John Calvin: The Making of a Covenant.
Calvin’s basic understanding of marriage as is covenant. The concept of covenant has long been taught in western Christendom and Calvin applied this structure to the contractual obligations of marriage. Using Malachi 2:13-16, he insisted that the relationship of a covenant was not simply on the vertical plane between God and man but also on the horizontal relationships between husband and wife. As God draws the elect into covenant with him, he also draws man and wife into covenant with one another, by their mutual consent as well as through other regulations, or as Calvin put it:
Calvin also sought the consent of both parties involved in the marriage, which was radically different from the Popish tradition which only required permission and consent of the parents. Though Calvin wished for consent from both the parents and the lovers, he did not require parental sanction. He did however believe these brash marriages to be ill advised. Calvin drew on the story of Caleb as justification for this view, since it was Caleb who held his daughter out as a prize without her consent. This was despicable in the Frenchman’s eyes.
Calvin however was not without his own brand of impediments and he even agreed with Rome on many of them. In his 1546 Marriage Ordinance he declared that marriages of young people were null and void, that is women under the age of 18 and men under the age of 20, though the age of consent with parental approval may have been younger than that.
Another barrier Calvin set up was one of mental ability or inability. While not a clause as we might assume in our modern times, this allowed for the annulment of an engagement contract by those who were drunk or had their minds temporally impaired. There is no record of Calvin ever actually annulling a marriage or engagement for the reason of mental deficiency as defined in the twenty-first century.
A third impediment was against that of polygamy or even previous engagement. In the case of previous engagement this was not another engagement that had been annulled, but one that was current. If such a contract were found then the latter would be annulled. Other than this Calvin wrote little on the subject, however when it came to polygamy Calvin wrote extensively. This is probably because the Anabaptists and Lutherans of the day began to practice it and delve into a theology allowing it. Most sources seem to generally agree that the theologians were drawing on the examples of Old Testament patriarchs and kings. Calvin thought that men ought not to follow the example of these heroes of the faith in this manner because God created monogamy as part of the order of creation. The basis of his argument comes from Genesis 2:24 where God institutes marriage as a holy ordinance condemning polygamy with the imperative “the two shall become one flesh.”
To marry more than one wife was not simply to mock God but also to court trouble. Calvin drew upon the patriarchs showing that they lived in disorder and their lives were filled with strife and hostility. Further that not only was the marriages horrific on the husband but also upon the wives paying special attention to Leah and Rachel, two sisters who hated each other and competed with each other for their husbands love.
Another impediment Geneva set up was the fitness for marriage, that is a barrier against one who lacks virginity, is sexually incapable, contagion, or disparity in age. For Calvin, one’s virginity was not necessarily essential for marriage. If one presumed to be a virgin and was found to have lied about this to their potential spouse, on this Calvin did not discriminate. This was not the same as premarital sex between the two, which Calvin also spoke harshly against, but rather this was deemed premarital adultery, which Calvin thought desecrated the body and soul of the adulterer.
The 1546 Marriage Ordinance restricted marriage to “capable persons.” Those who were deemed incapable were those unable to produce children for any number of reasons including emasculation, impotence, permanent injury to genitals, etc, were seen as "incapable." The ordinance called for the annulment of all such marriages and by implication engagements. Calvin deemed all those with such disabilities as eunuchs and drawing from the words of Christ in Matthew 19:11-12 inferred that they were not men (or women) and were not fit for marriage. Thus, all marriages involving such were automatically annulled.
Those with incurable diseases, especially contagious ones, were also not allowed to enter into marriage in Geneva. That being said if one were to contract a disease that were not contagious the spouse was not allowed to annul the marriage or abandon their partner. For Calvin marriage was “in sickness and in health” as the saying goes. Therefore, it was only engagements which were annulled. However, if disease was contracted during the marriage that threatened the safety of the spouse or children, separation was allowed but not annulment or divorce.
As for those whose ages were drastically different and seeking an engagement and marriage, Calvin often saw it as a lust after the flesh and not something fit for the church of God. Calvin was so vehement about this that he risked losing his life-long friendship with William Farel, when he sought to marry a girl four decades his junior. Calvin sought to find a way to automatically annul this engagement, which took quite a toll.
On the taboo subject of incest Calvin also weighed in. However on this subject he threw his lot in with Luther, mostly. Taking a more “protestant” view of incest, and limiting the degrees of separation to those specified in the biblical write, (e.g. Leviticus 18, plus three, prohibiting marriages between fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, and first cousins.) Geneva was stricter, still calling for prohibitions against not simply a son’s widow, but a grandson’s, a nephew, and a grandnephew’s. Likewise it paralleled this with a by forbidding a woman to engage her daughter’s, granddaughter’s, niece’s, or grand niece’s widower. Further, fathers and mothers were not allowed to have relationships with their step children. Calvin once again drew upon biblical stories, mainly that of Moses who delivered the Law, including the law which forbade incest, though He himself was a product of an incestuous relationship.
Calvin’s final impediment was that of interreligious marriage. The Protestant ought not to marry a Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or unbeliever. However if one found that they were married to a member of these other faiths they ought to remain married. This position comes from the biblical passages of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
Calvin breaks this into a before and after picture of marriage. In the former passage he says Christians are to do everything they can not to marry one who is not a Christian. Further, they ought to seek to marry pious Christians. On the flip side though he sees those who have already entered into an interreligious marriage as required to stay within it, because a zealous, pious Christian will sanctify the marriage far more than the unbeliever will disgrace it.
For Calvin the joining of opposites seemed to glorify God in many ways. The husband, with the “helpmeet” of his wife, was appointed to look up to God in reverence. The two would complete each other, steering one another from sin, preserving integrity, build and fortify love, sanctify and edify the members so long as the remained in the faith.
Calvin’s basic understanding of marriage as is covenant. The concept of covenant has long been taught in western Christendom and Calvin applied this structure to the contractual obligations of marriage. Using Malachi 2:13-16, he insisted that the relationship of a covenant was not simply on the vertical plane between God and man but also on the horizontal relationships between husband and wife. As God draws the elect into covenant with him, he also draws man and wife into covenant with one another, by their mutual consent as well as through other regulations, or as Calvin put it:
But in order to press the matter more on the priests, he calls their attention to the fact that God is the founder of marriage. Testified has Jehovah, he says, between thee and thy wife… Hence Solomon, in Proverbs 2:17, calls marriage the covenant of God, for it is superior to all human contracts. So also Malachi declares, that God is as it were the stipulator, who by his authority joins the man to the woman, and sanctions the alliance: God then has testified between thee and thy wife, as though he had said, "Thou hast violated not only all human laws, but also the compact which God himself has consecrated, and which ought justly to be deemed more sacred than all other compacts: as then God has testified between thee and thy wife, and thou now deceivest her, how darest thou to come to the altar? and how canst thou think that God will be pleased with thy sacrifices or regard thy oblations?"Unlike Rome and Luther, Calvin saw some separation of the Church and the State as a biblical and good thing, which informed his theology of marriage. Marriage was not a divine institution but the social one. Calvin, like Luther did not see a sacramental purpose in marriage rather it served the function of procreation as well as a way to build and strengthen love between husband and wife. Celibacy was the exception not the rule, and that it was an equal calling as marriage, not more, nor less.
Calvin also sought the consent of both parties involved in the marriage, which was radically different from the Popish tradition which only required permission and consent of the parents. Though Calvin wished for consent from both the parents and the lovers, he did not require parental sanction. He did however believe these brash marriages to be ill advised. Calvin drew on the story of Caleb as justification for this view, since it was Caleb who held his daughter out as a prize without her consent. This was despicable in the Frenchman’s eyes.
Calvin however was not without his own brand of impediments and he even agreed with Rome on many of them. In his 1546 Marriage Ordinance he declared that marriages of young people were null and void, that is women under the age of 18 and men under the age of 20, though the age of consent with parental approval may have been younger than that.
Another barrier Calvin set up was one of mental ability or inability. While not a clause as we might assume in our modern times, this allowed for the annulment of an engagement contract by those who were drunk or had their minds temporally impaired. There is no record of Calvin ever actually annulling a marriage or engagement for the reason of mental deficiency as defined in the twenty-first century.
A third impediment was against that of polygamy or even previous engagement. In the case of previous engagement this was not another engagement that had been annulled, but one that was current. If such a contract were found then the latter would be annulled. Other than this Calvin wrote little on the subject, however when it came to polygamy Calvin wrote extensively. This is probably because the Anabaptists and Lutherans of the day began to practice it and delve into a theology allowing it. Most sources seem to generally agree that the theologians were drawing on the examples of Old Testament patriarchs and kings. Calvin thought that men ought not to follow the example of these heroes of the faith in this manner because God created monogamy as part of the order of creation. The basis of his argument comes from Genesis 2:24 where God institutes marriage as a holy ordinance condemning polygamy with the imperative “the two shall become one flesh.”
To marry more than one wife was not simply to mock God but also to court trouble. Calvin drew upon the patriarchs showing that they lived in disorder and their lives were filled with strife and hostility. Further that not only was the marriages horrific on the husband but also upon the wives paying special attention to Leah and Rachel, two sisters who hated each other and competed with each other for their husbands love.
Another impediment Geneva set up was the fitness for marriage, that is a barrier against one who lacks virginity, is sexually incapable, contagion, or disparity in age. For Calvin, one’s virginity was not necessarily essential for marriage. If one presumed to be a virgin and was found to have lied about this to their potential spouse, on this Calvin did not discriminate. This was not the same as premarital sex between the two, which Calvin also spoke harshly against, but rather this was deemed premarital adultery, which Calvin thought desecrated the body and soul of the adulterer.
The 1546 Marriage Ordinance restricted marriage to “capable persons.” Those who were deemed incapable were those unable to produce children for any number of reasons including emasculation, impotence, permanent injury to genitals, etc, were seen as "incapable." The ordinance called for the annulment of all such marriages and by implication engagements. Calvin deemed all those with such disabilities as eunuchs and drawing from the words of Christ in Matthew 19:11-12 inferred that they were not men (or women) and were not fit for marriage. Thus, all marriages involving such were automatically annulled.
Those with incurable diseases, especially contagious ones, were also not allowed to enter into marriage in Geneva. That being said if one were to contract a disease that were not contagious the spouse was not allowed to annul the marriage or abandon their partner. For Calvin marriage was “in sickness and in health” as the saying goes. Therefore, it was only engagements which were annulled. However, if disease was contracted during the marriage that threatened the safety of the spouse or children, separation was allowed but not annulment or divorce.
As for those whose ages were drastically different and seeking an engagement and marriage, Calvin often saw it as a lust after the flesh and not something fit for the church of God. Calvin was so vehement about this that he risked losing his life-long friendship with William Farel, when he sought to marry a girl four decades his junior. Calvin sought to find a way to automatically annul this engagement, which took quite a toll.
On the taboo subject of incest Calvin also weighed in. However on this subject he threw his lot in with Luther, mostly. Taking a more “protestant” view of incest, and limiting the degrees of separation to those specified in the biblical write, (e.g. Leviticus 18, plus three, prohibiting marriages between fathers and daughters, uncles and nieces, and first cousins.) Geneva was stricter, still calling for prohibitions against not simply a son’s widow, but a grandson’s, a nephew, and a grandnephew’s. Likewise it paralleled this with a by forbidding a woman to engage her daughter’s, granddaughter’s, niece’s, or grand niece’s widower. Further, fathers and mothers were not allowed to have relationships with their step children. Calvin once again drew upon biblical stories, mainly that of Moses who delivered the Law, including the law which forbade incest, though He himself was a product of an incestuous relationship.
Calvin’s final impediment was that of interreligious marriage. The Protestant ought not to marry a Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, Pagan, or unbeliever. However if one found that they were married to a member of these other faiths they ought to remain married. This position comes from the biblical passages of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
Calvin breaks this into a before and after picture of marriage. In the former passage he says Christians are to do everything they can not to marry one who is not a Christian. Further, they ought to seek to marry pious Christians. On the flip side though he sees those who have already entered into an interreligious marriage as required to stay within it, because a zealous, pious Christian will sanctify the marriage far more than the unbeliever will disgrace it.
For Calvin the joining of opposites seemed to glorify God in many ways. The husband, with the “helpmeet” of his wife, was appointed to look up to God in reverence. The two would complete each other, steering one another from sin, preserving integrity, build and fortify love, sanctify and edify the members so long as the remained in the faith.
Marriage in American Evangelicalism
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. Again and again we hear this refrain, but do those who espouse it actually believe what they are saying? Perhaps if they did there wouldn’t be such a high divorce rate, just over 45%, among Americans and 32% amongst professing Americans Evangelicals. It is time that we sought to develop a theology of engagement and marriage that resembles any of our forerunners. Pulling from the traditions of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, as well as other traditions, such as the Anglican or pietistic and formulate a proper theology of marriage rather than a theology where marriage is very easily annulled almost any reason.
This theology of marriage would include a covenantal setting between the members as well as the approval of their pastor. Further unlike Luther an ample courtship ought to be required. Much of the modern divorce mess is because the two people do not know one another nor do they understand the gravity of the covenant. Restoring the understanding that their marriage is not about their happiness but God’s glory is vital to the success of that marriage. This alone will allow frustrated husbands to love their wives. It will also allow those upset wives to respect their husbands.
A final improvement on the marriage system in the American Church would be an increased difficulty to divorce. The any rhyme or reason annulment system in place currently does not take to heart the notion of a Covenant between man, wife, and God. If a contemplative period were required I believe that the divorce statistics would drop dramatically in America.
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. Again and again we hear this refrain, but do those who espouse it actually believe what they are saying? Perhaps if they did there wouldn’t be such a high divorce rate, just over 45%, among Americans and 32% amongst professing Americans Evangelicals. It is time that we sought to develop a theology of engagement and marriage that resembles any of our forerunners. Pulling from the traditions of the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, as well as other traditions, such as the Anglican or pietistic and formulate a proper theology of marriage rather than a theology where marriage is very easily annulled almost any reason.
This theology of marriage would include a covenantal setting between the members as well as the approval of their pastor. Further unlike Luther an ample courtship ought to be required. Much of the modern divorce mess is because the two people do not know one another nor do they understand the gravity of the covenant. Restoring the understanding that their marriage is not about their happiness but God’s glory is vital to the success of that marriage. This alone will allow frustrated husbands to love their wives. It will also allow those upset wives to respect their husbands.
A final improvement on the marriage system in the American Church would be an increased difficulty to divorce. The any rhyme or reason annulment system in place currently does not take to heart the notion of a Covenant between man, wife, and God. If a contemplative period were required I believe that the divorce statistics would drop dramatically in America.
FIN.
