Just finished Roland Bainton’s classic work The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Bainton’s is an evenhanded treatment of the complexities of the Reformation scene, allowing for the messiness of sin and politics while reading the principle players sympathetically. There were a number of fun little gems, but just one this morning. In his chapter on the domestic repercussions of the Reformation, Bainton points out a couple of interesting things regarding the impact of the Reformation on marriage.
Looming large behind much of the discussion of marriage, annulment, divorce, and remarriage was the question of Henry VIII and his wife/heir problem. Henry VIII was sort of the Miley Cyrus of the day with everyone giving their opinions about the English despot’s marital twerking, including centrally what should be done about his apparent need to take a new wife every few years. You can find opinions on this matter in many of the writings of leaders from Roman, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anabaptist traditions, not to mention the political leaders of any number of nations. Everyone had an opinion, many had ideas for how Henry ought to maneuver through the ecclesial, political minefield. But that’s just background.
First, Bainton notes in passing, that it seems a little bit ironic (to quote Alanis) that the Roman Church designates marriage as a sacrament while simultaneously insisting that singleness is a more holy calling. Celibacy is not a sacrament in the Roman Church, but it is considered a higher calling than marriage. Figure that one out. It seems likely that the sacramental nature of the union originated from the suspicion that sex even inside marriage must include some measure of sinful desire, and the sacrament of marriage is the grace to cover that “necessary evil.” Perhaps. Nevertheless, the sacramental nature of marriage was the primary sticking point when it came to allowance of divorce. How could a sacrament be undone? This led to the practice of annulment, which apparently functioned as a sort of de-sacramentalizing of the union.
Second, while the Lutherans did away with the notion of matrimony as a sacrament, they tended to continue with the Roman practice of forbidding divorce (and consequent remarriage) but allowing for an annulment in some cases, though annulment would be seen as more of a civil function than an ecclesial one (as in the Roman church).
However, and third, in the Calvinist and Anabaptist traditions, not only was matrimony rejected as a sacrament, the covenantal nature of marriage provided an understanding that emphasized what Bainton calls a “partnership.” Both parties, man and woman, were viewed first and foremost as individuals independently responsible before God and only as they were individually committed to God and His gospel, were they seen as equally yoked for the calling of marriage. This apparently led to two tendencies, specifically in Geneva and the Calvinist countries.
On the one hand, divorce and remarriage was apparently permitted with somewhat more laxity, particularly when it came to spiritual disunity. In those days, as we might imagine, it was somewhat common to find households divided by the Reformation, one spouse persuaded by the claims of the Protestants while the other loyal to Rome. Calvin’s Geneva apparently, after sufficient efforts to draw the erring spouse to the truth, would allow for a Protestant to divorce his/her spouse and freely remarry.
But this emphasis on each party of the marriage covenant owning their own faith independently as a prerequisite for making/keeping covenant became the foundation for a lively and lovely partnership in marriage, “not merely for the propagation of children but in training them in the fear of the Lord and in laboring together in other respects for the glory of God and the advancement of his kingdom.” Bainton says, “Marriage in the Calvinist-Anabaptist tradition has been refined not through a cult of love but by focusing interest upon a common religious vocation.”
I don’t pretend to have enough information or specifics to know how all the particulars should be evaluated biblically, but one thing to point out is that the Reformation happened against the backdrop of a society full of sinful men and women where fornication and adultery were rampant. If we know that many in ecclesial and civil leadership were known for scandalous affairs (and we do), how much more so would the common man have felt leave to follow his/her own passions. Bainton points out that a fierce Romanticism was on the rise during these decades, as a sort of pagan interpretation of the medieval chivalric code, which Bainton refers to as the “cult of adultery.” Free love and free sex was the gospel of these Romantics as much as it is in our world with the likes of Lady Gaga and Bill Clinton.
In that milieu, the Reformers sought a better way. While the Church continued to be involved in the blessing of marriage and guarding the sanctity of the marriage bed, rejecting the sacramental quality of the union insisted that the blessing of marriage depended on each spouse personally owning the roles and responsibilities assigned to them by God through Christ and by His Spirit. Thus, while marriage was rightly seen as symbolic of God’s everlasting covenant, a picture of Christ’s perfect, unbreakable love for His Bride (the Church), it was not a sacrament and therefore not unbreakable. But far from ceding any ground to the licentious blasphemers playing musical beds, the Reformers insisted that the kind of love that marriage was for was grounded on Jesus and His mission to make disciples of all the nations. This vision for marriage saw the possibility of a true union, a holy covenantal partnership aimed at raising children and building God’s Kingdom in the world together.
Jack Shannon says
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/entry/Are-Biblical-Covenants-Dissoluble_1
Jack Shannon says
“In addition to the fourteen examples cited by Hugenberger, we surveyed every example of berith in the Old Testament (267 examples), as well as of diatheke and suntheke in the New Testament (34 examples), and were unable to discover a single example of a dissolved covenant in which God participated. Like the language used to describe the nature of biblical covenants, the manner in which covenants are established, and the way in which God deals with covenant violations, the absence of any dissolved covenants in which God participates provides evidence that points to the indissoluble nature of biblical covenants.
In this article, we have sought to call attention to various scriptural clues that we believe point to the indissoluble nature of covenants in which God is a participant. We have noted that the language used to describe the nature of biblical covenants, the manner in which biblical covenants are established, and the way in which God deals with violations of biblical covenants all point to the enduring nature of these covenants. We are convinced that this evidence, coupled with the absence from Scripture of any dissolved covenant in which God is a participant, provides evidence that points to the permanence of biblical covenants.
If the materials marshaled in this introductory study are accurate, we believe that their potential for influencing our understanding of the institution of marriage is great. While there is certainly more work to be done, such as proving the covenantal nature of marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24; Prov. 2:16-17; Mal. 2:10-16), proving that God is a part of nuptials (Gen. 2:23-24; Matt. 19:6), and exegetically handling the so-called exception clauses in Matthews Gospel (cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9), it is our hope that this study will contribute to the churchs understanding of marriage and divorce, as well as the nature of biblical covenants.”
David Bennett says
Jones’ and Tarwater’s work [Jack Shannon’s reference above] which was published in 2005 in Reformed Perspectives Magazine is an excellent summary of covenant permanence, with which I heartily concur. There is a vast and critically important difference between covenant transgression and covenant termination which is so often overlooked amongst those who (rightly) believe marriage to be a covenant, not a contract. [The mistaken understanding of marriage being a contract has given rise to the epidemic of aborted marriages which are occurring at the rate of nearly 1 million annually in the US, and our country deserves God’s judgment for this reason, as well as for a million aborted pregnancies annually.]
Two very clear examples of covenant permanence need to be remembered as we consider how God views covenants. Ezekiel 17:11-21 is one of these, and 2 Samuel 21:1-9 is the other. The lesson to be learned from Ezekiel (which Matthew Henry comments on very well) is that covenants are permanent: Not to belabor the point, but to carefully emphasize it, you need to appreciate how God said As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. [v.19] Even though the oath was made by a heathen, though there is no indication that God was invoked during the process, and the one with whom the covenant was made was under duress by the other party, God said it was His oath and His covenant! This point is critical to any understanding of how God views a covenant. Any oath, any covenant … is His, and He is involved!
In 2 Samuel 21:1-9, we find another remarkable instance which exemplifies the perpetuity of a covenant. This covenant had been made to protect the Gibeonites, and was made by the Israelites in 1440 BC, 400 years earlier as it was recorded in the ninth chapter of Joshua, in 1050 BC. Even though Israel had not sought the Lord in making the covenant, and even though the covenant was 400 years old, God held them to their sworn covenant, and punished them by famine, then by the death of 7 of Sauls sons as an atonement for the Gibeonite slayings. That is how seriously God holds His people to a covenant. That is how seriously God takes a covenant. How seriously do you take a covenant?
Just one more thought about marriage as a covenant. The marriage covenant stands out among covenants for one other reason, as well. Ratification of a covenant has been accomplished by various means throughout the Scriptures. Essentially all of the means can be reduced to one of nine: 1) Giving the hand, 2) Loosing the sandal, 3) Being written and sealed, 4) Giving of presents, 5) Making a feast, 6) Making a monument of remembrance, 7) Salting, 8) Making a sacrifice (with blood), and 9) Swearing an oath. Of these nine means in which a covenant could be sealed, seven of them routinely occur in a traditional marriage ceremony today. Although even one would suffice, seven are typical. First, the husband accepts his brides hand in marriage, and her hand is physically given and joined to his. Secondly, the covenant is committed into written form, and sealed. Thirdly, gifts are exchanged. Fourthly, almost every wedding is accompanied by a feast. Fifthly, a monument of remembrance is made, as well, by the photographs which are universal at weddings, and endure as a remembrance to the covenanters and to others of the remarkable goodness of our God. Sixthly, the shedding of blood on the bridal sheet was a Deuteronomic requirement (Deuteronomy 22.) Seventhly, vows (oaths) are exchanged, and that in the presence of God and witnesses to affirm the covenant of marriage. Surely, the covenant of marriage is sealed, affirmed, and ratified by more and divers visible means than is any other covenant found in the Scriptures.
By the way, for anyone who minimizes the covenantal nature of marriage, Hugenberger’s book “Marriage as a Covenant” should put that thought to flight.
Blessings,
David
Jeremy Larson says
A book is not finished until it is posted as such on GoodReads.