Man and Woman

by Fr. Robert Hart, 

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.    

(Genesis 2:23,24)

And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

(Matthew 19:4,5)

Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.

(Book of Common Prayer)

 In the two quotations from Genesis and from Matthew we have been given God's word concerning marriage, and specifically, in Matthew, the words of Jesus Christ Himself. The purpose of this article is to examine and highlight what He Himself taught when He was physically present in this world. As you can see, Jesus quoted from Genesis, but deliberately modified it with the word "Two" (or "Twain" in the older English of the KJV), thus ruling out polygamy for His followers. What we have, therefore, from the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, is His word that marriage is a lifelong bond between one man and one woman. He follows that by saying that “some have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven ’s sake (v.12).” Christians have always understood this to mean there are two states of life for believers. One is marriage, and the other is complete abstinence from sexual relations, whether one remains open to marriage in the future, or lives as a lifelong celibate by vocation. Aside from these two states of life, marriage or complete abstinence, no third alternative exists for anyone who seeks to follow Christ and be His disciple, that is, a Christian.

We have been given, in Christ’s doctrine, the teaching of sacramental marriage, that is, that marriage is God's own work. For, He follows it directly in the next verse with the words, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (v.6)." Sacramental marriage is what we celebrate and bless in the Church, because it is the work of God Himself: "What therefore God hath joined together..." Not simply the Church, not simply the power of the state, not simply a covenant between a man and a woman, but God Himself makes the man and the woman one flesh.

And, indeed, it is clear, from both Genesis and the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that two people of the same sex cannot be married in the eyes of God. The Hebrew words in Genesis are unmistakable. The word for "Woman" and "Wife" (as quoted above) are one and the same word: Ishah (אִשָּׁה). The word for "Man" is Ish (אִישׁ). The same applies to the Greek original in Matthew. The word for "wife" is Gyne (γυνή), from which comes the English word "Gynecology," and which translates into English as "woman" and also as "wife." Furthermore, this follows the words from Jesus' own mouth: "Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female..." making the following words obvious in meaning:"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Sexual complementarity, something two people of the same sex do not have and cannot have, was created by God for marriage as a sacramental bond, to produce children and establish the family.

We can well understand why the Bible translators used the word "Wife" rather than "Woman" in both Genesis and Matthew. In English, to say that a man shall be joined to his woman might suggest something other than marriage to lazy ears, even though it is clear from the context that marriage is the only possible understanding of the words. But, in this day and age, we need to know that in Hebrew and in Greek the words for "Woman" and "Wife" are the same, with the meaning of a married couple derived from the context.

I was made aware of some celebrity championing same sex "marriage" with the argument that its advocates do not want to change the definition of what marriage is. That statement constitutes a factual absurdity. Of course it is a redefinition. In the whole history of the world every civilization has known that sexual complementarity - male and female - are of the very essence of what marriage is. It has never been understood any other way. From the teaching of scripture we see why: It is literally a part of God's creation, and not a man-made institution. Its roots do not come from jurisprudence. It is a part of human nature itself, as anthropology confirms (this celebrity went on to bring up Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement as if there is a connection between those important accomplishments and this new same sex "marriage" idea. But there is no genuine connection, none whatsoever; only what some want to create by the power of suggestion rather than by facts, reason and logic).

The new idea of same-sex marriage has been confused with the idea of Civil Rights in the secular arena. But honesty compels us to say that in Sacramental Theology it is not a matter of rights, but rather of definition. One might as well argue that a triangle has the right to define itself as a circle, and that such an expanded definition of the word "circle" would not change the nature of circleness. If the word "circle" can mean also a triangle, then we have lost the meaning of the word. Such a definition is too inclusive to be meaningful. If the cause of including recognition of a triangle as a circle is fortified by the ruling of a court, all that would happen is that Mathematics teachers could no longer teach geometry, that is, not truly, because words would have lost their meaning. That is what the secular arena has done to the word "marriage." But the Church must not accept the world's standards as her own.  

The revelation of Christ’s own teaching is not subject to change, whether one wishes to call it by such euphemisms as “evolving” or “being led by the Spirit.” The Holy Spirit will not contradict what Christ has taught, because God will not contradict God. The truth is settled forever. Marriage is an institution ordained by God for one man and one woman, and it is God Who makes the man and the woman one flesh.

New and Improved?

Someone sent a link to a CNN story, in which seven year-old girls in something called "the World of Dance competition" performed a completely inappropriate dance, frankly, for any girls or women at any age. The children were clad in scanty outfits and had been taught moves, performed in the dance, that would be seductive if they were several years older. This was to a vastly inferior "song" called "Single Ladies." To her credit, one reporter at CNN voiced her disgust. Do these girls have parents? What does Dad think of such a sight? Obviously, he is missing in their lives, even if he hangs around the house after work.

In the 1960s just about every manufacturer of daily supplies, like toothpaste or soap, insisted that their product was "new and improved" compared to last year. Perhaps they took their lead from automobile makers. The concept of "new and improved" has a right application in technology, and in scientific breakthroughs, especially in the field of medicine. However, medical ethics, to the degree that they are new, are by no means an improvement, but rather several large steps backward to a time that was, by Christian standards, uncivilized (my brother's book, Atheist Delusions, places that in historical context). The same is true of most things where "new and improved" is applied to anything that touches morality; for new ideas in morality and ethics are truly barbaric, even to the point where innocent human life is not protected. The same may be said, of course, for "new and improved" religion, in which the very essence of the Christian faith is drained away, and God's laws forgotten.

Of course, if innocent children cannot be protected in the womb, how can their innocence be protected after birth? What rights do the survivors of the Abortion Holocaust have anyway? Certainly not, it would seem, a right to childhood. The time to be fully exploited begins early (not unlike the Chinese girls in nineteenth century San Francisco who had no protection from the Law). These girls, along with their brothers, should be learning to read and write, and they should be learning the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Gospel. The innocence of children needs to be protected, for once childhood is over there is no getting it back. Moral lessons need to be taught at home and in church, and public schools cannot be trusted when they try to usurp that office. In all of these matters we need to understand very clearly that "new and improved" morality and religion do not exist. The only thing truly new and improved is the newness of life for those who are in the New Covenant.

Let us get a few things straight, and let those of us who are of the clergy remind our people of these things from the pulpit:

1. It is the duty of parents, especially fathers, to make sure that the children are raised knowing God's commandments, and that they are given enough mental and spiritual fortitude to resist the world's false morality.

2. It is the duty of parents, especially fathers, to teach their children that, no matter what our society considers normal, Christians wait until marriage. Not until they are 21, or 18; but, until they are married, even if that is not until they older.

3. It is the duty of clergy to include these things in sermons from time to time, reminding people that our God has not changed His commandments; He is not swayed by fashions.

This past Sunday our Old Testament reading for Morning Prayer included these words: "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us." (Isaiah 33:22) This is true for all of us, and it matches well what St. Paul tells us about our baptism: "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:12-14) We no longer belong to Satan's domain, for we were translated into Christ's kingdom. Our Judge, Lawgiver, King and Savior is Jesus the Lord, whom the world does not know; but we know Him.

I hope that none of those girls had parents in the ACC, or the UECNA or the APCK. I hope we abide by standards that protect the innocence of all of our children. Parents need to stop feeling bullied by the culture around us, and so do clergy. Fathers need to regain their protective role as head of the family, fashionable or not, and both fathers and mothers need to have the word "no" in their vocabulary. Priests need to set and abide by standards. I wrote this in an article for Touchstone:

"I once made it clear, during a sermon, that I am unwilling to marry any couple who refuse to abstain from sexual relations before their wedding night. Neither would the church building itself be available to them. One woman confronted me in the parking lot. 'I think I am in the wrong church!' she pronounced. 'Maybe young people won’t want to join us if we make such rules for them.'

"I could only agree with her first statement. She was in the wrong church. And why did she think that we were making any rules at all? God gave his commandments quite a while back, and a woman who had spent six decades in the Church should not have needed to be informed of that fact."

Below I will reproduce another article I wrote for Touchstone, for it occurs to me, I have said these things before.

“Possible to Live Without” first appeared in the May, 2008 issue of Touchstone.

Robert Hart on Putting the Premarital House in Order

Fifty years ago it would have been terribly rude to ask this question,” I said, “but these days I have to ask it.” Opposite me was a young woman with the face of innocence itself, about the age of my daughter at the time, and a young man. “Have the two of you already begun to have a sexual relationship?”

People coming into a church they have not been attending, because they want to be married, bring with them the errors of the time. Authority figures have held them to a very low standard for almost three decades, giving them no relief from the influence of peers and the personalities of popular entertainment. It seems almost a sin not to be “sexually active” outside of marriage.

“Yes, we are having sex,” she said. It had seemed a silly question to ask a couple already living under the same roof. Nonetheless, it is necessary to clarify such things.

Another basic question to be clarified, even more important than the status of their sexual relationship, is: What do they believe marriage to be? Too many people find in churches an affirmation of their mistaken assumptions instead of higher and better expectations, the sort of expectations that require asking these questions.

Clouded Understandings

The conventional wisdom of our time cautions me to stop before I go even this far. People today can’t be expected to live as if we were still in the first half of the twentieth century, or so I have been told by well-meaning people who offered unsolicited advice.

Exactly so, and that is the problem. I had only just met these two people, a young couple coming to me because they liked the sight of the church and because the young woman had an Anglican background of sorts. With their clouded understanding, just how much would they put up with from me?

“I am not nearly as interested in the wedding as I am in the marriage that follows. So I owe it to you to require something from you.” They were still with me this far. “I want you to promise me that you will abstain from any more sexual relations until the wedding night.” (What I would say next, if they hesitated, would be, “Otherwise, I will not marry you, or allow you to use this building”).

Without batting an eyelash the young woman said, “Okay, we can do that.” I looked to the young man, and saw a small drama unfold in less than a second. He was suddenly challenged to demonstrate his love for her by agreeing to what she wanted and needed. “Yes, that’s fine.”

It is religious deception to prepare a church wedding, but not a Christian marriage. What the couple needs at this point is a radical new understanding.

And so, “That’s not all,” I said. Still they were with me, four open eyes staring back into mine. “I want you to commit to meeting with me in the coming weeks for regular sessions about marriage, and about Christianity.”

No Experiment

It is not always this easy. There was the woman, older than this one, who told me that, after all their years of living together, she and her man knew it was time to get married because they had proved they could get along. That is, living together as if married (in every sense) was the necessary, prudent, and reasonable course before making a real decision; it was like a test drive. Obviously, God would approve. Who wants to marry somebody and commit to a relationship that might not work out?

“Actually, that worries me.” The woman looked stunned as I went on: “You have been living in an experiment, and there is no reason why the formality of marriage would change your habit of treating the relationship as an experiment. Christian marriage is a commitment, not an experiment.”

Those who have heard my standard wedding sermon have heard that every experiment in human relations is doomed to fail at some point, because everybody is impossible to live with. If you do not believe that you are impossible to live with, you need to read what St. Paul says about you in the third chapter of Romans. Experiments in love are no exception. I have preached this and watched scales fall from more than a few eyes.

We live in a time of such deadly assumptions as the one I encountered one day on an elevator in Baltimore. Two men got on the elevator, and it continued its descent to the street level. “I’m telling you,” said one of them, clearly a lawyer, “these days you just have to have a pre-nup.” The more humbly dressed fellow, a client, shook his head. “I don’t think so.”

The suited man turned to me—I was not wearing my collar—and made the mistake every attorney is taught to avoid. He asked a question without knowing the answer. “Don’t you agree sir, that these days a couple should have a pre-nuptial agreement before getting married?”

“No. I am a priest, and if a couple wants me to marry them, and they have a pre-nuptial agreement to provide for a potential divorce one day, I will refuse.” The client brightened up. “That’s right,” he said. I had granted him permission to live by what he knows, deep down inside, to be true. Of course, I don’t know what his attorney charges for “pre-nups.”

Sensible Lives

Never have I seen a young couple storm off in anger when I laid down conditions that every respectable clergyman would once have set. Imagine being surrounded for years by the noise of the latest rap numbers and then one day hearing music for the first time. Suddenly there is a genuine reason to marry, and life makes sense again.

In an era when young people grow up believing that no one can control his basic urges, it is often a necessary kindness for some authority figure, such as a clergyman, to grant them permission to abstain. In fact, it usually seems that they see that permission has finally been granted, by somebody, for them to put their lives in order.

Third Sunday after the Epiphany

Icon by Monastery Icons.

Although I expect the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul to take priority over the Third Sunday after the Epiphany in most of our churches, I want to re-post this sermon I wrote three years ago.

John 2:1-11

Today we will look at three important things meant to be drawn out, exegeted, from this portion of the Gospel of John. These are:

1) Christ’s presence at a wedding
2) His phrase “my hour”
3) The title that he gives to His mother, namely, “Woman.”

First, let us consider His presence at a wedding. We know that the Lord is present in a very special way whenever a couple performs the sacrament of marrying each other with the blessing of the Church. Saint Paul calls the marriage union the “mystery” of Christ and His Church, and by the use of the word “mystery” we see that the scriptures tell us that this is a sacrament. We know that a sacrament conveys the grace of God, each according to His plan and purpose, a special and specific grace. The grace of the marital union is specific and has everything to do with our hope for a future and for new life.

We can say, with reason on our side, that the Lord is not present in any meaningful way in unions outside of marriage. Certainly, they lack the grace of the sacrament, or among non-Christians they lack any legal status conformable to God's laws. They have instead the nature of sin. But, in our time such non-marital unions are treated as acceptable by society. This is an area where the Church cannot take the side of popular “culture.” We must be different. The problem is, people treat the ultimate human relationship, the kind that alone brings forth new life, as a casual thing, and as something to be subject to experimentation. They experiment by living as if they were married; and when such a couple decides that it is finally safe to get married, they have become accustomed to the idea of the experiment; and that idea never goes away. No wonder that such couples have a high divorce rate, as, indeed, the statistics show. They failed to learn certain important facts. First of all, marriage is not an experiment, but a commitment. Second, any human relationship that is experimental must fail at some time, because everybody is impossible to live with. If you do not consider yourself impossible to live with, than read the Epistle to the Romans and take note of Saint Paul’s description of what a sinner you are, and wise up. Finally, marriage is not simply a commitment two people make to each other, but a commitment two people make to God, with faith that He is making the same commitment to them, and that (in the words from Ecclesiastes) “a threefold cord is not easily broken.” For the occasion of joy, when a couple begins to live in the sacrament of matrimony, the Lord is present.

“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.”

The way this sounds to modern ears, ‘What have I to do with thee?’ is a bit misleading. The way to understand it is simply, “what is there to be done between you and Me?” That is, what did the two of them have as a matter of mutual concern?

For this second point, I am grateful for a book by one of the genuine lights of the Roman Catholic Church here in America in the 20th Century, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. His commentary on this part of the Gospel of John, in his classic book that came out in 1961, Life of Christ, highlights one simple phrase and draws out the meaning with clarity. What did our Lord mean by “Mine hour is not yet come,” that enigmatic line He spoke to His mother? In the other places in the Gospel of John that speak specifically of His hour, the meaning has to do with His cross, the time of His death.

“Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.” John 7:30

“These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.” John 8:20

“And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified…Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” John 12:23, 27

“Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”
John 16:32

And with the cross His hour speaks of His resurrection and glorification:

“These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.” John 17:1

Here is how Archbishop Sheen put it:

“The ‘Hour,’ therefore, referred to His glorification through His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension…His mother was asking for a miracle; He was implying that a miracle worked as a sign of His Divinity would be the beginning of His Death. The moment He showed Himself before men as the Son of God, He would draw down upon Himself their hatred, for evil can tolerate mediocrity, but not supreme goodness. The miracle she was asking for would be unmistakably related to His Redemption.” P.77

Mary knew full well the prediction that Simeon had made to her years before, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke: “A sword shall pierce thine own soul also.” The pain of the cross awaited her too, for her ordeal was to watch her Son die in shame and agony while His enemies rejoiced and delighted in His sufferings as entertainment, amusement and a kind of victory. Knowing that He was going to begin to take the path that would lead to the cross, she speaks her last line that was recorded in scripture: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.”

Here we see the same willingness on her part that was expressed years earlier at the Annunciation: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it unto me according to thy will.”
As Archbishop Sheen wrote:

“He was telling His mother that she was virtually pronouncing a sentence of death over Him. Few are the mothers who send their sons to battlefields; but here was one who was actually hastening the hour of her son’s mortal conflict with the forces of evil.” P. 78

Here we see, as well, how the Lord took up the work of His cross willingly. Years later, in the garden of Gethsemane, the most significant words that he spoke to the Father were, “nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done.”

Finally, what of this curious title that he gives to His mother? Here at Cana, as He works that first miracle that would lead to His being “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief… cut off out of the land of the living” “for the sins of the whole world,” He calls her “Woman.” One more time He would call her that. On the day of His death as she stood by helplessly, with the sword piercing her own soul, He said: “Woman, behold thy Son.”

Perhaps to the modern American ear this has no meaning. But, to the ancient Jews, educated in the scriptures, it was obvious, indeed it was rich in meaning. This comes from the Proto Evangelium, the first announcement of the Gospel. In the third chapter of the Book of Genesis, after the fall of Adam into the sin and death that passed to all mankind, God spoke to the serpent the words of his coming defeat:

“And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen. 3:14, 15

The Lord Jesus identified Himself as the “seed of the woman.” His heel was bruised, that is He died, but He could not be held by death; and so He rose on the third day. The serpent’s head was bruised, that is, the prince of this world was cast out in the judgment that was rendered, by the Lord’s cross, on the world’s system of sin. The very idea of speaking of the woman’s seed is to express a miracle, that a woman would conceive without a natural father. He, the Son of the virgin mother, is the seed of the woman spoken of by God in the earliest promise made of our salvation from sin and death. She is not simply any woman, but rather she is the Woman, because He is the Savior of the world.