be Adam’s lackey or
slave; she is created to be his wife, his partner. The help that is envisioned
is defined by the context. Eve is not created to help Adam rob a bank or to fetch
his slippers—for that, a dog would have been fine. Rather she is created to
help her husband obey God’s commands. Period.

In particular, think of the creation ordinance in chapter 1:28: “Be fruitful and
increase in number. Fill the earth and subdue it.” Obviously, Adam cannot do that
alone. He needs a bride not only for the sake of rearing offspring, but also for the
sake of subduing the earth and functioning as a vessel of the LORD, who is
sovereign over all. Another command with which Eve is called to help is found in
Genesis 2:15, where Adam is told to “work” the Garden of Eden and “take care
of” it. The Hebrew word rendered by the NIV as “take care of” is better translated
with its customary meaning, “guard.” The next appearance of this word bears the
same meaning: “After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the
Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard
the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24). The text suggests an analogy between
Adam’s calling to “guard” the garden from any threat, including the defiling
presence of Satan, and that of the cherubim angels, who were subsequently
called to “guard” the garden from the defiling presence of the fallen couple.
Given Eve’s calling to help Adam obey God’s commands, including the command
to guard the sanctity of the garden, her mistake in Genesis 3:2 is not in
interacting with Satan, but in failing to condemn him and consign him to God’s
judgment.

In any case, if the postmodern is offended by the wife’s role in Genesis 2, there is
equal reason to be offended by the husband’s role. Why should the husband need
the wife’s help in order to obey God’s command? According to the postmodern
myth of self-sufficiency, you are not ready for marriage until you are so
independent that you do not need anybody. In his 1999 bestseller, For Common
Things, Jedediah Purdy observes that to the self-absorbed postmodern,
“believing in nothing much, especially not in people, is a point of vague
pride, and conviction can seem embarrassingly naïve…. We imagine
perfect self-sufficiency, the need for no one else in making our lives
complete” (p. 6). While Purdy is not writing from an explicitly Christian
perspective, his analysis of the spirit of postmodernism is trenchant.
The postmodern is convinced that marriage can, and should, wait at
least until after personal goals are met and career and financial
independence are well established. At that point, life is sufficiently self-
fulfilled that there is little need for anyone else.

This ideal of independence, however, is far from the scriptural norm.

Before there was sin, Adam enjoyed perfect fellowship with his heavenly
Father, the Creator of the universe. Although nothing was deficient in
his spiritual relationship with God, it was not enough. That was not his
opinion; that was God’s opinion. Long before the Fall, Adam had perfect
self-esteem and self-worth; he was neither struggling with inferiority

3
nor needing to get his act together and find himself. Even then, God
said of Adam, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a
helper suitable for him.” In biblical terms from Genesis to Revelation,
the ideal for humankind is not independence; it is interdependence.
What is true for all of our relationships is certainly true for marriage.

“Naming”— Asserting Dominance?

A second objection to the identification of the marriage of Adam and Eve as a
covenant is that Adam has the temerity to name Eve. In Genesis 2:23 Adam says,
“she shall be called woman [‘ishshah], for she was taken out of man [‘ish].” The
Hebrew word ‘ishshah, which appears here, may be translated either “woman” or
“wife.” Likewise, the Hebrew word ‘ish, may be translated either “man” or
“husband.” English versions favor the translation, “woman out of man,” because
it yields a rhyme, which mirrors the rhyme in the Hebrew. This text is about the
relationship of marriage, however, not the relationship between men and women
in general. Accordingly, a more accurate translation would be “she shall be called
wife, for she was taken out of husband.”

In Genesis 3:20, after the Fall, Adam gives his wife another name, “Eve, because
she would become the mother of all the living.” The Hebrew word “Eve
[chawwah]” is related to the word for “life.” Some scholars suppose that it is
denigrating to women for Adam to determine his wife’s identity, as seems to be
implied by the act of naming. Should she not define herself? Is this not an
infringement on her autonomy? To accept the validity of these objections,
however, is to misconstrue the significance of naming. In Genesis 1, God gives
names to many aspects of creation, for example, the light, which he calls “day.”
In Genesis 2, in imitation of God, Adam gives names to the animals. Although in
some cases the act of naming may imply an exercise of authority, the
characteristic use of naming in the Bible is the acknowledgment of a covenant,
which (re)defines the relationship of each of the parties to the other. This use is
the best explanation for its significance in both Genesis 1 and 2.

Often in the Bible, when individuals enter into a covenant relationship, they give
their partners new names. This occurs in political contexts, for example, where
relationships were typically formalized by covenants. In 2 Kings 23:34, when
Pharaoh Neco establishes Jehoiakim as his vassal, he renames him
Eliakim. The changed name indicates that they are now in a covenant
relationship. Similarly, in 2 Kings 24:17, when Nebuchadnezzar establishes
Mattaniah as his vassal, he renames him Zedekiah.

The same practice is observed in religious contexts. When God renews his
covenant with Abram in Genesis 17, he gives him a new name. “No longer will
you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of
many nations” (Genesis 17:5). In the same chapter, “God also said to Abraham,
‘As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be
Sarah’” (Genesis 17:15). Later in Genesis, when God renews the covenant with
Jacob, he says, “Your name is Jacob, but you will no longer be called Jacob; your
name will be Israel” (Genesis 35:10; cf. 32:28).

4
It is important to stress that it is not always the superior party who
gives a new name to the inferior party. After the Angel of the LORD
comforted the runaway Hagar and extended to her the material
promises of the Abrahamic covenant (“I will so increase your
descendants that they will be too numerous to count”), Hagar
responded by giving the LORD a new name: El-Ro’i, “the God who sees
me” (Genesis 16:13). A new name often signals the recognition of a new
relationship, created by a covenant, but it need not signify either
inferiority or superiority. When Adam names Eve, he is not vaunting
himself over her. He does not call her “nag” or “the old lady” or some
other demeaning epithet. Rather, he calls her “wife” at their marriage
and later “Eve,” that is, “the one who will bring life,” when their marriage
is renewed after the Fall.

Co-equal—In the Image of God

A third objection to the identification of the marriage of Adam and Eve as a
covenant is the description of Eve’s creation. To some readers the fact that Eve is
made out of the rib of Adam is an affront to modern sensibilities. It implies that
her worth is merely derivative and that she is inferior to Adam, since he is the
source of the material God used to create her. This line of interpretation,
however, almost certainly misunderstands the intention of the text. If Eve is
inferior to Adam because she was made out of his rib, then Adam must be inferior
to the dirt because he was made out of the soil. Obviously, the biblical text
intends no such thing.

Whatever the intention of the remarkable mode of Eve’s creation, it is unlikely to

contradict the co-equality of the man and the woman that is emphasized so
clearly elsewhere in Genesis 1-3. For example, the purpose for Eve’s creation is
made explicit in Genesis 2:18, “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to
be alone. I will make a helper suitable for [or corresponding to] him.’” The mode
of Eve’s creation underscores the point that here is one who, unlike any of the
animals, is supremely qualified to be the kind of partner that Adam needs.
Animals can be of help in other respects, but she alone is a “helper suitable for
him” or “corresponding to him.” Being made of the same substance, Adam’s own
rib, only Eve is his equal in nature and worth. Indeed, the same point is made
earlier in Genesis 1:27, where it says, “God created man in his own image, in the
image of God he created him; male and female He created them.” Man and
woman are equally and exclusively those who bear the image of God.

Not only does Eve’s origin underscore the coequality of man and woman, it also
stresses the profound unity of marriage and provides the basis for the controlling
paradigm of a relationship where the two “become one flesh.” Genesis 2:23 offers
an obvious allusion to Eve’s mode of creation: “The man said, ‘This is now bone of
my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman [wife], for she was
taken out of man [husband].’” To whom does Adam address this affirmation? If it
had been to the woman, he would have said, “You are now bone of my bones…”
rather than “This is now bone of my bones….” Clearly these words are addressed
to God, the only other person in the context. If they are read superficially,

5
however, they come across as an inane observation. God hardly needs to be
informed about the origin of the woman since he is the one who made her!

Wedding Vows—A Covenant-making Formula

As it turns out, Adam’s words are a covenant-making formula, which has close
parallels elsewhere in the Bible and the ancient Near East. For example, this is
virtually the same thing that all Israel said to David when they recognized him as
king at Hebron: “Behold, we are your bone and flesh” (ESV 2 Samuel 2:1). Since
these Israelites were not from the tribe of Judah, David was not, in fact, a close
relative. By this solemn declaration, however, they were pledging their loyalty to
David and redefining their relationship. Henceforth, they would be as inseparably
attached to him as his own arms and legs. According to 2 Samuel 5:3, David
subsequently ratified and formalized this commitment in a covenant; earlier their
words were spoken only to David, now their promises were made before God.
Were there any wedding vows in the marriage of Adam and Eve? In Genesis
2:23, the words spoken by Adam in the presence of God are his vows.
“This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” is a shorthand
way of saying something like, “God, I hereby commit myself to love and
care for this woman as I would love and care for a part of my own body,
my own flesh. God, hold me accountable to this solemn promise. Should
I ever prove unfaithful to her, may it hurt like taking a rib out of my
body, only this time without the benefit of your miraculous anesthesia!”
Although Eve was the only wife ever created out of her husband’s rib, in Genesis
2:24 Moses makes clear that Adam’s remarkable commitment to love his wife is
one that applies to every marriage. “For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will become one
flesh.” We need to appreciate how astonishingly unique and radically counter-
cultural this verse is. If we did not believe in divine inspiration, this verse would
be inexplicable in its historical context. Nowhere else in the ancient world is there
a comparable statement regarding the primary obligation of the husband to love
his wife. If words like these were found in any other ancient source, they would
apply to the wife, not to the husband: “For this reason a wife will leave her father
and mother and cleave to her husband….”
The first requirement in Genesis 2:24, that the husband “leave his father and
mother,” should not be limited to a literalistic reference to a change in domicile.
Neither should the second obligation, to “cleave to his wife,” be understood
literalistically as mere physical attachment. The fact that both terms, “leave” and
“cleave,” are used elsewhere in covenantal contexts provides significant support
for the identification of biblical marriage as a covenant. The word “leave” is often
used with respect to Israel’s loyalty to God. For example, the LORD warned Moses
that after his death the people “will leave me and break the covenant I made with
them” (Deuteronomy 31:16). Of course, this infidelity was nothing new. Despite
God’s deliverance of his people in the Exodus, they “did not leave the idols of
Egypt” (Ezekiel 20:8), as they should have.

The Biblical View of Marriage

With respect to marriage then, what is required of a husband is an emotional
leaving of his parents, not just a physical leaving. In the context of the modern

6
world, with its weakened family ties, this may not seem like such a big deal. Many
young men gladly leave their parents, literally and emotionally, and for far less
cause than marriage. In the ancient world, however, the greatest natural
loyalty was not to a job, career goals, or even nation, but to parents. In
Genesis 2:24, God says that when a man enters marriage, his former
greatest loyalty, which was to his parents, is now to be demoted in
order that his wife may take first place.

This demand could not be more radical. What does it mean for us? If your mother
thinks the living room should be painted green and your wife prefers it red, red is
what it will be. Your wife takes precedence. You are married to your wife, not
your mother. The same principle applies, of course, to any other
competing ties or obligations. According to the biblical standard, a
husband cannot be “married” to the demands of friends, hobbies,
school, or job. If parents should be demoted, so too should the boss, in order for
your wife to take precedence. This is true even if your job is that of a missionary
or pastor or anything else that you think has some tremendous claim on your
time. Consistent with this principle, in Deuteronomy 24:5, for example, Israel
is told that for the first year of marriage a husband is exempt even from
military service, in order to put the interests of his wife first. If an army
of terrorists invades your nation and you are in your first year of
marriage, you should say, “I’m sorry I cannot join the battle just now. I
have to stay home in order to dote on my wife.” This is the biblical view
of marriage from Genesis on.

In terms of the radical demands of Genesis 2:24, a husband is not just to “leave”
all competing loyalties, he is also to “cleave” to his wife. It is hard to imagine
stronger language to make this point. For example, in Job 38:38, “cleave”
describes the way the rain causes clay-rich soil to form hard clods, which “cleave
together.” In Isaiah 41:7, “cleave” is also used for the bonds formed by a
goldsmith’s soldering or welding. If you are married, you are “welded” to your
wife or husband; you are inseparable.

Most significant, however, is the fact that “cleave” is often used in covenant
contexts to summarize Israel’s obligation to be loyal to the LORD, as in
Deuteronomy 4:4. There Moses reminds Israel that although the LORD judged
those who followed Baal of Peor, “all of you who cleaved [NIV: held fast] to the
LORD your God are still alive today.” Likewise, Deuteronomy 13:4 insists, “It is
the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his
commands and obey him; serve him and cleave [NIV: hold fast] to him.”

In Genesis 2:24, these requirements are only explicitly applied to the husband. No
job description, beyond that of being a “helper suitable to him” (Genesis 2:18), is
stated for the wife. A wife’s fidelity is required, of course, in many other biblical
texts, but the special contribution of Genesis 2 is to stress the priority of the
husband’s commitment. In our relationship with the Lord, “[w]e love because he
first loved us” (1 John 4:19). God woos us by his love, and his redemptive
initiative causes us to respond in love. Likewise, in Christian marriage, ideally it is

7
the husband who first loves his wife; he leaves all other competing loyalties,
putting her foremost, and he cleaves to her, loving her dearly. It is that love
which is then reflected and reciprocated in the wife’s love. According to the
biblical model of marriage, the leadership of the husband is a leadership of love.

After “leaving” and “cleaving,” the concluding characteristic of marriage in

Genesis 2:24 is “and they will become one flesh.” To become one flesh does not
mean to become one person. You remain different people with different needs,
tastes, and preferences. You are not one person, but one flesh. What does that
mean? It means you are to treat your wife as you would a part of your own body.
This is a compelling paradigm and a tremendous help for a culture that has
forgotten the meaning of marriage.

How do I know whether I am loving my wife as my own flesh? I am sure

that many examples come to mind for each of us, but let me mention just a few
that have been helpful to me.

1. My arm never resents lifting food to my mouth. It never keeps

score. It never says, “I already did this three times yesterday.” If
we find it hard to be kind and tender to each other without
keeping score and without resentment, we have not understood
what it means to be one flesh. We are “persons unclear on the
concept.” “In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as
their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no
one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it...”
(Ephesians 5:28-29).
2. My mouth does not laugh when my side receives a body blow. If we
find it hard to be tender and compassionate with our spouse when
he or she hurts from one of life’s blows, we have not understood
what it means to be one flesh. We are “persons unclear on the
concept.” “When one part suffers, every part suffers with it...” (1
Corinthians 12:26).
3. When I got up this morning, my hand was happy to do what it
could to improve the appearance of the rest of me. My hand is not
in competition with my mouth; it takes no delight in having me
face the world with some food still between my teeth. If we take
perverse pleasure in putting down our spouses, perhaps trying to
make ourselves look better by comparison, if we shame them in
public, rather than seeking to honor them, or if we secretly resent
their achievements; we have not understood what it means to be
one flesh. We are “persons unclear on the concept.” “When one
part is honored, every part rejoices with it” (1 Corinthians 12:26).
4. Occasionally I bite my tongue. As painful as that experience is, it
has never occurred to my fist to retaliate by knocking my teeth
out. If in our marriage we find it hard to forgive and easy to get
even, if we continue to dredge up the past and are out for
retaliation, we have not understood what it means to be one flesh.
We are “persons unclear on the concept.” “Love keeps no record

8
 of wrongs” (1 Corinthians 13:5). Because marriage is a covenant,
God guarantees that every attempt to hurt your wife or your
husband will hurt yourself. The Word of God exhorts husbands:
“He who loves his wife loves himself” (Ephesians 5:28). In other
words, do yourself a favor, love your wife!

For those of us who are married, for those of us who are considering marriage, we
need to pray that God will fill us with this kind of love.

Someone commenting on Ephesians 5:25, once asked, “Do you wish that
your wife would submit to you as the Church does to Christ? Then care
for her, as Christ does for the Church; and if it is necessary that you
should give your life for her, or be cut into pieces a thousand times, or
endure anything whatsoever, then refuse it not; yes, for if you were to
suffer in these dreadful ways for your wife, you still would not have
done what Christ did for you. For you did this for one with whom you
were already united; but he did it for her who, until then, had only
rejected him and hated him.”

Editor’s Note: These are excerpts of the series on biblical

marriage delivered at Park Street Church, Boston, by Dr.
Gordon P. Hugenberger, Senior Minister, and Ranked
Adjunct Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell.