Elyse Sandberg

Dr. Jones
Marriage, Sex, Family
28 March 2016
Marriage After the Fall

While I cannot be certain of the exact effects that the Fall had on Gods

intended goodness in creation, I can be certain of one thing: the Fall

distorted everything. Specifically, for this papers purpose, the fall distorted

Gods original intention for marriage. Under the condition of sin, marriage is

not the way God intended it to be in creation, however, I believe that He is

active in redeeming all things today. Revelation 21:5 says, And he who was

seated on the throne said, Behold, I am making all things new. We can still

see the Lords goodness in marriage, because the Lord is at work making all

things new. This is the lens through which we must see marriage in our world

today. We must realize that all aspects of Gods creation have been distorted

by sin, but that the Lord is at work to make his creation new. Therefore, we

must seek wisdom from His word in order to know how to engage with and

view marriage today in a way that is honoring to the Lord.

Gods original intention for marriage was to be a monogamous, one-

flesh union between a male and a female. Marriage was meant to be this

sacred bond entered into by a man and a woman before God. However,

because of the condition of sin, we see distortions to this union such as

divorce, sexual immorality, adultery, etc. Divorce breaks Gods intended

picture of faithfulness in a marriage. However, due to the fall, there is biblical

support that justifies divorce if necessary. In Matthew 19, Jesus commands

people to stay married with the exception of porneia. There are many

competing views of what porneia means, but broadly, it is thought to mean

any sort of sexual immorality, such as violence, adultery, etc. Therefore,

while divorce is not a part of Gods original intention for marriage, under the

condition of sin, it is allowed in the presence of porneia, when staying

married is the cause of greater harm to one or both parties. Kostenberger

reaffirms the goodness of marriage, even though divorce does sometimes

happen. He believes that while divorce is devastating, it is not unforgivable,

and Gods purposes can still be worked even through a broken marriage that

ends. I agree with Kostenberger, in that I believe that divorce is a result of

living under the condition of sin, but even through divorce, The Lord is still

working to redeem and make all things new. We can still see his goodness

come through, even as a result of a broken marriage.

The fall also ruined Gods original intention for marriage in that it

distorted the relationship between husband and wife. Genesis 3: 15 says,

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. We see here

in Genesis that the Lord is telling man and woman something new after the

fall, meaning that this was different than how he originally intended it to be.

There is now much dispute about what male-female relationships should look

like, and specifically, what the husband-wife relationship should look like.

Ephesians 5 is a specifically difficult passage to interpret, and many

theologians have taken different stances on the implications of this passage.

In Ephesians 5, women are told to submit to their husbands as they do to the

Lord. In return, husbands are called to love their wives just as Christ loved

the church and gave himself up for her. Snodgrass and Stott both have

interpreted this passage similarly, yet with some significant differences. Both

agree about the significance of the first verse of this passage, Ephesians

5:21: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Snodgrass

emphasizes mutual submission of husband and wife, while Stott emphasizes

the equality before God of all human beings. They both agree that we must

read this text with the overarching goal and truths of Ephesians in mind,

which includes: Christian mutual submission, oneness with Christ, deep unity

of all Christian believers, and equality before God of all human beings. They

also both interpret male as head to mean similar things. In summary, they

see male as head meaning a responsibility of the husband to care for, love,

nurture, and give oneself up for his wife. This love is motivated by Christs

love and headship, which represents care not control, and responsibility not

rule. Stott interprets womens submission, then, to be a grateful acceptance

of that care. Snodgrass and Stott differ in their views of this passage,

however, in that Snodgrass believes husbands headship to be cultural, while

Stott believes the husbands headship to be rooted in creation.

I believe this brings us to a question that I have wrestled a lot with,

which is, Are the differences between male and female innate from creation,

or a result of the fall? I go back and forth on this issue, because I personally

see the differences between men and women as beautiful and magnificent,

pointing us more to who God is. However, did God intend for these
differences in his original creation, or did they form as a result of living under

the condition of sin? Did God make men with more instincts to protect, to

fight, and to be a hero? Did God make women with more of a desire to be

fought for, to be pursued, to draw others in with her beauty, and be swept

away on an adventure? I recently read the books Captivating and Wild at

Heart by John and Stasi Eldredge. I found that these books, specifically

Captivating, really resonated with my heart as a woman and the desires I

feel God has given me. Captivating opened my eyes to the ways that Jesus is

truly all my heart as a woman longs for. From reading these books, I was able

to see the beauty in the differences of males and females, and how these

differences point us to our Heavenly Father and his character. I understand

more about myself and about the Lord after embracing and celebrating the

ways he has made my heart feminine, and the ways that he has made my

brothers hearts masculine. While there are always exceptions, we cannot

deny that the trend we see in little girls and boys tends to be little girls

playing dress up, asking the question, Do you find me lovely? Do you delight

in me? And little boys engaging in some sort of battle (whether it be with

light sabers or nerf guns) asking the question, Do I have what it takes? So,

the question I am left with now is, Were we created with these differences or

are they learned?

I still have doubts and questions, but where I currently stand is leaning

towards the side of these differences being innate, something God created

us with for his good purposes. I believe that when God created male and
female in the garden, the differences went further than biology. I believe that

he created men with a masculine heart, and women with a feminine heart,

for the purpose of these differences bringing glory to Him; showing his

nature of both strength and beauty. These differences were meant to glorify

him in a beautiful way, and marriage, as one-flesh union, was designed to be

a male and female coming together to complement and complete one

another, possibly having their differences show each other more fully who

God is. However, as a result of the fall, masculinity and femininity have been

distorted in many ways and have led to a distortion of this one-flesh union,

whether through homosexuality, pornography, abuse, sexual violence,

adultery, divorce, etc. As we recall once again Genesis 3:15, we see that God

gives a new command to women: Your desire will be for your husband, and

he will rule over you. Is it possible that before the fall, men and women

were created both in the image of God equally and equal in worth, yet

different from one another, in a way that brought glory to God and fulfilled

his purposes perfectly? I dare to think so. Therefore, I believe somewhat with

both Snodgrass and Stott. I believe that the differences between men and

women are rooted in creation and are apart of Gods goodness in creation,

but I believe the ways these differences have played out, as well as the

male-female roles they have resulted in, are a consequence of living under a

sinful condition. Before the fall, there were no need for given roles in

marriage, because male and female could rule alongside each other, equally

together out of their natural, different strengths the Lord gave them, without
being inhibited by anything. However, the fall came with consequences such

as pain in childbearing, and toiling for food, making a clear distinction

between what males and females were able to do. Carrie Miles writes about

this, explaining the economics of the fall, and how this has naturally affected

the roles of men and women. Throughout history, the trend is that women

had to stay home and raise children while men were out working. I agree

with Miles theory, and I believe that the issues people raise pertaining to

this separation of men and women are not a result of men and women being

made different from one another, but as in everything else, a result of the

fall, of living under the condition of sin. However, we know that the Lord is

making all things new, which means he is working at redeeming the

relationship between husbands and wives, as well as the roles of males and

females, to what they should be. Therefore, I believe that we can see Gods

goodness in Christian marriages today that consist of a man and a woman

seeking to honor and serve Him in their equal, yet different roles.

Word Count: 1655