A ‘Christian’
Family?
Several reasons can be given for the breakup of Christian
marriages. One of the major reasons is a
failure to understand the true biblical basis for Christian marriage. For a
Christian marriage to withstand the pressures of a secular society, a couple
must know and practice what God, the creator of marriage, has to say on the
subject. Many Christian couples’ marital
foundation collapsed because they did not have a biblical underpinning. We must also remember that secular humanism,
social media, and feminism have ransacked the home and plagued it with problems
like delinquency, social materialism, drug abuse, disrespect, abortion, pre-marital
intercourse/sexual liberation, unwed motherhood, cheating/unfaithfulness,
separation, and easy divorces.
Additionally, there are many reasons why godly men and women
interpret the same biblical text differently. One reason is that ‘Protestants’
have no one to speak ex cathedra; each person is free to interpret the Bible
for themselves. Secondly, we all tend to bring our own set of assumption to
Bible interpreting and no two of us have the same set of assumptions. This
obviously leads to many different conclusions about the meaning of a
text. This problematic area is further
hampered by theological training, positions, and biases. These reasons account
for why some people of equal scholarship differ on the same biblical text.
The phrase made in “the image of
God” is important to the basic understanding of marriage. Marriage is God’s idea and it did not
come into being through evolutionary processes, nor is it a mere social
invention. It’s a part of God’s design
and this is reflected in the phrase, made in “the
image of God.” This ‘image’ is not physical, but spiritual and
indicative of the personhood of God. God is relational and Trinitarian (Gen.
1:26, 27), therefore this ‘image’ points to
the fact that we are created for relationships.
Note the following comments by Walvoord,
Human life was created in (lit., “as,” meaning “in essence as”) the image of God (v. 27). This image was imparted only to humans (2:7). “Image” (ṣelem) is used figuratively here,
for God does not have a human
form. Being in God’s image means that humans share, though imperfectly and
finitely, in God’s nature, that is, in His communicable attributes (life,
personality, truth, wisdom, love, holiness, justice), and so have the capacity
for spiritual fellowship with Him.
God’s purpose in creating human life in His image
was functional: man is to rule
or have dominion (1:26, 28). God’s dominion was presented by a
“representative.”—Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological
Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary
Furthermore, there are several noteworthy implications for the
roles of men and women contained in the phrase “help
meet for him.” The first is the
stated fact that it is not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18) and after God
created Eve and brought her to Adam, God viewed this as very good (Gen.
1:31). The implication is that man is a
social creature designed so by God. Considering
this the term “help meet” means a helper
“fit” or “suitable” or even “face to face” to him. Some define it as ‘corresponding to’ the man.
Thus, Eve’s role surpasses merely a helpmate, but a companion who would fulfill
the social needs of Adam. Walvoord
affords this same concept and relates it to the preclusion of male leadership
when he said,
God decided to make a helper suitable (lit., “a helper corresponding to him,” or “a corresponding helper”) for the man (v.18). “Helper” is not a demeaning term; it is often used in Scripture to describe God Almighty (e.g., Pss. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, …). The description of her as “corresponding to him” means basically that what was said about him in Genesis 2:7 was also true of her. They both had the same nature. But what man lacked (his aloneness was not good) she supplied, and what she lacked he supplied. The culmination was one flesh (v. 24)—the complete unity of man and woman in marriage. Since Adam and Eve were a spiritual unity, living in integrity without sin, there was no need for instruction here on headship. Paul later discussed that in relationship to the order of Creation (1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13).—Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary
The natural desire for human companionship and communication
is most perfectly satisfied in the marriage union. In fact, the social nature of man cries out
for interaction with fellow human beings and is necessary for healthy
development of personality.
The fall of man changed family relationships because
sin was now in the world and this required leadership and submission to that
leadership. God invested the man
with leadership responsibilities and required his wife and children to follow
him. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God and judgment was pronounced that changed
the relationship of husband and wife.
The curse placed on Eve was threefold: she was to experience pain in
childbirth, her desire would be toward her husband, and he was to rule over her
(Gen. 3:16). Therefore, because of sin
the original relationship between husband and wife had been distorted. God moved Eve from a side-by-side and face to
face arrangement to a subordinate position. Adam received a sentence under the
curse involving pain and difficulty in his labors of the land (Gen. 3:17-19).
The world was now different because of the fall and human relationships had to
be rearranged to address this change.
My favorite Old Testament love story is that of Boaz and Ruth
in the book of Ruth. The evidence of
God’s providential activity and care throughout the book and the theme of
redemption are probably the primary reasons I prefer this story over some of
the others. The story is not romantic from our Western perspective, but it is a
strong testimony to God faithfulness to redeem and give the best to those who
wait on Him and submit to His plans.
There are several verses in the Song of Solomon supporting the
thesis that it is a collection of lyrics illustrating the passion of married
love. Note the word “spouse” in the following two verses:
"Come with me from Lebanon,
my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of
Shenir and Hermon, from the lions’ dens, from the mountains of the leopards."
(Song of Solomon 4:8)
"I am come into my garden, my
sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my
honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends;
drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved." (Song of Solomon 5:1)
Clearly employing the word ‘spouse’
placed these scenes and lyrics within the biblical context of marriage.
Several reasons could be sited as to why the Lord Jesus
remained unmarried. Christ lived in
celibacy as a part of His personal self-denial.
If He had taken a wife, he could remain sinless (Heb. 13:4), but I
believe He wanted to give Himself entirely to the Father’s will in His earthly
ministry (Matt. 19:12). This would be
best served without a wife and family.
It would have been very difficult to abandon His family while suffering
at Calvary and then ascending back to Heaven.
Even with His earthly ministry and the pace He maintain, would have been
impossible while attempting to care for the needs of His family.
Remaining single enabled the Lord Jesus to choose a life of
poverty and identify with the plight of the lowly and impoverished of
Israel. It facilitated His ministry to
the poor (Heb. 2:17-18). Further
elaboration on the fitness of single life to ministry dedication is covered in
1Corinthians 7:32-35, and Walvoord who commented on these verses said,
The single state has potentially fewer encumbrances and distractions than the married state, so it more easily facilitates a spirit of undivided devotion to the Lord. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned His followers against letting concern for the material aspects of this life distract them from devotion to God (Matt. 6:25-34). The poor widow (Mark 12:44) gave all her material sustenance to God as an act of singular devotion. A married man or woman with a needful concern for the well-being of his family would have been less likely to do that. The situation illustrates Paul’s point that the single life with its greater simplicity in obligations allows a potentially greater commitment of time, resources, and self to the Lord than would be possible for a married person dutifully carrying out the marital and familial obligations attached to that state. –Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary
There are several ways in which the love between husband and
wife corresponds to the love of Christ for His bride, the church. Consider the listing that follows:
1)
Since Christ loves the church, He affords it His
excellent leadership. A loving husband
will show love by leading his wife after Christ godly model (Eph. 5:23, 24).
2)
Since Christ loves the church, He gave Himself
sacrificially for its welfare. A loving
husband will likewise give himself in sacrificial service for his wife’s
spiritual welfare and physical protection (Eph. 5:23, 25).
3)
Since Christ loves the church, He seeks and
provides for her purity and cleansing (Eph. 5:26, 27). A loving husband will also pursue the
spiritual edification of his wife with his example and Bible instruction.
4)
Since Christ love for the church is evidence by
His care for it as His spiritual body, a husband should care for His wife and
provide for her needs (Eph. 5:28-30).
5)
As Christ initiated and sustains a lasting
relationship with His bride, the church, husbands must follow the instructions
of Gen. 1:24, leave, cleave, one flesh, to maintain the marriage longevity
(Eph. 5:31).
There is a relationship between biblical principles and the
success of a Christian marriage. Though
our culture may reject and discredit the Bible basis for marriage and the
principles the Scriptures afford for the welfare of the Christian home, they
are never-the-less relevant and promising.
When two Christian young people implement these principles in everyday
life, their marriage will prove a blessing to them and glorifying to God. When God’s Word is diligently applied to
life, it produces satisfaction and fulfillment in relationships the humanistic
philosophy of the world cannot assail.
