Marriage 106

A Final Thought — Covenants and Contracts

FINALLY! Nearly 2 years of slo-mo-shun, but we have reached the end of this series. At least, as far as I will take it. A few definitions are in order to start this section.

Covenants and contracts should not be confused or conflated.

Covenant - a unilateral statement of a commitment, with the force of an oath. The maker of a covenant states the nature of the relationship and the terms under which he is bound. The covenant may express conditions that determine actions, but agreement to the covenant by any other party is not a requirement for the covenant to be valid. Once entered into by the covenanter, the covenant cannot be broken without the oath being broken.

Contract - a mutual agreement under which two parties must perform specified acts for the contract to be valid. If one party defaults, the contract is null and void. Contracts require the capacity of both parties to perform (a person who is incapable of understanding the terms has no capacity), an exchange of something of value (there must be a transaction), and an agreement by both parties that the validity of the contract demands mutual performance.

Both a covenant and a contract can have language to the effect that when Party A performs Action A and Party B performs Action B, a specified outcome can be expected. The difference between the two lies in the fact that a contract can be broken and becomes null and void upon the failure of one of the parties to perform. A covenant remains in place even if the recipient of the covenant fails to perform, because the maker of the covenant is bound by God to perform what was promised. A contract is established according to a legal formula among equals, but a covenant is established through the exercise of grace toward a recipient who has no power to reciprocate.

A typical contract exists in the form of a purchase agreement, where Party A will pay Party B for an item or service. If Party A defaults on the payment, Party B is entitled to recover the item, not perform the service, and/or collect damages. If Party B fails to deliver the item or perform the service, Party A is entitled to not make the payment, or recover the payment, and/or collect damages.

A typical covenant is illustrated by God's promise to never destroy all life on earth with a flood. While He instituted laws/instructions to be adhered to by all descendants of Noah, the establishment and adherence to the covenant was not conditioned by their obedience. A covenant establishes a debt of honor.

Similarly, His covenant with Abraham was not dependent on Abraham doing anything. Abraham was the friend of God; he would do anything God requested, even to the point of offering his son as a sacrifice. In grace, God covenanted that He would make Abraham the father of many nations. Then he told Abraham to hit the road, and Abraham obeyed. God covenanted that Abraham's descendants would inherit the land in which Abraham was a stranger; He told Abraham to circumcise all the males in his camp, and Abraham obeyed. If an individual male did not have his foreskin cut off, that individual would be cut off from the promise, but God would still keep His promise to Abraham.

Again, at Sinai, God repeated the promise and told the nation of Israel that He would be their God and they would be His people. He did not say that He would be their God IF they would be His people. They were to follow the instructions He gave them; if they did they would appear as His peculiar holy people to all the nations of the earth, and if they did not, he would punish them, but He would never break His covenant with them. They had no choice in the matter, but acquiesced in awe of the God who promised to bless them as they obeyed.

The concept of covenant is central to Judeo-Christian theology. The New Covenant through Jesus is an extension of the Old Covenant to Abraham with regard to the promise that all nations would be blessed through the the faith of Abraham. Whom He wills to be saved He calls, and in whom He calls He creates within the person a new heart through the working of His Holy Spirit. Just as He covenanted with the congregation of Israel to be His spiritual bride, so He covenants with the congregation of the Church to also be His bride; in so doing, He makes of the two one new body. For that reason, the Apostle Paul compared marriage to the phenomenon of the Church, and we can use this comparison to clarify what marriage actually is.

The Greco-Roman concept of marriage considered the two partners to be equals in many respects. As a result, the Gentile Church looked upon marriage as a contractual relationship. The man and the woman each brought something to the agreement, and the relationship was conditional. As long as the terms of the contract were maintained, the contract was valid. If one of the parties broke the agreement, the other had the right to terminate the contract. This understanding is written into both ecclesiastical and civil law. It is interesting to observe how Judaism adopted the Greco-Roman way of thinking; contrasting of modern Judaic practice with Biblical Israeli practice shows that the Gentile influence grew through the Diaspora, especially post-Maimonides.

As a result, in most religious groups, the marriage must be formalized in some way in order to be considered valid. Likewise, in most civil jurisdictions around the western world, the state holds the power to determine who can and who cannot marry, and it delineates the responsibilities of the parties under contract law. Divorce is possible because contracts can be terminated if one or both parties default.

In contrast to this is the teaching of Scripture. At the beginning of human history we are shown the first marriage. It was not contractual, did not follow a legal formula, and occurred because God brought the woman to the man. The man declared that she was now “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh” - a statement of covenant, and God declared that they had been adhered together and became “one flesh”.

Further, Jesus taught that if God had joined the two together, then it was not possible for human agency to take the “one flesh” apart. The first marriage did not contain a contract in any regard, and consequently any contractual arrangements added to a marriage are simply extra agreements which do not impact the permanence of the covenant.

Because human governments have intruded into personal relationships by defining marriage in an unBiblical manner, the Church has a special responsibility to teach what marriage is, and to maintain guardianship over these relationships. The problem of divorce is epidemic even in Christian churches, and a clear understanding of the difference between covenant and contract needs to be put forward. Hindering that are the theological teachings that treat salvation more as a contract than as a covenant; a view of marriage as a contractual relationship goes hand-in-glove with forms of works-based salvation.

Regardless the definition of marriage by any government, a Biblically oriented marriage is first of all a covenant which a man makes toward a woman, as Adam declared that Eve was now “his” — “my bone, my flesh”. Since her father has primary responsibility for her until she passes under the authority of her husband, the man has no right to simply make off with a woman of his desiring (although that sometimes occurs) without expecting unpleasant consequences. God’s instruction through the Mosaic Code in this kind of situation was intended to prevent bloodshed. Nevertheless, a marriage incepted by rape is still a valid marriage under the Biblical definition, and the man who makes such a covenant will have difficulties.

Current worldly beliefs aside, the woman becomes the responsibility of the man, and he is answerable to God for her care and her actions. Further, the Bible very plainly declares that as a covenant relationship, it is binding for as long as both partners are alive. It is at this point that society — governments, the Church, the traditions of a culture — brings the marriage contract into the picture. Contractual obligations, such as the duty of care and protection, marital intimacy, and forsaking of all others, form a layer on top of but separate from the marriage covenant. Some of the contractual terms of the marriage may during the term of the contract be modified by mutual agreement, as with any contract, but the covenant cannot be broken without sinning.

It is at this point that the teaching of Jesus regarding divorce has been set aside by many groups. Because no man can take apart what God has joined together, divorce is a possibility but only occurs because of sin, and while it may terminate the marriage contract, it never ends the marriage covenant. For this reason He taught that if a man divorced his wife — broke the contract — for any reason other than that she had been another man’s wife (as a result of sexual intercourse) prior to his marriage, he would be committing adultery against her. (Again, breaking the contract is not equivalent to nullifying the covenant.) Further, if any man married (had sexual intercourse with) a divorced woman, he would be committing adultery against her husband if he were still alive. (Interestingly, the Apostle Paul states that those who commit fornication — sexual intercourse without lifelong commitment — defraud the person for whom the other person has been intended by God and incur the wrath of God.)

When questioned as to why Moses had permitted divorce, Jesus’ answer was that it was because people were going to sin in that way even if divorce were not allowed — because of the hardness of their hearts toward each other and God.

The Church of Jesus Christ is supposed to be a light to the world, an example of godly living in order that sin might be exposed as the unrighteousness that it is. Jesus asked, though, if the salt lost it’s saltiness, what good would it be? If the light is placed under a basket, so that it cannot illuminate our own lives, how can it penetrate the darkness of the world around us?

An undisciplined congregation is a hindrance to the Gospel. The warning to the Church at Laodicea was not an empty threat; “Because you are neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Jesus said that there would be those who would claim to have a contract with Him, who would practice “Christianity” but ignore His command in His covenant to “love one another, as I have loved you.” To those who ignored the terms of His covenant, He would say, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.”

God forbid that we should be found in such a condition when we stand before Him.