My Theological Construct of Marriage
I submit that one’s personal theology, core values, beliefs and ultimate understanding of biblical doctrine all buttress one’s framework of marriage. Several questions arise regarding one’s value system, one’s belief system, socialization, cultural exposure which serve to shape the lens by which couples view the world. As such, to avoid repetitive issues, problems and conflict in marriage, there must be some level of unity with respect to the philosophy and/or biblical theology of the marriage couple (Genesis 2:24; I Corinthians 11:11; Ecclesiastes 4:9-10). Elwell (2001) clearly outlines the similar relationship between theology and philosophy, “Since theology and philosophy both engage in critical analysis of the meaning of terms, follow a strict process of observation and reasoning to reach conclusions, and traditionally sought to formulate a consistent worldview, philosophy and theology are overlapping disciplines (Elwell p. 1163). In this regard, the Bible explicitly states, “Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:1-3, King James Version). To better explicate the relational functioning of marriage from a theological perspective let us first examine marriage in the context of creation.
The Creation of Humanity
Seeking to understand the relationship of humanity to God, from a perspective of image and likeness, is an extremely complex issue. As such, any serious attempt to understand what it means to be made in the image of God is centered on the premise of the doctrines of humanity and creation. Several biblical passages speak of the image of God. The best-known is probably Geneses 1:26-27. Verse 26 is God’s statement of intention; it includes the terms (tselem) and (demuth), translated respectively, “image” and “likeness” (Erickson, 1998, p. 519). While the content of the divine image remains a matter of debate, its significance as a marker for human distinctiveness within creation is a matter of broad theological consensus. The problem is that such an assessment of the “imago dei” seems altogether out of keeping with its place in the Bible (McFarland, 2005, p. 1). To establish a sound theology of marriage, one must seek to establish a relationship between humanity and the “likeness” and “image “of God. In terms of creation, what distinguishes man from any other creature? Man is not only a creature, but he is also a person. And to be a person means to have a kind of independence- not absolute but relative. According to Baker (1991), “The idea of the image of God means that humanity has a unique relation to God. There is something about God that is also true of human beings but not true of animals” (p. 36). Implicitly, God created humanity with free will. In the marital context, there is a strong relational functioning that enables the ability to understand and establish covenant, set goals, establish families, make life-changing decisions.
The Fall of Man
So early was the decision -making ability granted to humanity that it led to “the Fall” of man. At the corpus of the decisions made by Adam and Eve were yielding to temptation and disobedience. According to Elwell (2001), “That humanity by creation uniquely bears the image of God is a fundamental biblical doctrine- as is also that this image is sullied by sin and that it is restored by divine salvation” (p. 591). The discourse of deception created by Satan gives a clear preview of his guile.
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was[a]pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:1-6, New King James Version)
Adam and Eve’s disobedience resulted in the fall of humankind, led to man’s spiritual separation from God and broke covenant with God. According to Hoekema (1986), the statement “God created man in his own image” intends to do more than just describe man’s spiritual and moral integrity, but rather humankind was “created was to mirror God and to represent God” (p. 66). Elwell (2001) further establishes a theological framework in support of my earlier statement on the related doctrines. He notes: “Hebrew-Christian theology frames the doctrine of the imago in the setting of divine creation and redemption” (p. 591). As such, the reader should begin to observe a common threat not only of humanity link to God’s image and likeness, but also to the theological constructs of creation, the fall and now redemption.
The Redemption Plan of God
The Son of God, who as the divine Word is the expression of the will and power of God, is not only the agent of creation by whom all things were brought into being and providential sustainer of the universe as a historical continuum (Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2), but also the redeemer in and through whom all God’s purposes of creation are established and brought to fulfillment. In 2 Corinthians 4:3-6, the Apostle Paul links Christ as the “imago dei” with the glory-Christology evident throughout the New Testament.
But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:3-6, New King James Version)
I posit that the fulness of God’s redemptive process cannot be fully comprehended in the absence a revelation of God’s atonement. According to Hughes (1989) “The whole purpose of the incarnation was our redemption. The person of Christ receives its full meaning from the work of Christ” (p. 342). The Bible vividly makes the work of the Cross a very passionate experience. “And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 4:6, New King James Version). In the marriage context, God’s agape love becomes the model to which married couples should aspire (Ephesians 5:21-25). According to Parrott and Parrott (2006), “Consummate love results from the full combination of love’s three components: passion, intimacy, and commitment. Consummate love is the goal toward which every marriage strives” (p. 43). In summary, relational functioning in a marriage may perhaps best be sustained through consummate and unconditional love, oneness and unity in both the natural and spiritual, an intentionally willingness to fidelity, commitment, sacrifice, forgiveness and submission to the divine will of God. Hamilton and Cunningham (2000) affirm the conciliatory view of marriage. He notes that “Jesus came to set in motion the healing God had promised when Adam and Eve shared the great tragedy of the Garden. He came to end the painful consequences of a broken and sinful world, including the rift between men and women” (p. 111).
References
Baker, W. H. (1991). The Image of God. Chicago: Moody Press.
Elwell, A. W. (2001). Evangelical dictionary of theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Hamilton, D. & Cunningham, J. R. L. (2000). Why not women? A fresh look at scripture on women in missions, ministry, and leadership. Washington, Seattle: YWAM Publishing.
Hoekema, A. A. (1986). Created in God’s image. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Hughes, P. E. (1989). The true image. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
McFarland, I. A. (2005). The divine image. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press.
Parrott, L. & Parrott, L. (2006). Saving your marriage before it starts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
