Fr.

Shenouda Boutros
201015250

The nature of Marriage according to the New Testament.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

The nature of Marriage according to the New Testament.

In todays western culture divorce has become very common and cultural
norms that once upon a time restricted divorce, no longer play an inhibitive
role. Marriage is seen as a private affair between two couples, or worse yet,
in the reigning of therapeutic worldview, marriage is seen as a means to the
individuals achievement of fulfillment and personal wholeness.1 Such a view
of marriage will determine the ethics concerning divorce or the ending of a
marriage. This essay will focus on understanding the nature of marriage and
according to the New Testament writings in order to understand the words of
Jesus, I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and
marries another commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).

The passage of Mark 10:2-12 is an important passage in which Jesus

discusses marriage and divorce. It is found in a section of the gospel dealing
with the cost of discipleship. In Chapter 10 Mark discusses what is required
from those who wish to be disciples of Christ. He begins with a transformed
higher ideal for the concept of marriage, followed by the teaching on how the
disciple must become like a child, the story of the rich man, the need to
forsake all for Christ, and the abandonment of desire for authority. Why does
Mark place this passage on marriage and divorce in this section of the
gospel? Hays writes, Upon reflection, the answer becomes clear: by placing
this material in its present narrative location, Mark presents marriage as one
1

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary

Introduction to New Testament Ethics, (New York: Harper One, 1996), p. 348.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

aspect of discipleship.2 As an important aspect of discipleship Christ brings

attention to the inquiring Pharisees, the higher (renewed) understanding of the
nature of marriage, required to be disciples of Christ. When the Pharisees
asked Jesus about the legality of divorce He did not answer from a legal
perspective but instead spoke about the ontology of marriage. As Hays puts
it, starting from a question about the legal permissibility of divorce, opens out
into a symbolic reframing of marriage as an aspect of Christian discipleship
and as a reflection of Gods primal purpose in creating humanity male and
female.3 Thus Jesus reintroduced the correct understanding of the nature of
marriage. Jesus said: But from the beginning of creation, God made them
male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are
not longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no
one separate (Mark 10:6-9). This is repeated in the parallel gospel of
Mathew 19:4-5.

In these few verses the Lord articulated much about the nature of marriage.
He spoke of the ideal nature of marriage before the fall of man and the
subsequent corruption by sin. Jesus pointed back to the creation story found
in Genesis, explaining that God created humanity as male and female: So
God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27). Jesus framed his
discussion of marriage on the important foundation that God created mankind
as two different but complementary sexes and that marriage is founded on
2
3

Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 350.

Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, p. 350.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

these two different sexes. The creation order is that from the beginning of
creation God made human beings male and female. Because of this duality
of the sexes, a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.4
Jesus brought the attention of the Pharisees to this very important point that
marriage is something planned by God from the beginning of creation and by
its nature, according to His plan, is the union of the male and female person.
Marriage, then, is Gods design from the beginning, when He formed man as
two different beings; and the difference is sexual.5

Jesus went onto say, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife (Mark 10:7). Here the Lord referred to Genesis
2:24, Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife,
and they become one flesh. It is because of this difference in sexes that a
man should leave his father and mother, that is, his family and is joined to his
wife, in order to start his own family. In essence male and female are joined
together in marriage precisely because they are male and female. It is a
noteworthy point that God differentiates the human person based on sexual
difference, however no distinction is made between a Greek, black, white or
Jewish man, the only distinction is between male and female.

Jesus made a clear distinction between male and female, but their
complementarity is emphasized when the Lord said in Mark 10:8 and the two
shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. It is clear
4

Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, (Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001), p. 276.
5
Matthias F. Wahba, Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius, (Minneapolis,
MN: Light and Life Publishing, 1996), p. 167.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

that male and female, who although different, based on sex, are
complementary and in marriage are united to become one flesh. This
understanding of difference and complementation to make one flesh is
highlighted in the Genesis story by the fact that Eve is created from the flesh
(rib) of Adam. John Chrysostom commented on this saying: And see how He
saith, He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female,
that is, from one root they sprung and into one body came they together, for
the twain shall be one flesh.6 From the beginning we get a sense that God
created man not to be alone but united, male and female different but one.
Importantly the nature of marriage as intended from the beginning is between
one male and one female, not between a male and a male or a female and a
female or male and several females. Clearly polygamy was never part of the
nature of marriage nor was same sex. John Chrysostom eloquently writes:
But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only,
but also from His command. For he said not, that He made
one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this
command that the one man should be joined to the one
woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one
away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He
would have formed many women.7
Witherington gives a similar contemporary understanding:
Jesus argument, then, seems to be as follows: God in creation made two
distinct but complementary human genders. God then also brought the two
complementary genders together in marriage. No third party is allowed into
this relationship. 8

St. John Chrysostom, Volume X Homilies on St. Matthew, in The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers: first series, edited by Philip Schaff. (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1989), p. 382.
7
St. John Chrysostom, Volume X Homilies on St. Matthew, p. 382.
8
Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, p. 277.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

The emphasis that the two different sexes become united into one flesh
expresses the idea that although the two sexes are different, they are equal
as they become one. In the second Genesis story this is clearly expressed:
Then the man said, this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this
one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken (Genesis
2:23). This verse highlights the equality between man and woman as Adam
emphasized that the women was of his own flesh and therefore equal. Farley
explains that in Hebrew the term translated into women is ishah. The -ah
is the Hebrew feminine ending for nouns, so that Adam pronounces her to be
an exact replica of himself, with the difference that she is feminine.9 Thus
this may be understood in a way that male and female were created equal
with shared authority.

This equality is also expressed in the first creation story, Genesis 1:27
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created
them; male and female he created them. Without going into a discussion on
what is meant by the image of God, it is clear that both male and female
equally possess the image of God. Farley comments: Here we note that
male and female equally share Gods authority as co-rulers over the earth.10
It is often argued that the second Genesis story shows that Adam is superior
over Eve as he names her and she is referred to as his helpmate. However
this does not mean that Adam is superior to Eve, but rather it shows that she

Lawerence R. Farley, Feminism and Tradition, (Yonkers,NY: St Vladimirs

Seminary Press, 2012), p. 32.
10
Farley, Feminism and Tradition, p. 30.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

is able to be a helper to Adam precisely because she is equal to him. As

Farley puts it, Ishah was one suitable for sharing his thoughts, his love and
his authority to rule as Gods tselem or image. That is why she is said to be a
helper corresponding to him (the LXX reads, according to him, Kat
auton).11 Belonick explains that the term for helper is not one of lower
standing but of equals:
Helper has as its Hebrew root eser kenegdomeaning
face-to-facewould also have the connotation: counterpart,
a mirror, a person created to help man discover himself.
Scripture implies, therefore, that the woman is not a passive
or inferior force, but the other half necessary for a mutually
enriching dialogue.12

A common argument for Adams superiority to Eve is that she was created
from his rib. However it must be pointed out that Adam had no role in the
creation of Eve, it is written that he was put into a deep sleep, so he clearly
had no part in the creation of Eve. Also the Hebrew word for the usually
translated rib is tsalah, meaning side. The thought here is not of God
taking a spare part from Adam which he could well do without (whats one rib,
more or less?), but of taking an aspect from him, part of his very self.13 This
would make Eve equal to Adam, not inferior to him. What may be understood
then is that any subordination of Eve to Adam is not of an inferior to a
superior, but as Farley puts it, the loving and voluntary subordination of an
ontological equal.14

11

Farley, Feminism and Tradition, p. 32.

Deborah Malacky Belonick, Femminism in Christianity: An Orthodox Christian
Response, (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2012), p. 45.
13
Farley, Feminism and Tradition, p. 32.
14
Farley, Feminism and Tradition, p. 32.

12

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

The idea of loving and voluntary subordination of equals can be further

expounded from Ephesians 5:21-33. Often this passage is interpreted to
show that Paul placed women as subservient to man within marriage and
therefore not equals. This is often based on the verse wives, be subject to
your husbands (Ephesians 5:22). However looking at this whole passage it
maybe understood that men and women are equal but are called to submit to
one another. The aim of the whole passage is to teach that all are called to
submit to one another in humility and love. From the outset Paul exhorts all to
submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21). Paul
then calls the wife to submit to her husband, and the husband is told to Love
your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her
(Ephesians 5:25). If anything, it could be argued here that Paul expects a
much greater love, humility, submission and sacrifice from the husband, after
all the analogy he uses of Christs great sacrifice and submission for the
Church is unlimited. John Chrysostom writes:
If you take the premise that your wife should submit to you,
as the church submits to Christ, then you should also take
the same kind of careful, sacrificial thought for her that
Christ takes for the church. Even if you must offer you own
life for her, you must not refuse. Even if you must undergo
countless struggles on her behalf and have all kinds of
things to endure and suffer, you must not refuse. Even if
you suffer all this, you have still done not as much as Christ
has for the church. For you are already married when you
act this way, whereas Christ is acting for one who has
rejected and hated him.15
Paul emphasizes the equality between husband and wife when he says, In
the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies

15

Thomas C. Oden ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament

VIII: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 2001), p. 195.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

(Ephesians 5:28). This reflects back to Genesis 2:24, Therefore a man

leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one
flesh. They become one flesh and therefore are equal. The argument that
Paul places the husband as head of the wife, Just as Christ is the head of the
church (Ephesians 5:23), which therefore implies that the man is superior to
the woman, seems to deny the underlying message of equality found
throughout the whole passage. The placing of the husband as the head does
not make him superior but it sets out to differentiate the roles of husband and
wife. John Chrysostom writes on this point saying:
She reveres him as the head and loves him as a member
of the whole body. Gods purpose in ordering marriage is
peace. One takes the husbands role, one takes the wifes
role, one in guiding, one in supporting. If both had the very
same roles, there would be no peace. The house is not
rightly governed when all have precisely the same roles.
There must be a differentiation of roles under a single
head.16
On deeper reflection of Ephesians 5:21-33 it could be argued that Paul
requests greater submission and sacrifice from the husband than from the
wife, but the point is that the husband and wife are equals but have different
roles.

The understanding of equality between husband and wife and the requirement
to submit to one another is also found in 1 Corinthians 7:4, For the wife does
not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the
husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
In this passage Paul again explained the necessary the voluntary submission
of both the husband and wife to each other, which implies the inherent
16

Oden ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VIII, p. 200.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

10

equality of husband and wife. That is to say, that neither the husband is
dominant over the wife, nor is the wife dominant over the husband, both are
equal and both are required to submit voluntarily and with love according to
their faith in Christ. John Chrysostom has a wonderful contemplation on this
understanding of equality that expands past the physical relationship: Now if
neither husband nor wife hath power even over their own body, much less
have they over their property. Hear ye, all that have husbands and all that
have wives: that if you must not count your body your own, much less your
money.17

Jesus stated that male and female are united into one flesh, but He qualifies
this union with the important detail that it is God who joins the two. He said in
Mark 10:9, Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.
Thus, for the union between a man and women, to be considered a marriage,
they must be united by God, in other words sanctioned and blessed by God.
Marriage becomes much more than a contract between man and women but
becomes a sacred union, one that is sanctioned by God. Jesus by
mentioning this detail, that it is God who unites the married couple, moves
marriage away from a legal or contractual union, from a social or communal
institution, to a union that by its nature is Holy, sacred and mystical. For this
reason it is common in the Orthodox understanding of marriage to describe it
as a union between three people, husband, wife and God who unites the two.
Clement of Alexandria when speaking of the mystery of Marriage said that it is

17

St. John Chrysostom, Volume XII Homilies on First and Second Corinthians, in
The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: first series, edited by Philip Schaff. (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1989), p. 105.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

11

the House of God18 and quoted Matthew 18:20 as blessing marriage and
explaining how God is in the midst of this union; Where two or three are
gathered together for my sake, there I am in the midst of them (Matt 18:20).
Clement asked, Who are the two or three gathered in the name of Christ in
whose midst the Lord is? Does He not by the three mean husband, wife,
and child?19 Thus marriage is much more than a contract between a man
and women, but it is a mystical union blessed by God himself. Clement
eloquently said, Marriage in accordance with the Word of God is holy
because it is a union that is subject to God, contracted with a sincere heart
and full fidelity by those who have been washed and purified by the water of
Baptism and who have the same hope.20 Marriage is more than a contract
between a man and women, but it is a sacred union that is accomplished by
God.

Jesus in many of his parables used the understanding of marriage to explain

the relationship between Himself (the bridegroom) and the bride (the Church).
This imagery of the bride and groom is also used extensively in the book of
Revelations. The fact that marriage is used to describe Gods relationship
with his people shows that marriage is much more than a contractual
arrangement. But it is a lifelong relationship that should not be broken, just as
the relationship of the Church with God is eternal and cannot be broken.
Matthias explains this understanding well:

18

Wahba, Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius, p. 105.

Wahba, Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius, p. 105.
20
George W. Grube, More what the church fathers say about: Volume 1&2,
(Minneapolis Minnesota: Light and Life Publishing, 2005), p. 220.
19

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

12

The sanctity, then, of the union of man and woman in

marriage recapitulates the union of Christ and the Church.
Consequently, the fidelity and the indissolubility of Christian
marriage are based on the eternal hierogamy. Monogamy
also is asserted. The Church, as Christs body, is one; and
any kind of division might injure her bridegroom, as
happened with the Levite of the Book of judges (Ch. 19). It
follows naturally that man and woman must model
themselves on the couple Christ and the Church, observing
the exhortation, be ye therefore followers of God as dear
children, and walk in love as Christ also hath loved us.21

The understanding that marriage is more than a human contract, but rather a
union that is Holy and blessed by God and therefore should not be broken, is
reinforced by Jesus discussion on divorce. In Mark 10 and Mathew 19 Jesus
was asked by the Pharisees, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife? (Mark
10:2) The Lord of course was aware of their intention to test if He would
contradict the Law of Moses. Jesus instead asked them, what did Moses
command you? (Mark 10:3) Importantly the Pharisees responded by saying,
Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.
By their own admission the Pharisees admit that there was no law or
commandment of divorce, but that it was only something allowed as a
concession. Jesus then proceeded to tell them that Moses only allowed
divorce because of your hardness of heart (Mark 10:5). Clearly Jesus was
making the statement that divorce was never part of the plan for marriage, but
as a result of sin and mans hardness of heart, divorce then became
something of a concession. Hooker sums it up well saying: Jesus does not
dispute the validity of the Deuteronomic rule, but sees it as concessionary: It
was introduced because of mans weakness the hardness of your hearts

21

Wahba, Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius, p. 179.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

13

and does not affect the principle set out in Gen. 1.27 and 2.24, quoted in vv.s8 which has been in force since the beginning of creation.22

Jesus after he had explained to them the purpose and nature of marriage
from the beginning of creation ended the discussion with the Pharisees by
saying: What God has joined together, let no one separate (Mark 10:9). By
these words Jesus clarified that God blesses marriage, He is the one that
unites, it is His work and therefore the two should not ever be separated. If
marriage was only a human contract between husband and wife, then
perhaps such a contract can be easily terminated. But because marriage is
the work of God then those who seek to divide a marriage and one-flesh
union attacks not only the marriage and the two united in it, but God who
brought them together as well.23 Ambrose of Milan explained that divorce is
not only going against a divine commandment, you are destroying His
work.24 The use of the term one-flesh also shows that marriage by its nature
cannot be divided, how can you divide one flesh? To do so is unnatural, as
John Chrysostom explained:
To sever flesh is a horrible thing, so also to divorce a wife is unlawful. And
He stayed not at this, but brought in God also by saying, What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder, showing that the act was both
against nature, and against law; against nature, because one flesh is

22

Morna D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, (Peabody MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2009), p. 236.
23
Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, p. 277.
24
Tadros Y. Malaty, The Gospel according to St. Mark, (Alexandria Egypt: St.
George Church, 2003), p. 166.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

14

dissevered; against law, because that what God hath joined and commanded
it not be divided, ye conspire to do this.25

Following the discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus had a further conversation
with His disciples, in which He clarified further the nature of marriage. Jesus
told His disciples Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits
adultery against her (Mark 10:11). These words would have seemed strange
to the disciples, as at its core Jesus was saying that even after a husband
divorces his wife, if he marries another he is still committing adultery.
According to Jesus, even if under the law the husband has divorced his wife,
in the eyes of God he is still united to his wife and thus if he marries another
he is committing adultery. From this, one may conclude that although Jesus
allowed divorce he did not condone remarriage. Witherington comes to this
conclusion:
The Creator and the creation order both undergird
marriage. If in fact a couple so joined together does
divorce, they must not remarry anyone else because to do
so would be adultery. Painter is right that the upshot of the
teaching here is that while Jesus recognizes the reality of
divorce, he does not think this legitimizes remarriage if the
original couple were joined together by God in the first
place.26
Thus the nature of marriage is much more than a man made legal contract.
But by its very nature, when blessed and sanctified by God and the two are
united by God, the marriage union cannot be destroyed even with a legal
divorce. Another important aspect on Jesus view of marriage can be
expounded form Mark 10:11. If Jesus viewed the remarriage of either
25

St. John Chrysostom, Volume X Homilies on St. Matthew, p. 382.

26

Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, p. 277.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

15

husband or wife who were divorced as adultery then the conclusion must be
that polygamy was not allowed and is against the nature of the union of
marriage intended by God. Hooker articulates this understanding concisely:
Jesus ruled against polygamy; if a man is not free to marry another woman
because, in Jesus view, he is still bound to his first wife, this means that God
permits him only one wife.27

In Mathew 5:32 and 19:9 an exception appears to be given by Jesus for

divorce on the basis of unchastity, due to the limited scope of this essay,
unchastity is assumed to mean adultery. This exception by Jesus shows the
very nature of marriage to be an everlasting union which cannot be broken,
however because adultery involves a third person, this is the one thing that
can cause the one flesh to be divided. Jesus by making this exception is not
condoning divorce, on the basis of unchastity, rather He is expressing that in
the situation of unchastity the consequence is that the union of the holy
marriage is severed and therefore a divorce (or division of the one flesh) has
resulted due to the unchastity. Matthias puts it this way:
Thus, if the way of God is that man shall be one flesh with his wife, by
committing adultery, he cuts this relation in order to cleave to a harlot. St.
Paul writes, He who is joined to a harlot is one body with her, for: The two,
He says, shall become one flesh (1 Cor. 6:16); but he who is joined to the
Lord is one spirit with Him. (1 Cor 6:17) Adultery, then, is severing the one

27

Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, p. 236.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

16

flesh of the honorable marriage. Hence, by his free will, man can destroy
marriage, rejecting its grace of sanctification.28

From the New Testament writings marriage is found to be part of Gods plan
for His creation, where mankind is made male and female as equals but
differentiated by their sex. Marriage by its nature was created by God for the
male and female to be united into one flesh and was designed to be between
one man and one women, a necessary monogamy. Both male and female
are created equal, and have equal status in marriage, but have different roles,
differentiated by their sex. The marital union is one that must be blessed by
God, as it is God who unites the male and female to become one flesh. By
virtue of Gods work to unite the two, marriage cannot be viewed only as a
contract between husband and wife, but as a sacred union. This sacred
union, by its nature can never be dissolved, except in the case of adultery,
which divides the one-flesh, for this reason Jesus said I say to you, whoever
divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits
adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

28

Wahba, Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius, p. 171.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

17

Bibliography

Belonick, Deborah Malacky. Femminism in Christianity: An Orthodox Christian

Response. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2012.

Farley, Lawerence R. Feminism and Tradition. Yonkers,NY: St Vladimirs

Seminary Press, 2012.

Grube, George W. More what the church fathers say about: Volume 1&2.
Minneapolis Minnesota: Light and Life Publishing, 2005.

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary

Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: Harper One, 1996.

Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Peabody MA:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Malaty, Tadros Y. The Gospel according to St. Mark. Alexandria Egypt: St.
George Church, 2003.

Oden, Thomas C. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New

Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians. Downers Grove,
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Fr. Shenouda Boutros

201015250

18

St. John Chrysostom, Volume X Homilies on St. Matthew, in The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers: first series, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1989.

St. John Chrysostom, Volume XII Homilies on First and Second Corinthians,
in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: first series, edited by Philip
Schaff. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing
company, 1989.

Wahba, Matthias F. Honorable Marriage according to St. Athanasius.

Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life Publishing, 1996.

Witherington III, Ben. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.