Marriage, as Scripture presents it, is never a mere human arrangement. Paul calls it a “mystery,” something rooted in creation and meant to echo the union between Christ and His church (Eph 5:31–32). When I look at the biblical witness, I see that this mystery is not confined to covenant vows or legal recognition; it reaches all the way into the physical union of husband and wife. The act of becoming “one flesh” (Gen 2:24) is not simply a poetic flourish—it is a real joining, something God Himself forges.
Jesus makes this clear when He answers the Pharisees’ question about divorce. He doesn’t appeal to sentiment or social custom. He goes straight back to Genesis and says, “What God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matt 19:6). He is not talking about a marriage “made in heaven” in the casual way we sometimes speak of it. He is talking about the mysterious union that God Himself creates when a man and woman become one flesh. Humans may enter the covenant, but God performs the joining.
Paul picks up the same thread when he warns the Corinthians about sexual immorality. His argument is startlingly direct: sexual union creates a real bond. “Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?” he asks, quoting Genesis again: “The two shall become one flesh” (1 Cor 6:16). Paul’s point is unmistakable—sexual union is never casual, never merely physical. It is inherently unitive. It forges a bond because God designed it to do so. And because believers are “one spirit” with Christ (1 Cor 6:17), misusing the one flesh union distorts the very image of our union with Him.
This is where the mystery deepens. The one flesh union of husband and wife is not only a personal and physical reality; it is a theological one. It is meant to represent Christ and the church—the covenantal, faithful, fruitful union between the Bridegroom and His bride (Eph 5:25–27). Sexual union, then, is the embodied sign of that covenant. It is the physical expression of a spiritual reality, the seal of a relationship God Himself ordains.
Scripture consistently treats sexual union as whole person giving—a joining of lives, loyalties, and futures. Genesis describes leaving, cleaving, and becoming one flesh (Gen 2:24). Paul says the husband’s body belongs to the wife and the wife’s to the husband (1 Cor 7:3–4). Hebrews declares that marriage is honorable and the marriage bed undefiled (Heb 13:4). All of this underscores the same truth: sexual union is covenantal, holy, and exclusive. It is the act that consummates and renews the covenant of marriage.
And because it is covenantal, it carries spiritual weight. It is not simply a symbol of personal union; it is the bodily mode of personal union. And personal union, in turn, is the relational mode of the greater mystery—Christ united to His people. The structure is consistent: Christ and the church as the archetype, husband and wife as the image, and sexual union as the embodied sign of that image.
So when Scripture speaks of marriage, it speaks of something far deeper than human convention. It speaks of a union God creates, a union that is both physical and spiritual, a union that images the gospel itself. The one flesh bond is not incidental to marriage; it is central. It is part of the mystery—the way the covenant is expressed, sealed, and lived. And in that mystery, we glimpse the greater reality: Christ giving Himself for His bride, and the church united to Him in faithful love.
Consider, then, the practical ramifications. How does adultery work in this scenario? It can't if sexual union is a real union of God's design. How does divorce make any sense in this version of marriage? Jesus said it didn't. What does it mean in regards to how we treat each other? Paul said we should love our spouse as we love ourselves because our spouse is part of ourselves. How do we handle disputes, problems, disappointments, joys, triumphs—all of life? Not as separate individuals, but as ... one. A mystical union produced by God and performed by our sexual union and a picture of Christ and the church. This is a much more serious version of sex and marriage than most of us realize.
7 comments:
If only we could get this message into the rest of Christianity. There was a time in Church History that one of the distinctive things about Christians was their fidelity to marriage and sex. Today we are no different than the world, and then wonder why "questionors" ignore Christianity. If we don't present to the world a different way, what makes is special?
David, not to argue or disagree -- I wish Christians knew this stuff, too -- but I want to point out something that everyone should know. The claim is that Christians are just as prone to divorce and sexual immorality as the rest of the world. It's true ... as long as you skew the numbers. Taking into account those who ARE Christians versus those who CALL themselves Christians, the numbers are significantly different. Evangelical divorce rate after 10 years is 26% compared to the national 33% average. Weekly church attendance reduces divorce risk by 35%. Practicing evangelicals have a 15% divorce rate. Couples who pray together daily ... less than a 1% divorce rate. The numbers are similar for sexual immorality. Turns out ... "no one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9). We all sin, but faith produces change, and those who call themselves Christians and don't change only have dead faith.
I think it is good for even us long-married readers to be reminded of the weighty and wondrous nature of our marriages--with the hope that these reminders reinforce our commitment towards their longevity.
When we all discussed the essence of marriage last month, there was consensus that God ordained the institution of marriage right away in the Garden of Eden, as the blueprint for all the generations to follow Adam and Eve. (Most of the societies that developed over time were pagan, but presumably they too held to that original standard to a degree.)
Among the points you highlighted today was the theological reality of the marital relationship as an archetype: “It is meant to represent Christ and the church—the covenantal, faithful, fruitful union between the Bridegroom and His bride (Eph 5:25–27).” I am curious: Since Christ and the church didn’t appear until ~2,000 years ago, how did the theological mystery that Paul mentions in Eph. 5:32 work before that point--was it simply unrevealed until later? (Surely it was not insignificant before that point.) Also, we can easily see that adultery and divorce would break the “covenantal, faithful, fruitful union” that marriage should be, but what happens when a second marriage is lawfully established--is the permanent spiritual bond of the first marriage(s) considered to have been annulled in order to create a new unbreakable bond? (I am thinking here of the theological implications of remarriage, not legal or moral.) (My husband and I discussed this yesterday and agreed that neither of us could remarry following either divorce or death, because we consider our vows to each other to be irrevocable. Although both Jesus and Paul sanction some cases of remarriage, we wouldn’t feel free to pursue it.)
My honest observation is that what you wrote in this post describes the ideal scenario of a committed Christian man and a committed Christian woman, each marrying for the first and only time; this of course is a small segment of marriages taking place in our culture (happily, I fall into that subset). Perhaps sometime you could write a follow-up post about the differing scenarios and how they can still be God-honoring and fulfil the theological mystery Paul mentions.
I apologize for taking so long to get to this. We moved twice in three months, packing up 20+ years from one house, storing it while we occupied an apartment, then packing and moving again. That was the easy part. Resettling is not easy and my wife is in need of constant support from the stress of it, so I'm not quite as available like I usually am.
You asked, "How did the theological mystery that Paul mentions in Eph. 5:32 work before that point?"
I would assume that, like Abraham's righteousness assigned by faith prior to Christ's death, it was a forward-looking (and, as yet, unrealized) image of Christ and the church ... which Paul probably revealed for the first time.
Your question on second (or subsequent) marriages has been debated ad infinitum. Some argue that only the first is valid and the "perpetrator" of such a second marriage is biblically obligated to divorce the second spouse and return to the first or remain single for life. I can't support that with Scripture. The Bible recognizes two valid reasons for divorce (Matt 5:32; 1 Cor 7:15). Paul says, "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned ..." (1 Cor 7:27-28). That is, under these two conditions (infidelity or abandonment) the bonds are broken and remarriage is not sin. This is shorthand and brief, but if that's true, then the second marriage would become the sole existing bond.
It's what I see in Scripture. Others see it different. Some argue that divorce is never acceptable under any circumstances. Others argue that you can divorce all you want if you never remarry. It seems to me that God hates divorce and it should be avoided at all costs, but if someone falls in one of those three categories (lost a spouse to death, infidelity, or abandonment), it seems to me that Paul calls that "not bound" and "if you marry, you have not sinned."
I appreciate this helpful reply (especially during a stressful time). After considering the almost radical advancements in marriage standards from OT days to the church age, I think my main observation would be the deeper dimensions brought to the Christian marriage--a relationship now based on sacrificial love, mutual submission, honor, and unending devotion between husband and wife as co-heirs in Christ. This reflection of Christ and the church gives the union of believers that “weighty and wondrous” quality I mentioned above--and all the blessings that accompany it--of which I personally have become more aware with each passing year.
P.S. I can totally relate to the stress of moving twice in a short timeframe, as my husband and I had to do the very same thing 36 years ago, when our then-current home sold very quickly, yet our new house was not built yet, requiring us to put our belongings in storage and rent an apartment for the interim period. Best wishes regarding settling in … and staying put for a bit!
I fully agree that divorce is valid only for those two reasons. People often mention abuse by the spouse, and I say that is abandonment of the vows and therefore fits.
I don’t disagree with you, David, while I suggest that the establishment of guidelines for God’s people regarding fidelity within marriage occurred long before the Church age.
A book I recently read--The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible by Robert J. Hutchinson--points out that the Old Testament scriptures prohibited the ungodly behavior that was then rampant among the surrounding pagan cultures, including savagery, injustice, idolatry, infanticide, child sacrifice, polygamy, and pederasty. In a chapter examining homosexual behavior, the author explains that, “Judaism represented a dramatic break with pagan culture by insisting God intended sex to be confined within the bounds of committed heterosexual relationships. … Jesus accepted this radical teaching of Judaism and made it even more radical [referring to various passages in Matthew]. … Thus, the Christian Church traditionally rejected homosexual practice for the same reason it rejected divorce, adultery, and fornication.” He writes that in the New Testament, “Paul is asserting that Christians should marry in the Jewish sense--in a formally committed, vowed relationship--rather than indulge in casual fornication.” This book clarifies how the Jewish society very early on stood apart from other cultures regarding sex, male-female relationships, and marriage and the family. It is a long legacy, indeed, and one to be challenged right until the end, it seems.
Post a Comment