But ... What IS Marriage?

The classic line from the Cole Porter song is, “What is this thing called love?” Recently the discussion was, “What is this thing called marriage?

When Scripture speaks of sexual sin, it does so within a clear and consistent framework for what marriage actually is. The Bible never treats marriage as a private sentiment or an informal declaration between two individuals. Instead, it presents marriage as a public, covenantal union, established before God, witnessed by others, and sealed by the one flesh bond He Himself ordained.

From the beginning, marriage is framed as a covenant. Malachi reminds Israel that a man’s wife is “your companion and your wife by covenant” (Mal 2:14), and Proverbs speaks of the woman who “forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God” (Pro 2:17). A covenant is not a private arrangement; it is a binding, accountable commitment made in the open and under God’s authority. Throughout Scripture, marriage is always publicly acknowledged—families participate (Gen 24; Gen 29), witnesses stand by (Ruth 4:9–11), and the community recognizes the union as legitimate (Deu 22). Even when the cultural forms vary, the pattern remains: marriage is a public covenant, not a private improvisation.

The Bible also assumes that covenantal commitments are expressed and affirmed. We see declarations of intent (“I will go,” Gen 24:58), formal agreements (Gen 29:18–20), witnesses who ratify the union (Ruth 4:9–11), and blessings spoken over the couple (Ruth 4:11–12). None of these require a modern state license, but all of them demonstrate that marriage is never merely two people deciding, in private, that they are married. It is a union established with the knowledge and recognition of the community.

Sexual union then consummates the covenant. Genesis declares that “the two shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24), and Paul warns that sexual union itself carries covenantal weight: “Do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, ‘The two will become one flesh’” (1 Cor 6:16). But Scripture never treats sex as the thing that creates marriage. Rather, sex seals a covenant that already exists. Without the covenant, sexual union is not marriage; it is sin (Heb 13:4; 1 Thess 4:3–5).

Taken together, the biblical picture is unmistakable: marriage is a publicly recognized covenant between a man and a woman, established before witnesses, blessed by God, and sealed by the one flesh union He designed. That is why Scripture consistently treats sex outside of marriage as sin—because sexual union belongs to the covenant God instituted, not to private arrangements or personal declarations.

Marriage That Preaches

Paul makes a stunning claim in Ephesians 5: marriage isn’t just similar to Christ and the Church—it’s an image of it. A living parable. A God designed drama acted out in ordinary homes by ordinary sinners who, by grace, get to display something extraordinary.

When Paul says, “This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32), he means that if you want to understand marriage, look at Christ and the Church. And if you want to understand Christ and the Church, look at marriage. God built one to reveal the other.

Christ loved the Church and “gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). He didn’t love her because she was impressive; He loved her because He chose to (Deut 7:7–8). A husband images Christ by loving his wife with that same covenantal, sacrificial love. Not reactive. Not moody. Not “I’ll love you when you’re lovable.” It’s cruciform leadership—steady, humble, and costly.

The Church submits to Christ not out of fear but out of trust and joy (Eph 5:24). A wife images the Church by responding to her husband’s loving leadership with respect and partnership. Her submission isn’t servility; it’s the relational counterpart to his sacrifice. When both roles function biblically, neither spouse feels diminished—they both feel honored.

Paul quotes Genesis 2:24—“the two shall become one flesh”—and then says this union points to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:31–32). Marriage mirrors the deep, mysterious union believers have with Christ: intimate, covenantal, and life shaping. It’s not just a social arrangement; it’s a living picture of the gospel.

If marriage is a living image of Christ and the Church, then every Christian couple is preaching—whether they intend to or not. The question is not whether your marriage says something about Christ, but what it says.

For husbands, the call to sacrificial love shows up in daily choices—how you speak, how you listen, how you repent, how you protect. The standard is “give self up.” And Christ doesn’t love His bride from a distance; He enters her world and bears her burdens. Husbands image Christ not by being impressive, but by being faithful.

For wives, the call to glad submission is the joyful response to a husband who is laying down his life for her. Submission is not silence; it’s partnership. Encouragement isn’t small—it’s part of the picture.

For both spouses, the call is mutual honor. Christ honors His Church, and the Church honors Christ. Marriage thrives when both spouses treat each other as co heirs of grace (1 Peter 3:7). If you ever find yourself thinking, “This passage is perfect for correcting my spouse,” you may have just discovered the part meant for you.

And for those who feel overwhelmed—remember that Christ does not abandon His bride. Your marriage is upheld not by your strength but by His. The gospel doesn’t just give you a model; it gives you power.

Your marriage is preaching. By God’s grace, let it preach well.

Understanding

Peter tells wives to submit to their husbands like Paul does (making husbands happy, but not wives) (1 Peter 3:1-6), but his instructions to husbands differs from Paul's.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

First, "In the same way"? He said the same thing to wives at the beginning of the chapter when he told them to submit to their husbands. In the same way ... as what? Peter refers to Christ who suffered "leaving an example for you" (1 Peter 2:21), as a purpose for us. He entrusted Himself to God and endured suffering for us (1 Peter 2:23). "In the same way ..." wives, submit to husbands who aren't even godly (1 Peter 3:1) and husbands ... do these things. That is, being a submissive wife and a good husband are not easy things. They require self-sacrifice and a reliance on God.

Entrusting ourselves to God and sacrificing self, then, we're supposed to live with our wives in an understanding way. What does that even mean? The word is actually "according to knowledge." We're supposed to be informed, thoughtful, and intentional in our understanding of our wives ... not guessing, assuming, or dominating. We're supposed to live with her that way ... a lifestyle of emotional, spiritual, physical, and social study of our wives. Not haphazard, but taking everything into account. View her as vulnerable ("as with someone weaker"). Honor her as an equal ... public respect, private tenderness, spiritual equality. "Live with them" suggests ongoing faithfulness, remaining present, staying committed. It's a self-giving leadership style, not authoritarian or passive, but sacrificial, attentive, and protective.

Husbands are called to learn their wives emotions and needs, their rhythms and fears and joys. We're called to speak well of her, protect her dignity, and cherish her presence. We're required to treat her as an equal and be there for her emotionally, relationally, sexually, and spiritually. We're supposed to be marked by sacrificial love, not harshness or domination. And ... very important ... it makes a big difference to your spiritual life. Failure to do this hinders prayers. Are you that kind of husband?

Don't Look Now

We had a special event at church recently. At one point, the speaker had the married couples stand. Then he told husbands to repeat after him and say what he told us to say to our wives. After that, he did the same for the wives to repeat to their husbands. You know the underlying message, right? "You're not doing this right, and you need to admit it." I was amused, of course, that the men were making more mistakes than the women, and, moreso that my wife told me, "You're already doing all he said you should be." I don't think I'm even remotely a perfect husband, but I'm pleased she's pleased.

It made me think. Have you noticed that the commands in Scripture for husbands and wives are not contingent? I mean, nowhere does it say, "Wives, submit to good husbands" or "Husbands, love your wives if they're treating you well." Every command for husbands and wives are commands without regard to the corresponding spouse. Husbands aren't told to love their wives who submit and wives aren't told to submit to husbands who love. In fact, Peter says, "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1) -- the opposite of what you might think.

If you pay attention to the standard wedding vows, they are intentionally unconditional. The promise is to love without consideration of the circumstances "'til death do us part." In the same way, we're commanded to treat our spouses in a way that glorifies God and not contingent on our spouses. We aren't to be analyzing their worth or obedience to Christ to determine our proper response. We're supposed to look to God for our motivation in doing what's best for our spouses ... unconditional love, powered by God, sanctified by the Spirit and freely given to our spouses. Imagine what love, freely given and not conditioned on the recipient, would do to marriages.

Husbands

The Bible has lots to say about lots of things ... some esoteric and some extremely practical. For instance, there are some very clear, very straightforward statements about marital life. Now, we all know the hateful, misogynistic command from Paul, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). I mean, come on, Paul! Get with it. Modern feminism has blown that away. It's so thoroughly wrong, that Bible-believing Christians thumb their noses at it. Oh, sure, maybe they give it lip service, but, in practice, wives don't make a practice of submitting to their husbands as to the Lord. If they do, they're considered weak or timid or abused. Peter had the temerity to repeat that clear opposition to modern feminism. "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives" (1 Peter 3:1). (As an aside, "In the same way"? What way? "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps" (1 Peter 2:20-25).) There it is again. Not unclear. Not vague. And we largely protest.

It's funny, though. The commands to husbands typically go uncontested.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her ... (Eph 5:25-32)

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

Why is that? It's because we're mostly not paying attention. "Husbands, love your wives" seems perfectly reasonable ... except it is "as Christ loved the Church," which is defined as ... giving self up. Hang on! That's not even normal. We don't do that. We always have to look out for #1. I actually had a Christian counselor tell me, "That's crazy." Maybe ... but it's biblical. Another one we often miss seems to be the second. I once found a book at Barnes and Noble titled, "What Men Know About Women." Spoiler alert: the book is blank. Because men understanding women seems impossible. And we're commanded to "live with our wives in an understanding way." With a threat ... "so that your prayers will not be hindered." Do we? Do husbands make it their daily practice to understand their wives ... all the time? A regular function? I don't think so. And "wives, submit" seems to grow less offensive because the commands to husbands become ... daunting.

Daunting or not, husbands, we have commands from God. Forget about His commands to wives; those are hers to obey or not. Ours are clear. Love your wife by surrendering your self. And live with her in an understanding way. Two huge commands. If we were diligent about obeying these, I think we'd have little time to criticize wives who don't submit. We would be giving them solid reasons to submit, because it's not hard to submit to someone who makes her his highest priority and lifelong project. And, of course, they're God's commands. That should be of critical importance to us.

Your Wife by Covenant

Scripture isn't vague about divorce. Jesus said don't (Matt 19:3-6). God said, "I hate divorce" (Mal 2:16). Clearly, God's opinion is "Don't!" In the Matthew passage Jesus said it was, at best, the product of a hard heart (Matt 19:8) and causes adultery (Mark 10:11-12). Don't!!

And then ... I came across this. In that Malachi reference God is telling His people "you cover the altar of YHWH with tears, with weeping and with groaning, because He no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand" (Mal 2:13). This is a catastrophic condition, a spiritual meltdown. God no longer cares about your sacrifices or your tears. What is the cause of this condition?

"Yet you say, 'For what reason?' Because YHWH has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (Mal 2:14)

He's talking there about divorce. He says it in verse 16, but He also says it here when He refers to "your wife by covenant." It's not hard to see. As a matter of routine, we promise

To have and to hold from this day forward.
For better, for worse.
For richer, for poorer.
In sickness and in health.
Forsaking all others.
To love and to cherish.
Until death do us part.

That is not simply a contract; it's a covenant. There are no conditions of "to love and to cherish" except "until death do us part" (Rom 7:1-2). If we choose to divorce, we're breaking a covenant, an unconditional vow. We are dealing treacherously. And God told His people it was spiritual suicide. It cut them off from communication with God.

Christians still debate the topic. "Under what conditions can we divorce?" The Bible lists ... none. If you experience a divorce (as opposed to initiating it), remarriage is possible in the cases of "sexual immorality" (Matt 19:9) or if an unbelieving spouse abandons a believing spouse (1 Cor 7:12-16), but the Bible lists no valid reasons for initiating divorce. And, isn't it interesting? Peter says that husbands are to "live with your wives in an understanding way ... so that your prayers will not be hindered" (1 Peter 3:7). That sounds a lot like the Malachi passage. Maybe our marriages are much more important to God than we think.

Jesus Hates Divorce

On the question of divorce and the Bible, there is perhaps one best-known text to which most people harken -- the so-called "exception clause." In Matthew, we have an account of the Pharisees asking Jesus, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (Matt 19:3). What a question! "Is there any cause in which it is lawful to divorce one's wife?" In His time, the Jews had a range of beliefs. One group (the school of Hillel) said a man could divorce his wife for any offense at all. She burned the toast? Out! (I exaggerate, but you get the idea.) Another group (the school of Shammai) said divorce was only allowed for adultery. "So, Jesus," they were asking, "which is it?" And Jesus's answer was ... shocking. "No," He said. Not "any reason" or "adultery," but "What God has joined together let not man separate" (Matt 19:4-6). Note that Jesus's line of reasoning was that marriage was not a human institution and was not grounded in human relationships or feelings. Marriage was a divine institution and the grounding was in the union that God built. It wasn't about fulfillment or comfort or satisfaction. It was about ... God (Eph 5:31-32).

The Pharisees were ... miffed. "Oh, yeah? Well what about Moses's instructions?" (Matt 19:7). Jesus attributed that to Moses and to the hardness of the heart (Matt 19:8). Interesting, isn't it? Now, the next verse is relevant, but ... to what? "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Jesus has already said that marriage is a divine invention predicated on a divine act of the union of two people into one. Divorce necessarily violates that union -- God's act. So what is this so-called "exception clause"? It's the "go-to" for a lot of people who want to walk the line between obedience to God and "my personal comfort." Especially today. A husband who commits "sexual immorality" today by, say, cheating on his wife or, even, watching pornography is now deemed "divorceable" as it were because that's what Jesus said ... wasn't it? No. That's not what Jesus said. Jesus said, "What God has joined together let not man separate." Jesus said the Mosaic laws on divorce were only allowed for our hardness of heart. This exception clause, then, cannot justify divorce. What Jesus was commenting on was ... remarriage. He's specific, isn't He? If a person divorces their spouse "and marries another" the violation is "adultery." (Note that "sexual immorality" is not the same as "adultery." Adultery is included under the category of "sexual immorality," but does not define that category.) So, if a marriage ends because of sexual immorality, remarriage is permitted. Otherwise, it is not.

Our world is happy to tell us that we marry for love (which, they further assure us, is "warm affection"). Our world is adamant that we need to be "happy" and "fulfilled" and if our spouse is not fulfilling those needs, we aren't merely justified in ditching them; we're practically required to. Jesus said, "What God has joined together let not man separate." That is, there is no biblical support for divorcing your spouse. If, on the other hand, a divorce happens, as in Paul's "But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace" (1 Cor 7:15), then Jesus permitted remarriage. I would suggest that ignoring Jesus's main premise that marriage is God's work and trying to edge closer to the world's "You deserve to be happy and fulfilled" arguments is not a move toward greater godliness. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, and we believers who castigate the divorced (generally without even knowing the context) simply because they divorced are "casting the first stone," clearly something Jesus recommended against (John 8:7). But those of us who wish to be conformed to the image of Christ ought to do everything in our power to remain married at any cost to the spouse to whom God has joined us, trusting in Him rather than others.

The Submitted Marriage

One of those crazy things Scripture offers is the command to "submit to one another" (Eph 5:21). Now, we're Americans. We submit to no one. "My body, my choice" is not just a woman thing. We all believe that. So the command to submit is fiercely denied, even by Christians. Laid alongside the reported "50% divorce rate" that we believe is true, it's heartbreaking. You see, God wasn't foolish when He passed that along to Paul to write. God was a genius.

The opening statement of the idea is to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Note the singular motivation: "reverence for Christ." "No!" so many Christians say. That's especially at the next verse, Paul's first example. "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). "Absolutely not!" unbelievers and believers alike declare. It's short-sighted, actually. We believe that we are autonomous, that our welfare and happiness is ours to obtain, and we should submit to no one. The text tells us to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ, and wives to submit to husbands as to the Lord. "Set aside your autonomy and allow God to work." Fewer complain about the next example. "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:25-27). That's because they don't see the submission in it. Look at it; it's mind-boggling. "Husbands, love your wives." "Yeah, so what? That's not submission." It is when you see how husbands are to love their wives. "As Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her." In submission terms, husbands are required to give self up. It's mind-boggling for Paul. He says, "This mystery is profound" (Eph 5:32), but it's an image of Christ and the church.

Why do I say God is a genius in this? If you have two people submitting to one another in this fashion, a marriage cannot fail. It is, first, based on submission to Christ, reverence for Christ. Second, the reason for every divorce is that one or both spouses weren't getting what they felt they needed, but a marriage built on submitting to each other sets self aside. Divorce is impossible if spouses are mutually submitting in this way, giving self and expecting God to supply. See? God is pretty wily. But, of course, having the mind of Christ (Php 2:5-8) doesn't come naturally. It is necessary since we are called to die with Christ, but it isn't natural. It's just right.

Commanding the Impossible

Now, I know ... the world doesn't care wha the Word has to say about marital relations, but we Christians should. We often don't, but we should. But if you read what it says, you might come away thinking, "Oh, no. That's not right." You will read, for instance,

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor 11:3)

Many a Christian wife and not a few Christian husbands will read that and say, "That's not right." It's clear. It's explicit. It's unambiguous. But "it's not right." Or so they say. You will read things like,

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, His body, and is Himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:22-24)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. (1 Peter 3:1-2)

And that can't be right, can it? Wives submit? To him? It even specifies "even if some do not obey the word." Does that make any sense? Especially when you encounter what I call the "hyper-patriarchals" who have decided that "wives, submit" is a command for them to thoroughly dominate their wives. It seems as if God is commanding the impossible here. It's not unclear or ambiguous, but Christians choke on it.

If the commands to wives seem impossible, the commands to husbands, if examined as they are given, are more so.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

At first blush, it's easy. "Love your wives." Yeah, sure, easy. But ... the standard of that love is not. "Love your wives as Christ loved the church." Oh, that standard. How? "Gave Himself up for her." Yes, He died, but, as Paul explains, He did so much more. He didn't cling to His status as God, but humbled Himself ... to death (Php 2:5-8). That is the standard of love that husbands are supposed to meet. It certainly slays the idea of the domineering husband on the spot. The notion of a "man cave" becomes nonsensical. "I need me-time" is relegated to the crazy box. Love her by giving self up for her. Is that even possible? And then the next one rears its ugly head. "Likewise," it says. Like what? Like wives submitting to their husbands. "Likewise," in the husbands' version of submission, "live with your wives in an understanding way." What? Really??" It is a common axiom that men do not understand women. I saw a book in a bookstore once titled, What Men Know About Women. The pages were blank. And here it is, the obviously impossible, in command form. Husbands are commanded to understand their wives. To be students of their wives. To see them, to know them, to grasp their ideas and feelings and wants and all. Crazy wives ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?" and the godly husband will be required to know the right answer because he understands his wife. She won't have to answer "Nothing" when he asks, "Honey, what's wrong?" because he has been a student of his wife and gets it. Yeah, sure, that's an absolute, a perfect world -- likely, due to human nature and limitations, will never be this side of heaven -- but it's the aim, the goal, the command.

God, it appears, is in the business of making impossible commands. "Love God with all your heart" (Deut 6:5; Matt 22:37). "Love one other as I have loved you" (John 13:34; John 15:12). "Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thess. 5:16-18). On and on. I'm sure you can think of a whole lot more. These two are just a couple of obvious examples: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and "Husbands, love your wife to the exclusion of your self, and live with her in an understanding way." The temptation is to simply reject them. "We can't do it." It's either wrong or we're just going to refuse. These are the wrong conclusions. The right conclusion is, "Well, He said it, so we'll do it." We'll do it by the work of God in us both to will and to do His good pleasure (Php 2:13). So, Christ-follower, what will it be? Dodge the "impossible" in open rejection of the One you claim to follow, or aim for a miraculous obedience?

A Mystery

Paul wrote of marriage, "This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church" (Eph 5:32). The mystery is the union of a man and a woman designed by God as "marriage" (Eph 5:31; Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5). So it is no surprise that marriage has been under attack ... since the beginning. We see this in Deuteronomy when Moses writes about divorce (Deut 24:1-3). Jesus said he wrote it "because of the hardness of your heart, but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matt 19:8). The Pharisees balked at the concept of marriage for life (Matt 19:3) and the disciples found the concept alarming (Matt 19:10). That is, the union of Christ and the church has been an enemy of Satan from the beginning, and so has marriage. It seems our time is just a prime example.

It's interesting. In the garden of Eden, God laid the primary responsibility of marriage on Adam -- to care for his "helpmeet" (Gen 2:18). You know, as in "Christ and the church." So when Paul told wives, "Be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22-24), he was just carrying on this theme. Why should wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord? Because God had designed marriage so that husbands are responsible for their wives (1 Cor 11:3) ... like Christ takes care of the church. So the husband's job is to love his wife (Eph 5:25). Not as the world does; as Christ did. He gave self up for her (Php 2:5-8). That kind of love. That kind of care. It's huge, men. No "self" involved. But that's not the end of the description of the task of the husband. This "giving self up for her" had a purpose.

... so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. (Eph 5:26-27)

Husbands, did you know that was part of your primary assignment in caring for your wife? Give self up, yes, for the purpose of sanctifying her. How? Cleanse her by the washing of the water with the Word. God has assigned husbands the task of bathing their wives in the Word in order to make them holy and blameless. Now, I don't know about you guys, but I'm not the best example of accomplishing this assignment from God. Hit and miss at best. And this ought not be. God gave me this wife in order to give myself up and see to her spiritual washing in the Word. It's never too late to start. It's called repentance.

A Defining Moment

In July of 2008 California's Supreme Court ruled not only that marriage between two people of the same sex was okay, but that it was mandated. That is, as part of their ruling, they required the state to start issuing licenses. Mind you, the people had voted to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The court, instead, admitted that they were knowingly violating, in their own words, the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and establishing a new one. Well, no. Just rejecting the longstanding, traditional one. In response, in November of 2008, the people voted again to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but this time they did so by making it part of the state constitution. Of course, the court struck that down, too, and we know the outcome, but here's the question. How do we define marriage?

I have long said that marriage was the lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and mutual support. Most people will say, "Fine, that's your definition, but it's just opinion." Actually, it's biblical. More to the point, the One who created the world and created male and female also created and defined marriage. I go with His definition. Go ahead. Look it up in the Bible under "M" for "marriage." No, of course not. The Bible isn't a dictionary. But we do have a definition ... from the lips of Jesus. When the Pharisees asked Jesus if there was any lawful reason to divorce (Matt 19:3), Jesus replied,

"Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt 19:4-6)

Jesus was not obscure or unclear. Notice what He did there. First, He quoted Scripture to answer them because Scripture is authoritative. "Have you not read ...?" Then He gave the source. "He that created them ... said ..." Keep up now. Jesus is saying that Scripture says that God gave us this institution of marriage. It's not merely a human institution. Then Jesus broke down the definition. First, it is "a man" and "his wife." (In the Greek, that "wife" is gunē -- woman. It is translated "wife" because of the context.) Biblically, according to God, marriage is purely between two heterosexuals, one man and one woman. No other options. Second, they were leaving their own families. Marriage established a new family. Thirdly, they became "one flesh." The sexual aspect of marriage (and marriage alone -- all other sex was defined as sin) was a union (cp 1 Cor 6:16). The sex act unites in more than a merely physical way, which is one of the reasons it was designed for and limited to marriage. Finally, since it is God that joins them, it is a lifelong union. We have no right to sever that tie.

Jesus was not unclear. Marriage, established by and defined by God, is limited to two people, one male and one female, consumated in their sexual union, for purposes of creating a new family (procreation) and mutual support (Gen 2:18). I didn't make that up. It's not a simply traditional or conservative view. It is a biblical view. Those who opt to alter it (and, by the way, I have yet to see anyone who adopts the "same-sex marriage" option offer any other definition with any sort of support at all) do so in opposition to Scripture which claims that it was God who established and defined it. Therefore, to do as that court in 2008 did -- reject the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" -- is a rejection of God and His Word. Do so at your own peril. As for me, I have no room to maneuver. Here I stand. I can do no other.

Pointing Fingers

Before I start this, I need to begin with a disclaimer. I'm not writing to make anyone feel shame or guilt. Writing to believers here, those have no real value if we're actually forgiven, right? Besides, there is not one of us who does not sin, who does not fall short. I'm pointing a finger, but I've got three pointing back at me, so this isn't a shame fest. I'm hoping to point out something that you may not have been considering as you seek to follow Christ. Oh, and one piece of good news. This is only for the married readers. You singles are off the hook today.

Scripture makes some blatant commands to married Christians. They are so blatant and so jarring that many try to modify them and obliterate them in the process. Husbands and wives have specific, clear commands in how they are to relate to one another. To wives (and not to husbands, even though many Christian husbands think it's their job to enforce) the command is "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:22). Not difficult to understand, but very difficult to do. "Me? Submit to him? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain." Would a believing wife dare to say that about God? Yet, the command is clear. Submit to him as you are to submit to God. Husbands, the command isn't vague. "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). That's not "feel warmly toward her." It's not "be willing to die for her." That's "give self up for her." Again, the command is clear. Again, it is very difficult to do, since the natural human functions primarily on "getting what I need and want" and this command says to give self up.

So, what I'd like you wives to ask yourself is "Does that describe me? Do I submit to my husband as I submit to the Lord?" Perhaps "as I submit to the Lord" isn't the best question. "As I'm supposed to submit to God?" might be better. Because I've met very few genuine, Bible-believing, Christ-following wives who actually submit to their husbands in that way. Husbands, ask yourself your corresponding question. "Do I love my wife without regard for my wants and needs? Do I sacrifice my self for her? Am I first place, or is she?" Because I've met very few Christian husbands who are even aware that this is what is expected of them, let alone practicing it. Again, as a husband, I'm constantly having to ask myself those "husband" questions and find myself wanting, so I'm not trying to bring on a guilt trip. But if you are a Christian and seek to be obedient to the Lord, you -- husbands and wives -- might want to look at this very clear and sadly lacking area.

Husbandry

The English language has this word in its arsenal: husbandry. You can go to college and get a degree in it. It is defined as "the cultivation or production of plants or animals." It also includes the notion of "the control or judicious use of resources." There is no discernable connection between "husbandry" and "husband" in our current English usage. But ... there should be.

The biblical role of the husband (which is definitely distinct from society's version) is clear. Marriage is defined as the lifelong union of a man and a woman (Gen 2:24) for purposes of procreation (Gen 1:22) and mutual support (Gen 2:18). In that relationship, God ordained that the man is the head of a woman (1 Cor 11:3). Thus, in the function of mutual submission (Eph 5:21), wives are subject to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24) and husbands are subject to their wives in their job of self-sacrificially supplying her with what she needs -- physically, emotionally, spiritually ... in every way (Eph 5:25-32). Husbands are required to give their wives the understanding and honor she deserves and requires (1 Peter 3:7). Husbands, then, are tasked with the job of cultivating and producing life with their wives. They are the managers with the responsibility for their wives as well as their children (Eph 6:4; Col 3:21; Heb 12:9-10). They are, then, in the business of control and judicious use of resources. This isn't a "macho" job; it is the ultimate self-less-ness for the good of wife and family.

It is no accident that our English language has two words so closely connected. "Husbandry" in modern English refers to plants and livestock, and "husband" has devolved to merely mean "the guy in the marriage," but if the task of husband is properly understood, it much more closely resembles "husbandry" than just "the guy." And I would suggest that a huge portion of our problems in society today can be directly linked to the failure of "the guy in the marriage" in doing the husbandry tasks God has assigned. When will we Christian men learn that our job from God is to love all the way to giving up self (Eph 3:25)? What a different world it would be if we did.

Biblical Marriage

There is very little in human culture that predates marriage. It is instituted by God in Genesis.

YHWH God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man 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." For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:22-24)

Jesus attributes that quote about "a man shall leave his father ..." to God Himself (Matt 19:4-6). Marriage, then, from the beginning was the union ("become one flesh") of a man and a woman, a covenant for life between God and two people. We know that one of the primary functions of marriage was originally, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Gen 1:28). We also know that the relationship was designed to be complementary -- a suitable helper. So marriage from the beginning was a lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of procreation and for mutual support.

Beyond that, and something that didn't come out until much later, we learn that God planned for a hierarchy in marriage where "Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3). We discover that marriage is a mutual submission (Eph 5:21) where the wife submits to her husband as to the Lord (Eph 5:22) and the husband loves his wife by surrendering self for her (Eph 5:25-26). We see that there is, indeed, a sexual component beyond simple procreation, where "The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4). That is, our sexual relationships are designed to be sacrificial rather than self-serving. Perhaps most important, we find that marriage was designed as an illustration of the relationship of Christ and the church (Eph 5:32). The Bible has much to say about marriage. All this ... and more.

How is it, then, that we seem to miss it so completely? How is it that we can imagine a "marriage" that is a short-term project -- "till love do us part"? How can believers see it as the thing that meets my needs? How can we see the union of two men or two women as "marriage"? Or applaud when two Christians who can't stand each other opt to separate but not divorce to "honor their marriage commitment"? Why do we find husbands who find it their assignment to "make her submit" and wives who are quite sure that they'll "never submit to him; he doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain"? Why is it, as clear as Scripture is, that modern marriage among Christians seems to be so very far from God's instructions? How can we, followers of Christ, consider God's commands on this as backwards, incoherent, unreasonable, and "on the wrong side of history"? There is something really wrong here.

Of Frogs and Pots

You know the old "frog and pot" parable, right? You can drop a live frog into a pot of hot water and he'll leap right out, or you can drop him into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat. He'll get used to it bit by bit until he's cooked. Now, I'm sure it's not actually true, but you get the idea. So I want to talk about one of these "frog and pot" situations.

I've argued for years that the current definition of "marriage" is no definition. In fact, back in 2008, when the California courts mandated "same-sex marriage," they agreed that they were going against the "traditional, longstanding definition of marriage." So I prefer to refer to "same-sex marriage" as "same-sex mirage" because, whatever it is, it is not marriage. Now we have two groups. One says, "No, that is a perfectly suitable use of the word" and the other says, "It doesn't even come close." One would think, then, connecting back to the frog analogy, that those who have moved on to this new definition of "marriage" (which, as it turns out, is hardly a definition at all) are those frogs in a heating pot. They're so used to it by now that they're unaware they're on the verge of being cooked. I don't think that's it at all. I think that they are in that pot, but I don't think that most of us are out of any pots. I think most of us who call that nonsense out as nonsense are simply in a different pot that's not quite as hot yet. You see, while we're pointing fingers at that crazy "same-sex mirage," we've swallowed whole another version of "mirage" and consider it normal because, well, it's what we're used to.

Since we can't determine the heat of our water based on our experience, we will need to go to a standard outside of any pots. I recommend Scripture -- God's Word. Biblical marriage is something absolutely opposed to same-sex mirage, for sure, but it isn't on our side, either. Biblical marriage, in its most basic form, is "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24) -- the union (a rather intense union) of one man and one woman. There are additional components right there at the beginning as well. God made this wife for Adam to be his "helper" (Gen 2:18), so that concept is included in this, and they were commanded to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28), so that would be included as well. Therefore, a biblical version of marriage would be "The union for life of a man and a woman for the purposes of mutual support and for procreation." Is that what we see as the definition today among conservatives? Not so much. Among Christians? Not really. For instance, in the 1910's, 1 in 7 marriages ended in divorce. By the 20's it was 15%. After a spike in the 40's, it was at 20% in the 50's and 26% in the 60's. Of course, most people say that we're up in the 40-50% range now, so, as any good frog can tell you, that's fairly normal. Divorce is just a part of marriage. But Jesus said, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt 19:6). In fact, in Scripture you find no acceptable reasons for divorce. Jesus gave His famous "exception clause" in Matthew 19:9 (which, I believe, is sorely misunderstood), but that exception wasn't an approval of divorce, but an acceptance of remarriage. And Paul never said it was okay to divorce an unbelieving spouse who leaves, but just that if they did, you weren't bound anymore (1 Cor 7:12-16). Divorce in Scripture is not the unforgivable sin, but neither is it the go-to solution if we're unhappy in our marriages.

There is a sense in Christianity that coming to Christ is the place we go to die. We are to "take up your cross" (Matt 16:24), to die to self (Eph 4:22). Similarly, marriage is another place we go to die, so to speak. Wives are commanded to "submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord" (Eph 5:23). Husbands are commanded to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Both are outward facing commands. Both are made without regard to the self. Marriage, the union -- physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual -- of two people, is not about "me." Yet, how many of us, seeking a spouse, ask, "Am I the best one for him or her?" How many of us wonder what we can contribute to their lives? No, we ask, "Is she or he the best one for me?" Because my comfort and well-being is the primary purpose of marriage in our day. No one has ever divorced their spouse because "She won't let me be kind and loving to her." It is always "I'm not getting what I need/deserve/want." And we've sat in that water for so long that we don't even notice that it's contrary to Scripture and God's version of marriage.

There are plenty of people that complain about my opposition to "same-sex mirage." Rest easy. I equally oppose "my side" -- those who agree that "same sex" and "marriage" can't go together ... but believe that divorce is a good solution to problems and marriage is simply the best way to get what I want. Biblical marriage is the lifelong union of a man and a woman for purposes of mutual support and procreation. (If a spouse becomes unable to provide support -- disease or something -- or is unable to procreate for some reason, that doesn't negate marriage. Please don't go there. I'm just giving the basic, biblical definition.) Until we agree with God on marriage, we're either frogs in really hot water or frogs in water being heated. Neither is a good place to be.

Redefining Marriage

When I speak of redefining marriage, you, my faithful readers, will automatically leap to "He's talking about same-sex marriage." Sometimes. Not this time. You see, the process of redefining marriage did not start with the LGBT alphabet soup. We've been at it a long time. My wife received a piece of official mail yesterday and I noticed the address. It gave her the title of "Ms." And I caught it, right there. Redefining marriage has been in the works for decades -- most intensely from the 1960's. That's when they yanked "love" from its moorings of seeking the best for others and dragged it into "sex," as in "making love." That phrase originally meant doing things that inspired a connection, close feelings, likely aiming at a permanent relationship that we called (back then) "marriage." Today's version, oddly enough, doesn't even need to include warm feelings. Two people in today's world can "make love" without feeling warmly toward each other -- friends with benefits or maybe a one-night stand.

Enter the '70's. Having hacked down the root of marriage -- genuine love -- and replaced it primarily with sex, we went to work on the permanence of marriage. "No fault divorce" took the country by storm. Not only should we be allowed to divorce for cause; we should be allowed to dismember this "two become one" for no cause except "irreconcilable difference" (read "whatever I want it to mean"). Feminists kicked in with vigor, demanding to no longer be called "Mrs" but now be just "Ms" because marital status was irrelevant. "We will not be defined by our marital status." So "two become one" shifted into oblivion. I had someone ask me (15 years ago, now) "My fiance wants to keep our money separate. Is that okay?" How do you practice "two become one" by keeping your lives separate? But that wasn't an outlandish question; it was normal. And, of course, that other pesky problem had to be addressed -- reproduction. In 1958 we hit a peak 3.6 births per woman. In 1979 we bottomed out at 1.8 births per woman. Marriage and procreation had been untied. In 1970 roughly 8 million children lived in single-parent families. In 2022 that number was 19 million.

The biblical definition of marriage is the union for life of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation and mutual support. God thought so (Gen 2:24). So did Jesus (Matt 19:4-5). So did Paul (Eph 5:31). So when, in 2008, the Supreme Court of California knowingly rejected the "longstanding, traditional definition of marriage" and instituted something we term "same-sex marriage," it was clearly a redefinition. But it wasn't the first. More to the point, it was more like the last. The last vestiges of God's version of marriage were brought down. We took it down, piece by piece, over decades. It was so subtle and so gradual that Christians often miss it. Christians operate under this new un-definition of marriage. Is it any wonder then that divorce rates have jumped dramatically since the 1950's while "marriage" rates (in quotes since "marriage" is no longer clearly defined) are way down and single-parent children are way up? Is it really a surprise that, given the fact that the foundational concept of family as "married with children" is now a punchline from a TV show, our society is devolving? Why would we expect better values, better morality, better kids, better lives? But I want to point out that, in fact, the redefinition of marriage was not the actual target here. The actual target was God and His values and His plans. Marriage was designed to represent the relationship of Christ and His bride (Eph 5:31-32). This is a larger coup attempt than merely taking down marriage. As such, expect it to have a larger effect than is readily apparent.

Marriage Advice

Her husband died several years ago and she was considering remarrying. Her kids were grown, but his were still at home. She wanted advice. "How do I navigate this blended family thing?" The temptation is to come up with a 12-step plan or something, some pithy approach with practical instructions. But it's not that simple, you understand. Every person in this equation is different. Every condition is variable. There is gender and age, attachments and distances, perceptions and preferences, personality and personal motivations, a list that just keeps coming. All influenced by each other. It's not that easy. There are so many varieties and variables that it would, in fact, seem impossible.

It occurred to me that there was an answer. It just wouldn't be ... satisfying. The single answer was simple: "love." "Oh, great," I can hear some groaning, "all we need is love, right?" Too vague. Too simple. Inadequate. And I'd agree if we were talking about today's modern version. Warm feelings. Affection. "Feel good toward everyone" is just not very helpful advice. Except that's not the love I'm talking about. This love is more ... biblical. This love does nothing from selfishness or empty conceit; it regards others as more important than me (Php 2:3). This love looks out first for the interest of others (Php 2:4). This love gives up self and seeks only the best for those it touches. It doesn't seek its own, is not easily provoked, does not keep accounts of wrongs (1 Cor 13:5). It is, above all, patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). This love endures (1 Cor 13:7). Sure, it is actually a death to self, and that's really what makes it work, but it's not like the one who loves loses because it is premised on the fact that you are loved perfectly and completely already by God (Rom 5:8). That simply makes you an open conduit to flood those around you with His love because, after all, you already have what you need.

Simple answer, sure, but not simply accomplished. It is, however, the answer to most interpersonal conflicts and questions. It is commanded. And it is well supplied. "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:10). In fact, we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). Sure, it's a simple answer. Die to self and give all. But it is amazingly effective. And it is clearly something not accomplished by human effort.

Body Integrity Identity Disorder

There is a mental problem called BIID -- Body Integrity Identity Disorder. It's rare, but it happens. It goes something like this. Someone becomes convinced that a particular body part is not "me," so they seek to have the limb amputated. They do not believe the body part in question is theirs, so they want it removed. Now, I know, that sounds a lot like transgender stuff. In fact, it is. But I'm not going there ... today.

Scripture tells us that God's original design in marriage was, "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). It wasn't a mere "Old Testament" concept. Jesus repeated it (Matt 19:5). Paul, too (Eph 5:31). It is an integral part of the standard, biblical (read "God-ordained") definition of marriage. We hear and understand "two become one" and we're fine with it.

So it baffles me when a Christian tells me, "We're getting a divorce." It baffles me from the perspective that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16). Now, I don't know about you, but it seems me that choosing to do something God hates and saying "I love God" is rather contradictory. Just as bad is this concept of "one flesh." We 21st century Americans (and so many others) appear to suffer in large part from BIID. We fail to recognize that this spouse is not a separate person, but is "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen 2:23) and we seek to simply hack it off. We think it will be better for us. We think we can do it without any pain. We think it's a simple legal procedure and we'll be happier ... by cutting off body parts. That's crazy!

Americans have begun to think of "til death do us part" as a triviality. Promises, they tell us, are made to be broken. If only it was that trivial. Christians are buying it as well. While the statistics are skewed, it is still disturbing how many Christian couples are getting divorces. We are "Christ-followers" ignoring the instructions about loving one another, dying to self, the image of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32), commands to husbands and commands to wives, and all the while inviting unbelievers to blaspheme God. To me, it is tragic that so many people -- self-identified followers of Christ -- are rending themselves apart and thinking it's in their best interest. It isn't any better than BIID. It's much the same. But too many of us are behind it all the way.

Husbands, Love your Wives

In Ephesians Paul gets a lot of flak over his untimely command for wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22-24). "No way!" "That's right out!" "Woman hater!" Of course, the language isn't ambiguous and the reasoning isn't unclear and the statement is pretty straightforward. Objections, then, are not because it doesn't mean what it says, but that people don't like what it says.

It's a little odd, then, that no one seems to be up in arms to Paul's command for husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. (Eph 5:25-27)

I wonder if we're paying attention, because to me that appears to be a much more difficult command. "Husbands, love your wives." "Oh, that's easy." Maybe ... until you look at the standard that love has to meet. It's not to the level of loving pizza or to the level of loving your dog or to the level of loving your mother. It's "as Christ loved the church." Okay, how much is that? He "gave Himself up for her." Gave self up. Gave self up to sanctify and cleanse her. This kind of love is nothing about me and all about her. In the Philippian description,

Though He was in the form of God, [Christ] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php 2:6-8)

That is "gave Himself up." Even to death on the cross. For her.

Now, husbands (this is aimed solely at you husbands), what do you think? Do you measure up to the standard set by Christ in loving your wives? Or, let me put it this way. I'm thinking of man caves and sports, guy weekends and "me time," four-wheelin' and other testosterone fun -- all that stereotypical "man" stuff. If Christ loved you in the way that you love your wife, how safe, secure, and loved would you feel? How would your wife answer that?

The Good Husband

There was a television series not too long ago called The Good Wife. Okay, fine, but sometimes I wonder if I'm a good husband. How would I go about finding out? Well, an obvious way would be to compare myself against other husbands. Yea, that's good. Except it's entirely subjective. Am I comparing myself against good husbands? Not clear at all. Besides, we know "when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding" (2 Cor 10:12). So let's try something else. Oh, I know! I should ask my wife. Now, that seems to be a better idea. She seems like she'd be the one best able to answer the question since I'm trying to be a good husband to her. But, again, it's relative. It's subjective. I need a better standard, a more sure way to find out. Why not go to the Designer of the role of husband? What does He say? That would be the most objective, wouldn't it?

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. (Eph 5:25-30)

However, let each one of you love his wife as himself .... (Eph 5:33)

Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. (Col 3:19)

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:7)

That's a good start. What do these instructions from God tell us about what a good husband looks like? It is, after all, His opinion that really counts. Husbands, do you want to know if you're being a good husband? Consider these (not in any particular order).

1. Do you love your wife? No, not "Are you emotionally involved?" or "Do you feel warmly toward her?" Do you love her as you love yourself? Do you seek to nourish and cherish her, to meet all her needs? Do you love your wife as Christ loved the church? That is, do you love her sacrificially? Is your love for her marked by self-sacrifice? And not based on how she treats you?

2. Are you providing for you wife in a spiritual way? Are you seeking her spiritual best? Are you washing her in the water of the word? Are you working toward her sanctification?

3. Husbands are the head of the home, but that doesn't include being harsh. Are you lording it over her? Are you being harsh with her? Or is yours a pastoral relationship, ministering to her and caring for her?

4. Are you living with your wife in an understanding way? Is understanding your wife a characteristic of your life with your wife?

5. Do you honor your wife? Do you recognize her as equal in value, a co-heir in Christ? (Note: If your prayers are hindered, this might be a reason why.)

There is more, of course. In the bedroom, the rule is "the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Cor 7:4) and not "the wife should be giving the husband whatever he wants in the bedroom." In finances the rule is "if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8). Little things, you know.

So there are some of the things in Scripture that we can use to determine an answer to the question, "Am I a good husband?" I suspect that it's not necessarily what you expected, not quite the questions you'd ask yourself. I doubt that these are the things you'd look for in other husbands to which you'd compare yourself. I don't even think it's what your wife would necessarily say. It is the biblical standard, though. How do you measure up? I think I have some work to do.