All people who care about marriage are familiar with the phenomenon of people wanting all that marriage offers but afraid to commit themselves to it without reservation.   

In addressing this question, I shall naturally bring a religious perspective to what I say and shall try to see whether God's dealings with the human race might be of assistance to us.  

THE IDEA OF COVENANT  

In early Hebrew society few people could read and write, so agreements between people were only occasionally set down in written documents.  Instead, various ways were found to invest the spoken word with as much solemnity as possible, e.g. by the swearing of an oath or the pronouncing of a self-curse.  There were also ritual elements such as the tasting of salt, the eating of a meal or the setting up of a cairn of stones (Gen.31:45-54).  There was also the passing between the divided halves of an animal (Gen.15:1-21) in a ritual form of self-curse - "May what has happened to this animal happen to me if I am not true to the word I have spoken."  

These solemn ritual agreements, whether written out or not, were given the name b'rith, usually translated into English as "covenant".  One of the major purposes of a covenant was shalom, though the word here means something more than "peace".  It implies peace through a unity that cannot be broken, for the covenant came closer than anything else to a blood relationship and at times became a substitute for it.  

There are many examples of covenants in the First Testament and they show a great variety.  The parties to the covenant were frequently not equal partners, for a stronger person could impose a covenant on a weaker one, a powerful empire could impose covenants on its vassal states, or a weaker party could request a covenant with a powerful protector.  Thus many of the covenants of the First Testament would be poor examples for marriage.

THREE COVENANTS  

To see how the idea might apply to marriage today we may consider three covenants from the First Testament.  

The first is that between Laban and his son-in-law Jacob in Gen.31:45-54.  Jacob had grown as strong and prosperous as his father-in-law and this was causing problems between the two clans, so they set up a cairn of stones and made a covenant between them.  In its most basic terms it was a land agreement and a non-aggression pact.  It was hoped on both sides that friendship and affection between the two clans would grow out of the covenant, and the very fact of there being a covenant meant that a binding and lasting relationship between the two families had been created.  Nevertheless, even if these good things did not follow, the covenant was not violated provided the essential minimum content was not violated, that is, provided neither crossed the boundary between them with the intention of harming the other (vv.51-52).  

This may be seen as a model of some marriages of the past.  In Catholic theology before the Second Vatican Council, the essential object of marriage consent was seen as very basic, it was "the right to the body", that is, the right to a genital sexual relationship with the other.  It was, of course, hoped that many other good things would flow from the relationship.  It was hoped that it would be rich and rewarding for both persons at many levels.  But its basic essence was simple and direct.  If the right to the body was intended, the marriage was present.  If this right was not violated, the covenant of marriage was not violated.  There is always a virtue in keeping things simple, but we shall see whether we might find a richer understanding in other covenants.  

The second example of a First Testament covenant that we might look at is that between Jonathan, son of Saul, and David (1 Sam.18:3-4; 20:1-23).  In this covenant no specific rights or duties of any kind were spelled out.  It was simply a matter of each being special to the other, first in affections and first in concern for the welfare of the other.  Since nothing was spelled out, it was not possible to specify exactly what would have constituted a violation of the covenant, and yet, precisely because nothing was spelled out, almost anything could have been seen by either of them as a violation of the covenant.  If, in some particular circumstance, David put the needs of one of his many wives before those of Jonathan, was he violating the covenant?  After all, each of his marriages was also a form of covenant.  

This covenant may be seen as a model for many marriages of today which rebel against the idea of "the obligations of marriage" and seek to make the marriage consist solely in the love of the couple for each other.  The idea has its great strengths, but the vagueness of such a covenant can lead to many uncertainties and misunderstandings.  As in the covenant between David and Jonathan, it is not always easy to point to particular things that would be a violation of the marriage covenant, and yet almost anything can be seen by either party as a violation.  There is a price to pay for leaving a relationship vague.  It works in good times, but is a shaky basis if problems arise.  

In human affairs there is always a tendency, in reacting against one extreme, to go to the opposite extreme.  In relation to marriage the first extreme, in which the object of consent was "the right to the body", was too oriented to obligations and duties and gave too little attention to the personal relationship between the couple.  The second extreme does the opposite and gives all its attention to the personal relationship, while attempting to exclude obligation or reduce it to a minimum.  

There is a need to find a healthy middle ground between these two extremes and it can perhaps be found in the third covenant, the great covenant of the First Testament, that between God and the people of Israel .  In seeking to bring salvation to the world, God freely chose one people to be the carriers of the divine message to the whole world and made a covenant with them.  This covenant became the central fact of Israel 's existence and the basis of its identity as a nation.  It was not a nation defined by geographic boundaries, it was a people defined by its covenant with God.  

In this case the obligations of the people were specified in a whole series of laws and a basic obedience to these laws was necessary to the covenant, and yet the covenant was essentially more than obedience to the law.  It was essentially the personal relationship with God.  The law of Moses had its place, for one could hardly speak of loving God unless one showed this by a whole series of actions expressing that love, e.g. by prayer and community worship, by not spreading contagious diseases or causing harm to others.  Jesus abolished the old law as such for his followers, but he never thought of abolishing the many specific moral obligations that stand behind that law, e.g. the ten commandments.  

Despite this, the obligation of the covenant was essentially more than the mere total of the specific obligations.  It was essentially a personal love relationship with God, and a mechanical fulfilling of specific duties in obedience to law would have created an empty religion, for religion must involve the heart and one's whole being if it is to come to life.  In the same way, marriage brings with it many specific obligations, some small, some large, and they cannot be ignored.  After all the talk of love, someone has to peel the potatoes, dispose of the garbage, wash the clothes and repair the broken window, and a person who consistently ignored all of these specific tasks could hardly speak of love.  Marriage is, however, essentially more than the mere total of these specific duties.  It is essentially the relationship itself, and a mechanical fulfilling of specific duties would create an empty marriage, for marriage must involve the heart and one's whole being if it is to come to life.  

This covenant surely comes closer to being a model for marriage.  Jesus abolished the old law and created a new covenant between God and human beings.  There was less insistence on law in that covenant, but there was an absolute insistence on moral obligation, even in specific details, e.g. giving a cup of cold water to a person in need.  At the same time, Jesus insisted more than ever that religion is essentially our personal love relationship with God.  It is this primacy of the relationship together with the acknowledgement of specific duties that makes it a good model for marriage.   

Thus the word "covenant" adds to the idea of marriage as a contract, for a contract can speak only of the specific duties.  Provided certain formalities are observed, contracts can be revoked, and they are concerned with things, services and rights rather than personal relationships.  A covenant, on the other hand, essentially creates a personal relationship.  It includes specific obligations but transcends them, for it is always the relationship that comes before all else.  God's first obligation from the covenant was always that of love and the people's first obligation was also one of love, of placing God first, and the laws were never more than one limited means to this end.  

In applying these ideas to marriage we are then enabled to bring in everything that the scriptures say about both marriage and covenant.  

THE PROPHETS  

One of the tasks of the prophets was that of calling the people of Israel back to the covenant with God from the many ways in which they had gone astray, and in doing this they made use of many images and parables.  Beginning with the prophet Hosea (8th Century BCE), one of the main images they used was that of marriage.  The most interesting fact is that the aspect of marriage the prophets insisted on was not the contractual element of marriage with its rights and obligations, or even the fruitfulness of marriage, but the love aspect.  They wished to stress that God's covenant obligation was a freely chosen obligation of love, and they knew of no better image to express this than the image of marriage.   

Against the background of their times, this use of the image of marriage to express the covenant inevitably meant that they also made important statements about marriage.  If marriage said something about the covenant, the covenant said much about marriage in return.  In particular, they made the great covenant between God and Israel , rather than any of the other covenants in the First Testament, the paradigm for marriage.  This had a powerful influence on many people and caused them to begin looking at marriage in a new light rather than simply continue in older attitudes.  

In Hosea God says to the people of Israel ,  

"I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy.  I will take you for my wife in faithfulness...." (2:19-20)  

Jeremiah has God calling the people back to faithfulness with the words,  

"I remember the devotion of your youth,

the love of your bridal day." (2:2)  

The prophet Malachi, starting from this covenant background, then makes a powerful statement on marriage:  

"You cover the Lord's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards your offering or accepts it with favor at your hand.  You ask, `Why does he not?'  Because the Lord was a witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.... For I hate divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel ." (2:13-16)  

If a renewed understanding of the covenant began with the prophets, so did a renewed understanding of marriage.    

THE NEW TESTAMENT  

The New Testament has only a few powerful statements on marriage.  The sayings on divorce express a covenant idea of marriage as creating a relationship that cannot be wilfully broken without being untrue to oneself.  

The letter to the Ephesians speaks of marriage as a great mystery when it is applied to Christ and the Church.  In this letter the word "mystery" does not simply mean something unintelligible.  The word rather speaks of something of "inexhaustible intelligibility", that is, something that we can keep studying and learning more about, but, no matter how much we study, there will always be far more to understand.  The writer is here using covenant language and, in the same way as the prophets, saying that the new covenant, the relationship between Christ and the Church, will forever shed light on marriage and marriage will in its turn forever shed light on the relationship between Christ and the Church, and this mutual shedding of light is so profound that it will never be exhausted, there will always be more that we can understand about both.    

COMMITMENT  

This language of covenant is essentially a language of commitment.  Jesus committed himself to the Church of his followers and gave his life as an expression of his commitment.  The Church of his followers has not always shown the same commitment in return and yet the invitation to total commitment is inherent in the relationship.   

Indeed, religion without total commitment is bound to be disappointing.  Religious faith is first and foremost faith in a person and a story.  From this will flow many truths that we believe, many norms of living that we follow and a genuine worship of God, but the response to the person and the story always comes first.  Without the personal commitment to God, the truths will become lifeless, the norms of living will be burdensome tasks and the worship will be empty.  With the personal commitment, the truths come alive, the norms of living become natural and the worship becomes life-giving.                                                                          

The total commitment of religious faith brings its fears, for we do not know what God might ask of us.  We can fear that we might be asked to enter more deeply into ourselves and to rise closer to becoming all that we are capable of being.  These are profound thoughts and they can cause profound fears.  Many people hold back from such a commitment and seek to be in control of their religious beliefs.  They make sure they keep God at a certain distance.  They can even use the formal prayers of the Church, such as the Our Father, as means of being polite to God and saying all the right things, but without actually having to say and mean anything as committing and frightening as "I love you totally and forever".  And yet the holding back, the less than total commitment, inevitably harms the personal relationship with God and the obligations then begin to become burdensome.  

The only truly satisfying religious belief is that of total commitment to a personal relationship with God, with all the obligations, demands, challenges, fears and vulnerability that flow from this.  

Since covenant and marriage say much about each other, can we not say almost identical things about marriage?  

A personal relationship involves first and foremost faith, hope and love in a person and a story.  From this will flow many truths that we believe about the other person, many norms of relating to that person that must be observed and a genuine respect for the dignity and individuality of the other, but the response to the person and the story always comes first.  Without the personal commitment to the other, the truths will become lifeless, the norms of relating will be burdensome tasks and the respect will be empty.  With the personal commitment, the truths comes alive, the norms of relating become natural and the respect becomes life-giving.  

The total commitment to another person brings its fears, for we do not know what the relationship might ask of us.  We can fear that we might be asked to enter more deeply into ourselves and to rise closer to becoming all that we are capable of being.  These are profound thoughts and they can cause profound fears.  Many people hold back from such a commitment and seek to be somehow in control of the relationship.  They make sure they keep a certain distance in it.  They can be polite and say all the right things, but without actually having to say and mean anything as committing and frightening as "I love you totally and forever".  And yet the holding back, the less than total commitment, inevitably harms the personal relationship and the obligations then begin to become burdensome.  

Just as with religion, so here we can say that the only truly satisfying interpersonal relationship is that of total commitment, with all the obligations, demands, challenges, fears and vulnerability that flow from this.  

The relationship between the covenant of marriage and the covenant of religion is indeed a great mystery, a reality of inexhaustible intelligibility.  

THE IMAGE OF GOD  

Man and woman were created in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:26).  This does not mean a physical or photographic image.  It expresses a deep spiritual reality.  It means that human beings alone have received the divine spirit of life, they alone long for the infinite and they alone share in the divine life in a special way.  God lives within them in a way that God does not live within anything else in creation.  

For most human beings, it is in their relationships with other persons that they find their deepest and most constant satisfaction.  Marriage offers to two people the opportunity to know and love each other at a depth that nothing else on earth can quite offer.  Because God is within the other, falling in love is an intuitive glimpse of God within the other.  Because God is within the other, marriage may be called a voyage of discovery of the infinite, in which the total reality of the other, created in the image and likeness of God, is also a reality of inexhaustible intelligibility.  

LOVE AND PERMANENCE  

Love always aspires to permanence.  To love another totally but only for a time is a contradiction in terms.  If a particular couple understand that there are no legal obligations and that each is free to leave the relationship at any time, there is a reservation to their love.  If their love is to be complete, each has to say, "I am not free to leave without denying the love I gave, without being untrue to myself."   

As persons, we are shaped by our decisions and the way we stand by them.  They enter into our being and make us the persons we are.  A total commitment in marriage is the most important decision that most people will ever make.  Through it two people give to each other and to themselves an identity and a name.  More than almost anything else, the nature of the commitment they give in marriage both expresses and shapes the persons they are.  

In the same way, couples living together without marriage are making important statements about themselves.  Some are proclaiming loudly that they are people who fear total commitment or do not wish it for themselves.  

Of course, a particular couple who live together without marriage may feel fully committed to each other.  They may bear and raise children lovingly.  They may be faithful to each other for life.  They may be convinced that their union is more authentic precisely because there are no legal bonds constraining them.  In an individual case their commitment may in fact be greater than that of many married couples.  

Even in this case, however, there is a fundamental difference between the couple living together and a married couple with equal commitment.  The married couple have called on the entire community to witness their commitment.  They wish to take their place publicly as a married couple.  They wish their status as a married couple to be officially registered and placed beyond doubt.  They wish to receive all the assistance that the community and the state can give to married couples.  They wish to bring their children into a world that contains all the security that a publicly recognised marriage can offer.  Depending on their convictions, they may wish to have their marriage recognised and blessed by God and the church community.  

For whatever reason the other couple do not wish all of this.  Frequently they seem to wish to borrow many benefits from marriage but without committing themselves to it.  I have serious problems with the manner in which Australian governments have extended the meaning of the word "marriage" to accommodate many people, for in this manner they have actually fostered the idea of unions with less than total commitment.  The near universal acceptance of easy divorce leads our society in the same direction, so that the difference between marriage and living together becomes smaller and smaller and the reasons for getting married becomes less and less.  

This is not a trend that we should welcome.  Religious motives will impress only some people in our society, but I speak from that perspective.  This trend in our society does not lead to the intuitive glimpse of God in one's partner, it is not the beginning of a voyage of discovery of the infinite.  It does not reflect the richness of the history of the word "covenant".  The mutual shedding of light between religion and marriage ceases to occur.  The proper balance between the relationship itself and the specific obligations that flow from it is disturbed.  

We need inspiration if our relationships and the institutions on which our society is founded are to work.  I know of no better inspiration for commitment to another person than that which comes from my religious beliefs and I commend them for your consideration.