God's Design for Marriage and Family

God, Marriage and the Family
Roderick Booker
Northwest University MATC Final Project
Dr. Ronald Herms
Northwest University,
College of Ministry
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Theology & Culture

Booker 2
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….1
Purpose of Thesis
2. BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF MARRIAGE……………………………………..4
Role of Man and Woman
Egalitarian and Complementary Marriage
Contract, Covenant and Sacramental Marriages
3. SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT……………………………………….27
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………31

Booker 3
3
1. Introduction
Marriage is a covenant to which man and woman are to be committed for the rest of their
lives. Marriage is not something a person can pick up or drop at any time. Unfortunately, this is
what has been modeled in our culture today. Marriage is challenging to maintain and divorces
are becoming increasingly common. In bygone generation, people were commonly married for
fifty to seventy five years; that is now gone. The world I inhabit is now at a place where marriage
is viewed as unimportant and unnecessary. When my wife and I got married at twenty-five years
old, our community treated it as a landmark event. Because, as I was told, it was something rare
in our social setting. I was constantly reminded of how rare it was that my wife and I were
getting married; even more so that we had no children yet, nor were we living together. In
society now, there is a steady rise in divorce rates, high levels of cohabitating families, and
unwed parents. This is something that is all too present in my own community, a sad
commentary within in the African-American context, where there are record numbers of
unmarried couples and cohabiting couples with children out of wedlock.
With this in mind, it seems marriage is a mystery for many, but needs to justified and
clearly defined. That marriage is envisioned as a God-ordained relationship of lifelong covenant
and security between a man and woman God’s intent for mutual love and sacrament between
man and woman is rooted in the beauty and profoundness of Christ’s relationship with the
church.

Booker 4
4
Purpose of the Thesis
To begin, it is necessary to know the extent of what the biblical texts actually say about
marriage. The act of marriage finds roots in biblical theology and then has implications for how
it plays out in today’s contemporary society. Further, the purpose of this thesis will also be to
establish a firm footing in the foundation of biblical theology of marriage and its functionality
and roles. Finally will suggest a well-built conclusion to set the popular record straight about
what God really says about marriage from the research presented.
2. Biblical Theology of Marriage
In order to understand marriage, one must begin with the foundational texts which that
describe creation. For this, one must look to the book of Genesis (1:26-28):
“Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth.” So God Created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to
them, “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every
living thing that moves upon the earth.”
It is important to first grasp that in the cradle of humanity being formed with man (‘adam), God
is seen making his divine appointment to the world by creating human beings; God sets man
apart from everything else created. What is interesting to note in this verse that in God’s creation
of humanity, there is the note of clear distinction that through the “imago Dei” God shared
something with man and man alone. In 1:26, the two words “image” and “Likeness” appear and

Booker 5
5
one learns that the two can be virtually synonymous with only slight differences. Image means,
in the Arabic root sense, “to cut” or “hew.”1
In the biblical text this term causes a bit of
uncertainty because of the challenges with interpretation of its many occurrences. Some of these
occurrences are seen in different references throughout the Old Testament with models of tumors
in 1 Samuel 6:5, pictures of men in Ezekiel 16:17, or even with idols found in Numbers 33:52.
Then there is the term “likeness,” which is very is open and clear on its meaning. Likeness is a
noun which speaks to resembling or being like something or someone and denotes a model or
plan as seen as referenced in 1 Kings 16:10. The word “likeness” has about 25 occurrences
found notably in the book of Ezekiel where he had his vision in 1:5.2
The main question that needs to be asked is, “How do “image” and “likeness” connect in
the bigger picture in regards to man?” There is suggestion as to why; Gordon Wenham sees five
possible solutions. One solution being that image and likeness are distinct, that the image and the
likeness are two distinct aspects of human nature and that it also can refer to the natural abilities
and qualities of man. A second solution is that image refers to the mental and spiritual faculties
that man shares with the creator. This solution speaks to the image of God residing in man’s
logic and reason, personality, and intelligence. A third solution consists of the physical
appearance and resemblance that asserts that man looks like God. This solution can be skewed
based upon the Old Testament’s stress on the invisibility of God as found in Deuteronomy 4:15-
16. A fourth solution suggests that the image makes man God’s representative on Earth. This
solution suggests that man is made in the divine image of God, which makes him his
representative. The last solution is that the image provides man the capacity to relate to God.
This speaks to the thought that man can enter into a personal relationship with God; speak to
1
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15 (Waco, Word Books, 1987), 29.
2
Ibid., 29.

Booker 6
6
God, and to make covenants with God.3
This is encapsulated by Karl Barth when he says, “The
image of God is not part of the human constitution so much as it is a description of the process of
creation which made man different.”
Man was designed by God and was created uniquely by God to be identified as distinct
leader to inhabit the earth. God made man unique and God created man for His purpose to work
and toil as seen in Genesis 2; through the special instructions given to him (2:15-17), what he
can eat (2:15-17), and on laboring to name animals and creatures of the earth (2:19-20). This was
designed by God to set man apart from other creatures and living things on Earth.4
There is a strange paradox that happens in Genesis 2:18-25, which introduces the real
crux of biblical teaching about marriage. This reading discovered in Genesis 1 that these
scriptures mainly deal with the equality of humanity as rulers and co-laborers on the earth, but in
Genesis 2 there is a greater accounting of the value paradigm for how the text views man on
earth. In Genesis 2:18-25, we see the importance of role definitions in marriage is revealed.5
This text makes it clear, “the Lord God said, it is not good for the man to be alone. I will make
him a helper suitable for him.” How interesting and profound to envision, as the text paints the
picture for the world people live in now, God sees something wrong with man as a solitary
creature. God shows a type of parental concern for man in his loneliness. The observation in the
way the verse is worded proposes that the partner is to be a complement to man, not to be
identical with him.6
It has been said for one to live in isolation from others kills this unity and
3
Ibid, 29-31.
4
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., ”Male-Female Equality and Male Leadership: Genesis 1-3,” in Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 102.
5
Ibid. 100-102.
6
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 87.

Booker 7
7
leads to despair.7
However, God saw something in this picture of humanity in its aloneness. In
verse 18, God addressed it by saying man needed a helper that was suitable for him.
The question then is asked, “Why did God not give him a helper early?” Why did God feel it was
now time to provide man with help?” In the article entitled Male-Female Equality and Male
Headship it is answered,
“…Because the man did not yet see the problem of his aloneness. And so God translated the
man’s objective aloneness into a feeling of personal loneliness by setting him to this task. In
serving God, the man encountered his own need” 8
This is an essential reminder in the larger context, that no one is an island unto him or herself.
Communion with one another is a powerful connection; even in midst of being alone, there is
recognition that we need someone with us. God, in His infinite knowledge, recognized that we
also need community. In fact, God has created us to be communal beings; this is seen throughout
Scripture where God always has people connected to someone else (Moses and Aaron, Joshua
and Caleb, as well as Elijah and Elisha to name a few).9
God initiated marriage not only as an
institution, but for strong and powerful companionship between man and woman. This is
designed by God to be life-long journey of companionship between man and woman. Paul, when
7
Johann Christoph Arnold, A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage and God (Farmington, Plough Publishing, 2 Ed.
1999), 10.
8
9
1999), 9.

Booker 8
8
writing to church of Corinth, talks about the importance of martial obligations by saying in 1
Corinthians 7:2-510
:
“But since sexual immorality is occurring; each man should have sexual relations
with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should
fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife
does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the
same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to
his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a
time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so
that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
Many readers misinterpret the context of Paul’s writings to place a high premium or value on
being single the value of singleness, as though that state is more spiritual than marriage as is
sometimes read into the opening of 1 Corinthians 7.11
Even though in 1 Corinthians 7:2 Paul
strongly advocates that having such abstinence as the people of Corinth were arguing for within
the parameters of marriage is strictly not allowed. In actuality Paul is making a strong declaration
and affirmation for marriage and not waiting to hesitate to get married.12
In practical applications, Paul’s reminder is there is no such thing as friends with benefits
or exclusive relationships. Paul also does not negate the fact that marriage is a means to avoid the
issue and problem of fornication, but brings to light that marriage is something that a Christian
should partake in. In reading 7:3-4, to further continue in what is seen in the proceeding 7:2,
when it reads “having one’s own spouse,” in context Paul is speaking to the extent and means of
mutual sexual relationship within marriage. That brings clarity to two points: one being that
10
Ryken, Leyland, Jim Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer Grove:
Intervarsity, 1998) 945-947
11
John Piper, “Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2006), 54- 55.
12
Andreas J Kostenberger and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical
Foundation. 2nd
Edition (Wheaton; Crossway 2010) 54.

Booker 9
9
sexual relationships are appropriate within the framework of marriage as further pointed in 7:3;
and, secondly, what is attached and now seen in 7:4, that body is not a free standing position
anymore – rather it belongs now to one’s spouse as cross referenced in Genesis 2:24 and Mark 13
Paul finishes the discourse in this passage about the importance of sexual relations between
husband and wife as they fulfill their obligations towards each other under the umbrella of
marriage as one flesh.14
Gordon Fee’s assessment of Paul here understands the prominence of
mutuality. What Fee means is that there is a correct way to foster mutuality in marriage, which is
not to make demands upon each other, but to stress the importance of mutual responsibility
toward one another in marriage.15
Some writers interpret Paul’s own feelings of celibacy in 7:7 as a spiritual gift (charisma)
and not as a higher good beyond that. Paul might have been a bit biased in his thoughts because
of his own personal preferences experience.16
Now indeed, Paul expands the principles and the
point of celibacy later in verses 7-8 and 33-35.17
Paul urges celibacy in the context of a man and
woman being celibate until they married; Paul affirms celibacy as being good, but not higher or
morally better than being married.18
For practical purposes, Paul’s reminder is that there is no
such thing as friends with benefits or exclusive relationships. Paul also does not negate the fact
that marriage is a means to avoid the issue and problem of fornication, but emphasizes that
marriage is something that a Christian should partake in.
13
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1987), 278-279.
14
John Piper, “Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2006), 55.
15
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1987), 279.
16
Ibid., 277.
17
J. Carl Laney, “Paul and the Permanence of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7” JETS 25 no. 3 (Fall 1982),
http://etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/25/25-3/25-3-pp.283-294_Jets.pdf (accessed 3 December 2012).
18
Gordon Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1987), 277.

Booker 10
10
A. The Role of Man and Wife in Marriage
Here now comes the point of metaphorical “surgery” which God performs on man; Genesis 2:22-
23 reads:
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and
he 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.
Richard Hess referred to the solution of man’s loneliness coming when God builds the woman
from his side. The rib (‘tslea) actually refers to the side of the man, a part of the body that is
neither above nor below him; thus making man and woman equal. It is noteworthy to observe
how woman fits in relation to man, because she has come from his rib.19
This is the intent – that
man not receive his new gift from God in haste, and that man realize the time and quality God
put into woman. The man’s main perception of his new partner is not to be seen in rivalry but
rather to see her as his equal and the only one capable of fulfilling the longing that man
experienced in his time of aloneness. The woman is seen as man’s helper; the man was not
created to help woman, but the reverse.20
A further image of marriage emerges in the form of the balancing line of navigating
livelihood; social and economic arrangements are imperative for a marriage to survive and
thrive. This speaks to present-day husbands and wives from the pages of the Old Testament
regarding how to provide the physical, spiritual and emotional needs of life and family.21
This is
19
Gordon Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 87.
20
Phillip Payne Barton, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s
Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2009), 102.
21
Ryken, Leyland, Jim Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove,
Intervarsity 1998), 947.

Booker 11
11
why the image of the wife as a helpmate is essential to marriage and for her husband. The wife
is seen as a literal and metaphoric fellow companion and traveler who will go through the ups
and downs in the journey of life with her husband.22
The man is to love his wife by receiving,
accepting and understanding the responsibility for making their partnership a strong platform.
For the woman it is her duty and power to love her husband by supporting him, and thereby
bringing happiness and glory to God. Both man and woman have responsibility. There lays the
important claim from the New Testament written by Paul in Ephesians 5:21-33 about a
husband’s and wife’s responsibilities, which will be delved into later.
This opening of the creation story includes the illustration of marriage and what marriage
is all about. Marriage is the emotional fusion of two personalities into functional operation, yet
both retaining their own identities.23
In marriage there is a greater symbolism for the unity of
Christ with his Church. Marriage in its very framework and blueprint is instituted by God in
Genesis 2:18-24 and we find in the New Testament it was sanctioned by Jesus Christ in his very
presence and attendance at the marriage at Cana in Galilee as found in John 2:1-11,24
On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was
there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the
wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” “Woman,
why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” His mother
said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Nearby stood six stone water
jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty
to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants “Fill the jars with water”; so they
filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the
master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the
water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from,
22
Ibid., 947.
23
24
Ryken, Leyland, Jim Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer Grove,
Intervarsity, 1998), 947.

Booker 12
12
though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the
bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then
the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved
the best till now.” What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the
signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
It is also found in Revelation 19:7-9 which reads, “The Wedding of the lamb has come,
and his bride had made herself ready”. This is a profound reminder of the seriousness of
marriage suggesting that in the same fashion that we are connected to Jesus Christ, so in the
earthly sense one is connected to the marriage partner for the rest of one’s life. Jesus also
reminds us of the permanence of marriage in Matthew 19:6-9, “Therefore what God has joined
together, let no one separate.”25
No matter what happens nothing should separate or tear down a
God ordained union. The reality of marriage is not merely a human custom by any stretch of the
imagination, but a divinely created institution. Marriage is the re-unionizing of man and woman
into being one; it gives way to the deeper meaning of two lives being amalgamated together into
one shared life as depicted in Genesis 2:24.
This leads to the importance of what the bible teaches about marriage from the view of
roles and structure as written by Paul in Ephesians 5:21-33,
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit yourselves to
your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife
as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the
church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in
everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave
himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water
through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain
or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless In this same way,
husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife
loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care
25
1999), 9-10.

Booker 13
13
for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his
body.“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am
talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his
wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
This passage is bursting with various instructions for marriage. In the larger illustration
from the text one sees the comparison to 1 Corinthians 11 about Christ’s subjection to God, but
now we find it in the human example of the wife to the husband. The passage deals with key
ideals, which appeal to the flow of argument in verse 22-24; the submission by the wife to her
husband as head, as the church submits to Christ, its head.26
There should be a further recognition that the wife views her husband as the spiritual
leader and head of the household. Peter O’ Brien establishes in his commentary on Ephesians
5:22 the understanding must be clear that God has established certain leadership and certain
authoritative roles within the family structure and submission is seen as a humble recognition of
that God ordained order of structure.27
O’Brien makes it clear in saying, “The apostle is not
urging every woman to submit to every man, but wives to husbands”. Submission as a voluntary
character act is referenced in Colossians 3:18.28
Paul continues caution to wives as a challenge to their freedom urging responsibility in
character which can only be heeded voluntarily; he is not advocating the breaking of the human
will. In plain terms, submission should never be forced. O’Brien assesses that authority should
not be synonymous with tyranny, and it should be clearly emphasized that the submission as read
in this verses should not imply any inferiority of the wife to the husband. In verses 25-30, Paul
26
Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 408.
27
Ibid., 411.
28
Ibid., 411.

Booker 14
14
also explains the love the husband should have for his wife, as Christ loves the church, which
deals with mutual submission in marriage.
That man is to love his wife no matter what may happen, and not be afraid to hear out
what she has to say or need. Then, in verse 31-33 Paul concludes with emphasis on how the
husbands are to love and wives are to offer respect. The theological scope should be on the view
of the very limitations of the marital bonds between the wife and husband. In looking at the role
and function of the husband and wife as read in Ephesians, one discovers throughout the passage
that the man is to love his wife, and wife is to respect her husband in fear. Here fear does not
mean to be scared, but in the sense of reverence for the husband, which equates to the wife’s love
for her husband as the head of the household. This again transcends a much larger picture of
God and his people are connected via the example of marriage;29
that Christians should have
love and reverence for the exalted Lord as the great Head of the church.
The true focus of attention in verse 22, “
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands
as you do to the Lord”, in Paul’s further writing about marriage. The issues and challenges
within marriage to submit to one another and also speak to the reality of modern society’s issues
with women thinking that they are to be the slave of the husband. It’s important to further
scrutinize Ephesians 5:22 by further translating its preceding verse 21, in its Greek phrase,
“submitting to one another” retains its usual force in the very context of the parallel phrases that
precede it. It represents a subordinate participle clause depending on the preceding imperative.30
Simply put, submission flows in connection with being filled with the spirit of God as we find in
verse 18.
29
Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 58.
30
Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s’ Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic 1992), 158.

Booker 15
15
The essential posture of wives in marriage is for women to be submissive to men. In
culturally understanding marriage from the Graeco-Roman and Jewish social conventions they
called for the subordination of wives to their husbands.31
Submission does not mean putting the
husband in place of Christ, giving up independent thought, giving into every demand of her
husband, or that a wife is of lesser intelligence or competence. Submission in the text defined by
the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek-English Lexicon is a form of voluntary yielding in
love.32
This is the emphasis of the Christian community as marked in its main characteristics
throughout the New Testament (cf. Philippians 2:3, 2:5, Matthew 20:26-28, Mark 10:43-45,
Luke 22:26, 27). Even in reading passages like 1 Peter 3:1-7, “Be submissive to your husband’s”
the context deals with the level of yielding in love for a wife to her husband’s authority and
leadership in marriage. In the New Testament, it is a form of exhortation to mutually and
voluntarily submit to one another.
In Ephesians 5:21, what makes this so significant for understanding marriage from the
biblical context is that it sets the tone for what marriage should look like between husband and
wife and vice versa. Paul continues to re-affirm the importance of man’s headship as husband
throughout his writings. Paul reminds readers in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, that woman was indeed
created to help man and also re-establishes the role of husband as validated through the divine
action and appointment in Genesis 2:21-24.33
Paul concludes in Ephesians 5:22-24 that wives should “in everything” submit to their
husbands and this all-inclusive word means in all aspects of life. One should not think for one
instant that Paul gives authority for husbands to lord over their wives! Paul makes his case
31
George Knight, “Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church,” in Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem
32
Ibid., 166.
33
Ibid., 177.

Booker 16
16
when he teaches about one in authority being a lord over the one, in 2 Corinthians 1:24 and it is
reiterated by Peter in 1 Peter 5:3, where he reminds the elders, to whom young men submit, to
must not be lord over those under them.34
B. The Egalitarian vs. Complementarianism Marriage Debate
There are two competing arguments concerning the structure and hierarchy of marriage:
complementation and egalitarian marriage structures. A complementary marriage believes in the
equality of men and women as persons, that there is no clear distinction; all humans are created
in God’s image. However, complementariness holds to the ideal of gender distinctions and
functions when it pertains to certain roles in society, the church, and home. For egalitarians,
their thoughts and beliefs lay on the basis of no gender distinctions that since all Christians are
one in Christ. For them, the role of men and women can be indeed interchangeable when it
comes to any function whether it is within the church, home, or society.
This view is shared by Craig Keener who believes that the role of the husband in Paul’s
writing is not clearly defined and brings an interesting reading of the Ephesians text forth. He
believes that the responsibility of the husband to love his wife is not really stressed as much as it
is seen for the wife to submit to him. Keener continues to stress that in Paul’s writings in
Ephesians 5:21-33, he does not really urge for the husband to inculcate submission in his wife.
The only instruction for husbands is to serve their wives as Christ served and loved them; and as
34
George Knight, “Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church,” in Recovering Biblical
Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem

Booker 17
17
he would his own body.35
Vern Sheridan Poythress does not dismiss the importance of the
husband’s role as written by Paul. In fact Poythress stressed that according to Ephesians 5:22-23,
it speaks to the important role of husbands, to have the same responsibilities as those of Christ,
where wives have the same responsibilities as the church. The husbands grow in the imitation of
the love of Christ and the wives grow in imitation of the submission of the church; the emphasis
is that the role of the husbands and wives are not reversible.36
This leads to arguments on the nature of marriage with varying degrees of
complementing one another. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis in their book
entitled, Discovering Biblical Equality spent the majority of their research emphasizing that in
fact, men and women or husbands and wives, even though different in gender, should find room
for equality within marriage somehow. What is found in many arguments by egalitarians is most
especially argued by Judith and Jack Balswicks, who stress the importance of taking the
hierarchy and superiority out of marriage. Instead of focusing on the structure of who is the boss
and in charge, they advocate focusing on the changing reality that equality within roles should be
emphasized in every facet of marriage. The Balswicks believe that marital equality can best be
understood in the wider biblical context in how the Creator God relates to us, the created ones.37
They make their best argument, but sadly they avoid Ephesians 5:22-31 about the roles of
husband and wives in the larger biblical context. Here there is a hierarchy but it is not to be
abused by the husband and the fact that it deals with mutual submission between the husband and
wife. The continual driving issue of what egalitarians would see in marriage is the unit between
35
Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s’ Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic 1992) 166-67.
36
Vern Sheridan Poythress, The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family require male
leadership in the church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 243.
37
Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon D. Fee. Discovering Biblical Equality:
Complimentarily without Hierarchy (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004), 456.

Booker 18
18
husband and wife as being equal, they deserve equal respect, they give equally, but what they
give is not the same. For example, a right hand and left hand are equal but cannot clap until they
come together in theory, but in fact unequal in roles. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis tends to go back
to Genesis 1:26-28.
For her, when one looks at the variations in the abilities of individuals, within human
equality between men and women, it cements that women are inherently able to participate
equally with men in various distinct human activities.38
In other words, women can do the same
things as men. But, the distinctions Groothuis makes in her assessment of egalitarian marriage is
that the different aptitudes and proclivities of males and females also point to the ways that
women and men can complement each other – in the ways they live, work, and connect in the
larger context of recognizing the power of equality via maturity, giftedness, social and spiritual
worth and value.39
There is a reminder from Groothuis that, “egalitarians do not affirm an
equality of identity or sameness between men and women.” The reminder is that men and
women are not the identical; they have the distinct roles.
Therefore, within the vision of biblical complementarily, John Piper assesses the point
that in the current vision of masculine and feminine identities, complementarily is not perfect in
the portrayal, but it is faithful to its intent. Piper suggests that when one looks at the way God
intended it to be before sin was in the world, there was a sinless man, full of love, in his tender
strong leadership in relation to woman; further, there was a sinless woman, full of love, in her
joyful, responsive, support for man’s leadership. The two, when combined together, show a man
38
George Alan Rekers, “Psychology: Psychological Foundations for rearing Masculine Boys and Feminine
Girls,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper
and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 307.
39
Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Gordon D. Fee. Discovering Biblical Equality:
Complementarily without Hierarchy (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004), 456-57.

Booker 19
19
who does not belittle his woman and a woman who does not cringe. The two, Piper suggests,
work together as two intelligent, humble and God-centered beings living out, in beautiful
harmony, their very unique and different responsibilities.40
However, what is missed by many egalitarians is that the structure of different roles of
man and woman do not take away from the very substance and essence of the man’s or woman’s
identity in marriage. God does not elevate man only to belittle or make less of the woman.
Rather, God has different roles and assignments that bring glory to Himself. The best examples
of the differences with respect to equality are shown within the Trinity as articulated in 1
Corinthians 11:3.
C. Contract, Covenant and Sacramental Marriages
There are three commonly held viewpoints on the personality of marriage. Those three
views are: marriage as a contract; marriage as a covenant; and, marriage as sacrament. One view,
in which marriage is seen, is the contract model of marriage. This comes from the Latin term,
contractus. This view of marriage is the most commonly and widely known as the materialistic
understanding of marriage that has dominated western culture.41
In regards to the contractual
model of marriage there is no invocation of biblical scripture as grounds for authority of
marriage when two parties join together. Gary Chapman defined this marriage contract in five
characteristics:
40
John Piper, “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible,” in
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism ed. John Piper and
Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 52.
41
Foundation. 2nd
Edition (Wheaton; Crossway 2010), 72.

Booker 20
20
A marriage contract is made for a limited time period, a marriage contract often deals
with specific actions or needs, a marriage contract is contingent upon the performance of
obligations of the partners, a marriage contract is entered into for one’s own benefit and, finally a
marriage contract is sometimes spoken and implied.42
Within the contractual model of marriage, there are two mutual parties formed together
and then dissolved together by the two individuals. This model of marriage goes as far back as
medieval ecclesiastical courts via the writings of the Enlightenment thinkers who rooted
marriage in the civil law. Therefore, this view of marriage emphasizes the power of overseeing
the institution of marriage and causes allotment for marriage and divorce licenses and
certificates.43
The contractual model of marriage often lingers in Christian expressions of
marriage by way of amalgamating terminology and verbosity into the vows that present the
marriage formally. Now the issues that the Andreas Kostenberger, author of God, Marriage and
Family, brings to attention about the contractual model is that it is a reductionist teaching and is
nowhere found in the biblical texts as a way marriage is described. The only thing we can
connect to the marriage is the fact that marriage is an agreement made up between man and
woman, but again it does not give the full scope of what marriage is all about.44
The second thing Kostenberger argues is a deficiency in the permanence of marriage,
because the contractual model places its full stability, responsibility, and security of marriage on
42
Gary Chapman, Covenant Marriage: Building Communication and Intimacy (Nashville: Broadman, 2003),
8-10.
43
Foundation 2nd
Edition (Wheaton: Crossway 2010), 72.
44
Ibid., 71-72.

Booker 21
21
the ability of the mutual parties to not make mistakes in the marriage.45
In this model, if one
commits a mistake in the marriage of some sort, then the other spouse has the right to dissolve
the marriage via breaking the contract. This indeed causes the marriage to be very unstable and
unreliable to anyone who gets involved it, which goes against the emphasis on the permanence of
marriage we have become accustomed.46
Matthew 19:4-6 states,
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and
female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his
wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Also in Genesis 2:24 it reads:
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one
flesh”.
Kostenberger finally states that a further issue in which the contractual marriage model
poses a problem – rooting marriage in civil law opens a Pandora’s Box of marital arrangements
that biblical texts prohibit. Great examples are widely displayed in pop culture; one of these is
the recent marriage of Kim Kardashian to Kris Humphries and the contractual caveat of money
for certain amount of time spent being married. Also, in a public platform, the reality is that
pushes can be made for same sex marriages, polygamy, incestuous marriage, and bestiality.47
Kostenberger maintains scripture goes against these forms or marriage as does Genesis 1:27-28;
and 2:23-24.
45
Ibid., 72.
46
Ibid., 72.
47
Andreas J. Kostenberger and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical
Foundation. 2nd

Booker 22
22
In the church today, when one begins to substitute the human laws and values into a
divine act and revelation of what God intended marriage to be, this model of having a contract
goes against what the scripture says and what marriage is all about.
A second model of marriage is the covenant model, which is defined as a martial scared
bond between a man and a woman constituted by God, in which entered in and before God.48
The covenant marriage gives the firm ideal that marriage is a bond tie to individuals for life.49
We find in the Old Testament the Song of Solomon 8:6-7,
Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong
as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a
mighty flame.
Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot sweep it away. If one were to give
all the wealth of one’s house for love, it would be utterly scorned.
In this poetic verse, the longevity, stability and eternal longing of marriage are celebrated.
These are then reinforced by Jesus in Matthew 19:6 when He says, “So they are no longer two,
but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” The essence of this
type of marriage is birthed in the mutual contract between two individuals, but the difference
between that of the contractual model to the covenant model, is rooted in a sacred bond between
the husband and wife. This is presented and shown in Malachi 2:14, where it is says:“You ask,
“Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have
been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.”
The covenantal view of marriage is based and rooted in the definition found in Genesis 2:24,
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one
48
Ibid., 73.
49
Ryken, Leyland, Jim Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downer Grove,
Intervarsity 1998), 497-98.

Booker 23
23
flesh.” In grasping hold to this verse, you are connected to the view that marriage is strictly and
exclusively for heterosexual covenant between one man and one woman, signed, sealed,
ordained by God.
There it is seen that man, makes a proclamation to his parents of leaving their home,
finding a wife and consummating sexually, in growing as a unit as one, and to raise a family.
Covenant, translated from the Hebrew berit, entails and is demarcated as the “idea of a solemn
commitment, guaranteeing, promises or obligations by both conveying parties.”50
This particular
view of marriage has roots in the background of the Old Testament; most biblical studies present
marriage as certain typology of the relationship between God and his people. The illustration of
marriage was seen in the Old Testament was depicted through covenant relationships sprinkled
throughout the biblical narrative between God and his people (cf. Noah, Abraham, Moses and
David, as found, respectively, in Genesis 21:22-24; 1 Samuel 18:3; 1 Kings 5:1-12; and, 2 Kings
11:17). Further, it is also seen through the children of Israel (cf. Isaiah 54:5-8; Jeremiah 2:1-3;
31:31-32; Ezekiel 23; and, Hosea 1-3). Finally, this perspective is cemented in the New
Testament (new covenant) with Jesus’ teaching about himself as the bridegroom and his
followers as the bride (Mark 2:18-20; John 3:29). Kostenberger, alludes to the studies done by
Instone-Brewer on the Hebrew word berit that suggest the antithesis of both contractual and
covenant understanding of marriage, as seen in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36-37 in the sense
covenants could be broken like that of contractual agreement.51
However, a point of importance
is the one of the intriguing portion of the New Covenant, in which we find God as the promise
50
Foundation. 2nd
51
Ibid., 74.

Booker 24
24
keeper, even when humanity would not. This is the power of the New Covenant pointed out by
Kostenberger, that the New Covenant is immutable! This is, as Kostenberger states, “What make
the New Covenant so special and indeed unique.”52
The New Covenant unveils a more permanent and long-lasting commitment, which is
limited to this life only, as presented by Jesus in Matthew 22:30: “At the resurrection people will
neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”In embracing the
inferences of the covenantal model of marriage, in which there are the five key points to keep in
mind. The first inference is the emphasis on the eternalness of marriage. The constant point in
further grasping the knowledge of a covenantal marriage is that it is a serious deal for two parties
to be joined together and it should not at all be taken lightly, as we find through Jesus’ words in
Matthew 19:6. A second inference is the blessedness of marriage, that unlike the contractual
marriage view, this not a human commitment or agreement made by two parties. It is the
commitment of two parties before and under God as referenced in Genesis 2:22. Third inference
is the relationship of marriage that as Genesis 2:23-25 suggests, a man leaves his parents and
cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh. This designates the couple functioning as a team
of one and makes the point about the importance of sexual intercourse between only the husband
and wife (also stated in Hebrews 13:4). The fourth inference is the mutual empathy of marriage.
The very importance of this inference is seen in Ephesians 5:25-30 saying that marriage is not
designed to be selfish but self-less. In marriage, the husband and wife are both looking out for
the well being of each other and their family. The husband and wife are to be continually
52
Ibid., 74.
53
Paul Tripp, What Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 74-75.

Booker 25
25
practicing grace, mercy, and forgiveness, just as God has shown them.53
The final inference is
the sophistication of marriage, as Genesis 2:23-25 and 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 insist that marriage is
exclusive to husband and wife! This should always be something to remember, that nobody
should be in your marital business! Whatever is between husband and wife is between the two of
them!
The third view of marriage is the sacrament model. This model is largely a product of the
historical church tradition. The word sacramentum is the Latin term used by Jerome in his fourth
century C.E. Vulgate translation to render the Greek concept of mystery, also known as
mysterion. This view designates the power of a marriage relationship in connection to the
analogy between Christ and the Church, as it has been highlighted in the Ephesians 5:32 saying:
“This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” The idea of
marriage as a sacrament model was fully developed and founded on the Roman Catholic
theologians via sacramental theology which is rooted in the seven sacraments that are dispensed
by the church. These sacraments are baptism, communion, confirmation, the Eucharist, marriage,
anointing of the sick, and holy orders; thus the Roman church using the description of marriage
as sacrament.54
The theological point of Paul’s argument does not budge from the metaphorical
groundwork of human marriage to Christ and his Church, but rather symbolically presents Christ
and the church in a connected and loving relationship as the foundation for the Christian husband
and wife.
The Sacramental model of marriage is utilized by the couple participating in an
ecclesiastical rite that grace is given for the couple being married on the basis of the idea that
God releases grace through the church and through the participation in the taking of the
54
Foundation. 2nd

Booker 26
26
sacraments.55
The sacraments as seen are the very signals that point to the presence of the Lord
among his people. In this act, most Catholics believe that God wills to make himself present
among us and to confer his grace upon the married couple.
What is seen in the sacramental marriage model that can be questioned is that nothing in
the marriage magically or mystically dispenses grace to the couples that join together in
matrimony.56
We are reminded through by scriptures found in 2 Corinthians 5:17 and Ephesians
4:23-24 that we are to become new creatures in Christ and there is a realization that there is no
intrinsic power in the vows of marriage. Secondly, we find that the marriage approach that is
presented by sacramental marriage model does not reflect the taught biblical ideal of marriage as
a whole, whereby God created for man and woman a design of marriage as the way of creating
new physical life, not as way of attainting spiritual salvation or maintaining a spiritual life.57
Marriage is designed for the couple to procreate and cycle on through their physical
offspring, versus that of grace being released by couple’s joint participation in marriage. Lastly,
the issue with this model lies in the issue that the husband and the church control the wives. The
bible does not provide any support of the claim that the church is to be in control of the husband
and wife. Why? Because we know that in the New Testament, Jesus himself is said to be the
head of the church and to be the Lord and savior of the husband and wife as it reads in Ephesians
4:23-27,
55
Ibid., 70-71.
56
Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1999), 431.
57
Foundation. 2nd
Edition (Wheaton; Crossway 2010), 70-71.

Booker 27
27
“to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created
to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put
off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one
body “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still
angry, and do not give the devil a foothold”
Further, in 1 Corinthians 11:3,
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the
woman is man, and the head of Christ is God
In looking at the sacramental model of marriage, we see that it is not borne out of the biblical
scripture but based in mystical thought and idealism that counters that of the biblical superlative
of marriage as we know it be based upon what God has stated in his word.
3. Setting the Record Straight: What the Bible Tell Us about Marriage
I would like to set the record straight on Marriage from my perspective and purely my
perspective.
I have come to find it interesting that when women are asked about the prospect of
marriage, they are enamored with an idealistic fantasy of marriage but balk at the prospect of
making such as large commitment. Most African American men go through a vicious cycle of
non-committed relationships because of their father and their father’s father pattern of not being
married. This is not only the norm for people in my community but is becoming a trend
everywhere. Why is this happening to the fabric of marriage? I read the following assessment
from a professor: many Americans today are marrying less and succeeding less often at marriage
because alternatives have become more attractive, relative to marriage, than they once were. I
agree with the professor on this assessment but also would add to this a lack of knowledge and

Booker 28
28
understanding about what marriage is really about and what God intended marriage to be is
important. The problem we find in mainstream society and culture is what marriage is not.
Sadly, we miss the fact – sometimes even as Christians – that the Holy Scriptures teaches a lot
about what marriage is; upon looking more closely we find it is totally different from what
modern society tells us or even depicts about marriage. We have let literature written about
marriage and reality television define what marriage is. We have let social network and media
define what marriage is. We have even gone as far as letting our government officials define
what marriage is and what it should look like, but we often miss the biggest thing of all things,
we need to define and model marriage and the marital responsibilities after what the bible, says
through God’s word. Jerry Bressler, wrote a rebuttal letter entitled, “Christians must base belief
on Bible, not culture” he made the assessment that we should never compromise on the bible in
order to reconcile it with culture, that when we do that we set the precedent and bring to life that
two wrongs don’t make a right.
We should not waver in the regards to what the bible says marriage is all about. The
biblical texts are indeed clear and plain for us digest and apply. In Genesis 2:18, 21-24 we find
that God created, instituted, and ordained marriage for us to participate in; that man is to leave
his family of origin and go find a wife and they are to become one. This was God’s original plan
and design for man to connect to, and make a covenant commitment with his wife and
companion, and then they will start a family together. This is reiterated for us in the New
Testament by Jesus himself when he said in Matthew 19:4-6
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them
male and female, and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother
and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no

Booker 29
29
longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one
separate.”
This speaks to the longevity and permanence of marriage. This is especially important in times
like this where we are seeing more and more in post-modern society the social construct of
marriage being built upon safety nets such as contractual models of marriage where there are
pre-nuptial agreements, arranged marriages, and high level of divorce rates which were recently
at 40%-41% according to the last census. All these things build a foundation on sand, there is
nothing to stand on and at the first sign of trouble the marriage dissolves. The bible instructs us
on the value of having a long-lasting commitment to the one we marry.
Then we look at the functionality of how marriage is supposed to work according to the
bible. In our society now, we find that we can shift the paradigm of role reversals in marriage.
Not so fast, the biblical texts argue. Like a coach of a basketball team who gives a speech, we all
have a role to play which allows the team to function. God is a God of order not of disorder. Paul
in Ephesians 5:21-25 imagines what this could look like:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your
husband’s as you do the Lord. For the Husband is the head of the church, his
body, of which he is the Savior, Now as the church submits to Christ, so also
wives should submit to their husband in everything. Husbands love your wives,
just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Husbands are seen as the ones who can provide and also protect their families even at the
cost of giving up their lives like Christ did for the church. The role of the husband in a Godly
marriage is to be the leader, the spiritual head, and the provider for his family; while the wife is
supportive and voluntary in love submitting to her husband and standing beside him, allowing
him and letting him be strong not only in stature but as the leader of the household without
emasculating him. But, sadly enough, in our postmodern culture we rarely get a glimpse of this
type of man. Instead we have husbands that are viewed as career and sex driven men, cheaters,

Booker 30
30
drunkards, and behaviorally immature to say the least. If you do not believe me name three
sitcoms that have portrayed such as husband. This is even more disheartening in the African
American community, where we find that even on television the days of Bill Cosby are gone.
Through television, music, books, magazines, and reality TV, African American men are
emasculated and unmasked – not unlike slavery times – and made look like buffoons who are
sex-crazed black men who don’t take care of their children, who are lazy and don’t want to work,
who are not to be taken seriously, non-providers, and ungodly. All the while African American
women are seen as the dominant, more responsible, more paternal, more serious, and more
determined contributors to society.
This vision is all too realistic for me, in regards to what we have viewed in the function
of marriage in my very own community and through culture today. This is not what God
intended when he instituted marriage. The reality of marriage is this, that it intends man and
woman to come together to become one flesh. This now becomes a team of one which is
designed for the one to be able to love, share in one’s burdens, share in the blessings, bask in the
victories and work through the defeats. This is the gift that God gave us. Marriage is something
that should be celebrated and at thought of as permanent. Paul reminds in 1 Corinthians 13 that
“Love is patient, love is kind, does not envy, does not boast, does not dishonor, does not get
easily angered, does not keep a record of right and wrongs…. And most of all it never fails.” We
as Christians need to put our faith in, and definition of, marriage back to where it belongs –
God’s Word the bible, and resist the cultural distortions that end in heartache.

Booker 31
31
Bibliography
Arnold, Johann Christoph. A Plea for Purity: Sex, Marriage and God 2nd Edition. Farmington: Plough
Publishing House, 1999.
Chapman, Gary. Covenant Marriage: Building Communications and Intimacy. Nashville: Broadman, 2003.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistles to the Corinthians . Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1987.
Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans, 1975.
Jones, Andreas J. Kostenberger and David W. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical
Foundation 2nd Edition . Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Keener, Craig. Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women's Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic , 1992.
Laney, J. Carl. "Paul and the Permanence of Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7." JETS, 1982: 283-294.
O'Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1999.
Payne, Phillip Barton. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's
Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 2009.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to
Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton: Crossway, 2006.
Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merill Groothuis and Gordon D. Fee. Discovering Biblical Equality:
Complementarity Without Hierarchy. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Ryken, Leland, Jim Wilhoit, Tremper Longman, Colin Duriez, Douglas Penney, and Daniel G Reid.
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.
Schaeffer, Francis. Genesis in Time and Space. Glendale: Regal Books Publications, 1972.
Tripp, Paul. What Did You Expect? Redeeming the Realities of Marriage. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
Wenham, Gordon. World Biblical Commentary on Genesis 1-15. Waco, TX: Word Books Publishing, 1987.

God's Design for Marriage and Family

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to God's Design for Marriage and Family

Similar to God's Design for Marriage and Family (20)

God's Design for Marriage and Family