We are discussing marriage by examining the recent book of John Piper's called This Momentary Marriage: A Parable of Permanence. In the first chp Piper examines marriage in two respects:
* It is from God.
* It is for God's glory.
Anyone who has read Piper knows he reads everything through the lens of the "glory of God," which is (for me) theologically true yet somehow Piper manages to emphasize a theme far more often than does the Bible. We'll see that a bit later in this post.
First, marriage is from God. He examines Genesis 1-2 and finds four ways in which marriage itself is an act of God:
1. Marriage is God's doing in creating male and female.
2. Marriage is God's doing in that God gives away the first bride (Gen 2:22).
3. Marriage is God's doing because God spoke marriage into existence: become one flesh.
4. Marriage is God's doing because the one-flesh union is established in each marriage.
Second, then Piper goes to Ephesians 5:31-32 to establish marriage as for God's glory. Here are the words from Eph 5:
"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.Marriage, he says, "is designed by God to display his glory in a way that no other event or institution does" (24). Thus, it is "patterned after Christ's covenant commitment to his church" (24). And the "ultimate thing we can say about marriage is that it exists for God's glory" (25). It puts the covenant of Christ and the church on display.
Well, you can read these verses in Eph 5 and not see the word "glory" brought up. Two things: Yes, of course, indeed, by all means and all that sort of thing ... everything redounds to God's glory but the Bible doesn't say this in this passage. What it does say, second, is something else: it says that marriage is a profound mystery and this is what is found in the context for what that might mean: " 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." And "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
Maybe I'm being picky because I have for years thought Piper overemphasizes God's glory (some will say that can't be done; I say, let's say it the way the Bible does). But what I observe is that marriage is intended to depict the sacrificial love of Christ for the church. There's a difference here: love as sacrificial giving and glory are not the same thing.
And one more point because what he says makes me a little skittish: "Staying married, therefore, is not mainly about staying in love. It is about keeping covenant" (25). Divorce is bad because it breaks covenant and breaks the display of God's covenant. And, marriage "puts the glory of Christ's covenant-keeping love on display" (25). Well, yes, I agree. Marriage is about keeping covenant.
But what is love? I sense that Piper lets his meaning of love absorb the inferior use of the word "love" in our culture, where it means very little because it is used for too many relations and ideas. (Maybe that is the basis for his contrast between "love" and "keeping covenant.") But, my view of love just happens to be "covenant keeping," and that is what love means in the Bible.
So, staying married for me is about love because love is covenant-keeping and marriage is given by God to depict God's love. How so? God is Love. God's creation and marriage partners in particular are invited to participate in God's love and, in loving, they display God's love (or covenant keeping).
Am I being too picky?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I don't think there is a distinction between covenant-keeping and love. In Deuteronomy Israel is urged to "love" their covenant Lord by holding fast to his laws. (Law is not opposed to relational love!) And nearly all mentions of God's love in the OT is his chesed, his steadfast and unswerving commitment to his people. Hence the ESV translates it as "steadfast love" and the NIV "unfailing love."
But I do not think there is a contradiction when Piper says that marriage displays God's glory and Paul says in Eph. 5 that marriage displays Christ's sacrificial love. Is it not such love that is the heart of God, that is, his own glory and excellence? 2 Cor 4:6 says that the glory of God is seen in Christ, which surely includes his redeeming love at his own expense and pain.
I think we chafe at Piper's "glory, glory, glory" argument because he's more than a bit pedantic, but also because we don't see that God's glory being uppermost in his affections is actually for our good -- our lives would be far less secure in God and far more boring should God not be most concerned with his repuation, his Name as savior, Lord, Father, etc.
On what Paul was up to in chapter 5 of Ephesians, it has to be read in context with Ephesians 1 where Paul makes it very clear that the drama of redemption is "to the praise of his glorious grace".(v. 6) and "so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory." (v. 12) Then he piles metaphor/symbol upon symbol to show what this salvation looks like - redeemed rebels (ch. 2) a multicultural temple of reconciliation (ch. 2), a cosmic demonstration to the angels and powers of the varied manifold (polypolikulos) wisdom of God (ch. 3), the household of the eternal Father (ch. 3), the Body of Christ (4), the Bride of Christ (ch. 5), and the army/soldier of God (ch. 6). In all these metaphorical realities, God is uppermost in his affections and we are the beneficiaries, the ones who get to come along for the wild ride of redemption.
So, reading the book as a whole, one would have to read Paul's statement about marriage in the midst of his household instructions, "I am speaking of Christ and the Church" (5:32, to mean that Paul is turning over the cards about marriage and showing that, in it's sanctified form, where "laying down life kind of love" exists, it's a display of Christ's love for the church and the church's response to that love. Let's also remember our Greek, that "mysterion" does not mean "wow, that's deep, it's beyond words, it's heavy, give me another glass of wine late at night under the stars . . . ". It means something concrete that is meant to be uncovered, like the mysterion that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews (3:4-6). So, marriage is an experience, an institution that exists in an "already and not yet" way, but now, on the other side of the Cross/Resurrection/Ascension, makes sense as a parable and showcase of what Christ's love for the church means.
Just like Jesus and Paul uplifting human parenting and fatherhood by likening it to God's fatherhood of his people, his use of marriage as a metaphor for Christ's love for the church uplifts what marriage is in this life of trials and gives hope to all us strugglers, that there is a tractor beam of eternal power flowing from Jesus to the church that empowers us to lay down our lives for one another in marriage and mirror Jesus' sacrificial love for the church.
Celebrating 25 years of marriage this month with many friends who roasted my wife and I reminded me that I have been a bozo, but God has worked for his great Name in our lives so that generations of other marriages have been impacted for his glory. Have my wife and I worked our butts off to keep covenant with each other in the life of faith? Damn straight. But, when we look back at the 25 years, all we can do is stand in awe and say, "You have made your Name great. You have drawn beautiful pictures with bent sticks. You have even used our foolishness and folly for your glory and our good." There is no greater safety than knowing that the Holy Trinity is "pursuing after us to do us good all the days of our lives like a highway patrol car on I-5 near Fresno" (Psalm 23 paraphrase).
I have never read any Calvin and precious little Piper. But, I have read the Bible over and over and God's glory does seem to come out as a major major theme as progressive revelation reaches its climax in the church and the eternal party portrayed in John's Revelation.
Mark, I'm not sure I recognize your name but thanks for speaking up -- and welcome if you are a visitor. I think your comment puts this well -- yes, by all means, glory of God but in its context the idea is sacrificial love -- which of course will bring God glory. But we dare not miss the emphasis of Paul on sacrificial love as his central point.
I wonder if the issue is not just whether God's glory is the root issue, but also what it is that most glorifies God?
If we accept Piper's statement that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him, we will have to look beyond our marriage etc. - always looking to a satisfaction in God.
NTW has made statements to the effect of God being most glorified in his people when his people reign obediently over his good creation. God is glorified when his new covenant people live lives that bring him glory, when they are obedient to him (at least that's the picture I get from Ezekiel 36).
1 Cor 10:31 is very revealing in this regard. When it's taken in the "satisfied in him" respect, it can become individualistic and about eating and drinking whilst somehow reflecting on God's great gifts etc. (I've heard Piper's thing on how to eat an orange to the glory of God). But the context is much more down-to-earth - Paul is talking about glorifying God by maintaining peace in the tricky world of first-century eating: sitting between a rock and a hard place of church/Jews/pagans and striving to not cause offense. You might even say "good works" bringing glory to God.
Thank you, Scot, and others here who have offered their critique of Piper's grand, sweeping, "glory, glory" style of expression, although well intentioned seems to go way too far beyond the text (whatever happened to "sola scriptura"??). This has been a complaint of mine for years, especially when it comes to Piper's teachings on marriage and singleness.
Will K. aptly observes, "Romantic love is undeniably in the Bible, most notably in Genesis 2 and the Song of Songs. Why can't the purpose of marriage be "it is not good for man to be alone"?". Absolutely! Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 7:2, "But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband", suggesting that marriage has indeed been designed by God to meet ordinary, practical human needs. But somehow, this fact seems to make a lot of popular writers uncomfortable, as if it's suggesting that it's OK for people to marry mainly for fleshly purposes -- well, maybe it is!
Boundless.com, Focus on the Family's ezine for young adults, has been courageous at challenging some of the impractical, over-spiritualized teachings to singles.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.