|
The Biblical Design for Marriage:
The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality,
Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity
Paul
A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University
Chapter 1:
Early Israelite History
How Did the Early Israelites Marry?
Was There a Marriage Ceremony?
Marriage in the Early Church
Period and Thereafter
How Common Was Polygamy?
What Was the Status of Women?
Reflections
How Did the Early Israelites
Marry?
From an historical sense, the Bible remains our best
source of information on ancient Israel (Seltzer, 1980).
However, when it comes to the study of social
institutions such as marriage, the record is fragmentary.
We obtain only glimpses of what was involved, and are
forced to fill the gaps with deductions. There are few
written sources available for comparison since perishable
parchment from animal skins were used. Other peoples,
such as the Egyptians, used clay or stone tablets to
preserve their traditions.
Mace (1953) points out the universal practice among
the Israelites was the prearranged marriage. It was not
so much an affair between a couple as it was an affair
between families. The preferences of the individuals had
little bearing on the choice made. There are numerous
examples of arranged marriages in the Old Testament:
- Hagar arranged a wife for Ishmael (Gen. 21:21)
- a servant of Abraham secured a wife for Isaac
(Gen 24:1-4)
- Jacob obeyed his father's wishes in choosing his
wife (Gen. 28:1-2)
- Shechem, wanting to marry Dinah, had to persuade
his father to negotiate the marriage for him
(Gen. 34:4)
There were exceptions to this rule, but often the
consequences were negative: both Esau and Samson acted
against their parents wishes. Further, arranged marriages
for sons probably pertained only to the first wife.
Romantic attachments were not unknown, even in this
context of arranged marriages. Michal, Saul's daughter,
loved David, according to I Samuel 18:20. Since young
people mingled together socially, especially at meeting
places such as the village well, it was likely that many
courtships were initiated in this manner. de Vaux (1965)
states that:
- ...parental authority was not such as to leave no
room for the feelings of the young couple. There
were love marriages in Israel. The young man
could make his preferences known (Gen 34:4;
Judges 14:2), or take his own decision without
consulting his parents, and even against their
wishes (Gen. 26:34-35).
Edershim (1953) also casts doubt on the exclusivity of
the prearranged marriage during the time of Christ:
- Although a daughter remained in the power of her
father till marriage, she could not, after she
was of age, be given away without her own express
and free consent.
Where the social intercourse
between the sexes was nearly as unrestricted as
among ourselves, so far as consistent with
Eastern manners, it would, of course, be natural
for a young man to make personal choice of his
bride. Of this Scripture offers abundant
evidence. But, at any rate, the woman had, in
case of betrothal or marriage, to give her own
free and expressed consent, without which a union
was invalid.
...the whole tendency of the Mosaic
legislation, and even the direction of
recognizing the rights of woman...
Edershim (1953) argues that at the time of Christ,
girls up to the age of twelve years and one day might be
betrothed or given away by their father. But even then,
they had a right of insisting upon a divorce if they
wanted. Men were expected to marry at 16 or 17, with the
age of 20 being the upper limit unless the man's studies
left no time. The minimum age for marriage for a boy was
thirteen (de Vaux, 1965).
Mielziner (1884) provides slightly different data with
respect to the marrying age. He states that in the
ethical teaching of the Talmud, eighteen was considered
the proper year for a young man to be married. However,
the legal age to become married was set at the age of
puberty: males had to complete their thirteenth year
while females had to complete their twelfth year.
Marriages were void under these limits. There was one
exception: the father could give his minor daughter in
marriage before puberty, but he adds that "such
contracted infant marriages were, as a rule, not actually
consummated before the parties had reached the age of
puberty." Some rabbis protested this practice as
"a moral wrong", but this custom prevailed,
especially among European Jews during the persecutions in
the Middle Ages.
Mielziner (1884) notes that formalities with respect
to marriage did not originate until the Second Jewish
Commonwealth, when rabbinical law was developed on the
basis of Mosaic law. Israelite marriage was normally
preceded by betrothal, although by the third century,
betrothal was usually preceded by engagement (Shidduchin), marked by a preliminary agreement.
Betrothal was "not a mere promise to marry, but it
is the very initiation of marriage" (Mielziner,
1884). The couple were regarded as married but they were
not yet entitled to marital rights. Betrothal could be
dissolved only by death or a formal bill of divorce.
If the man had not been circumcised, he underwent the
rite before marriage. Mace suggests that the Hebrew word
for bridegroom, hathan, literally means the one who had
been circumcised, while the word for father-in-law, hothen, means the one who performs circumcision. A man
who was engaged, though not yet married to a girl, was
excused from going into the Army (Deut. 20:7).
Some scholars argue that the betrothal became official
when the bride-price was paid to the woman's father (Benzinger, 1894;
Norwack, 1894; Eberharter, 1914;
Greenwood & Scott, 1990). In other words, marriage
was "an economic transaction, a matter of purchase
and ownership" (Burrows, 1938). James (1955) states
that "we are left in no doubt concerning the status
of the husband in Israel as the master of the household
with his wives and children as his property."
Therefore, betrothal could be conceived of as simply
acquiring possession of a bride by paying the purchase
money. The bride's consent was unnecessary and all the
arrangements were handled by her father or guardian.
Numerous references occur in the Old Testament:
- Shechem wanted to marry Dinah so much that he was
willing to pay any "bridal payment and
gift" (Gen. 34:12);
- In Ex. 22:16-17, the law required a man who had
sexual intercourse with an unengaged virgin to
pay a price to the father and marry the girl;
- Saul required David to pay him a bride-price for
Michal, payable in Philistine foreskins! (I Sam.
18:25; II Sam. 3:14);
- When the marriage between Isaac and Rebekah had
been arranged, Abraham's servants brought many
gifts to her brother and mother (Gen. 24:53);
- Jacob did not have money to give his
father-in-law, so he paid in seven year's service
to Laban (Gen. 29).
Greenwood and Scott (1990) concur that the definite
value of the mohar varied, depending on the wealth and
status of the bridegrooms's parents. Hosea paid
"fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of
barley" (Hos. 3:2) for Gomer, but this price may
have "reflected her 'shopworn' condition" (Hos.
1:2) (Greenwood & Scott, 1990). In Deut. 22:29, a
mohar of fifty shekels of silver was required if the man
has intercourse with a virgin and was discovered.
Undoubtedly, this represented punitive damages. The
parents (and often the extended family) negotiated the
actual value of the mohar. Samson was able to negotiate a
wager involving "thirty linen wraps and thirty
changes of clothes" (Judges 14). In some situations,
the mohar was negotiated so high that it served to scare
off a prospective husband. David was poor and
"lightly esteemed", so Saul set the mohar for
his daughter Michal at one hundred foreskins of the
Philistines (I Sam. 18). David brought back two hundred
foreskins in order to marry Michal.
This conception of the bride-price as being the only
requirement for betrothal has its critics (cf., Driver
and Miles, 1935; Dussaund, 1935; Eberharter, 1913).
Several evidences are given in support of an alternative
explanation:
- the Israelite wife had a relatively independent
position; there was a sharp distinction made
between wives and slaves or even concubines;
- the prophets use of marriage as a symbol of the
covenant between Yahweh and his people, implied a
free agreement between the parties;
- the married woman did not lose all connections
with her father' family; the father of the bride,
while receiving a mohar from the bridegroom, also
gave his daughter a dowry and therefore did not
merely exchange value for value (cf., Burrows,
1938; Edershim, 1953).
Mace (1953) suggests that the idea that betrothal was
marked by a mere purchase of the bride is wrong:
"girls are not sold by their relatives like
chattels". He suggests that marriage is an older
institution than purchase, and therefore cannot be
derived from an idea of a purchase transaction. The
reason the bride-price was given to the father was to
seal the covenant between the two families.
de Vaux (1965) agrees:
- ...the mohar seems to be not so much the price
paid for the woman as a compensation given to the
family, and, in spite of the apparent resemblance
(to a purchase), in law this is a different
consideration. The future husband thereby
acquires a right over the woman, but the woman
herself is not bought and sold.
Greenwood and Scott (1990) states that one purpose of
the mohar:
- was that it served as a kind of "earnest
money" that guaranteed the bridegroom's
sincerity and allayed the fears of the parents
who took their daughter out of the marriage
marketplace for him. It showed that he knew not
to expect to get "something for
nothing" (Greenwood and Scott, 1990, pg.
50).
They go on to state that the mohar system reveals that
the Jewish woman:
- had an inherent, even measurable worth in her
society. She was not chattel to be auctioned off
to the highest bidder but rather an important
ingredient whose suitability in a marriage was to
be carefully weighed, and dearly paid for
(Greenwood and Scott, 1990, pg. 51).
Burrows (1938) suggests other explanations of the
mohar as something other than the purchase price:
- it represents a compensation for the bride's loss
of virginity; it acts as an earnest or pledge
guaranteeing the fulfillment of the marriage
contract; it acts as a fund for the wife in the
case of divorce or her husband's death.
James (1955) does not buy into any of these
explanations:
Burrows (1938), in a careful review of all of the
arguments, finds that the evidence weighs in favor of
looking at the mohar as a compensatory gift. However, not
every piece of evidence of Hebrew history can be true to
every period--from age to age, customs may have changed.
Burrows acknowledges this by saying that the
"earliest picture given by the Old Testament may be
already far removed from the ideas and practices which
were normative for the beginnings of Israelite
culture". However, Burrows clearly sees a marriage
as not merely an incidental transaction between families,
but marriage as a creation or cementing of an alliance or
relationship between them.
- One family gives a very precious possession, a
daughter; the other, "to put things on an
equal footing," gives a valuable present.
The mohar thus establishes the prestige of the
husband and his family, gives him authority over
his wife, makes the contract binding on both
parties, and creates an alliance between the two
families.
Burrows adds that the other primary function (in fact,
the basis) of marriage was to continue the husband's
family. Thus, it is easy to see that the man was forced
to secure a wife from another family, which had to be
induced to give her up. This was done by a gift, thus
creating an obligation which led to the sealing of a
contract and thus establishing a family alliance. As the
culture advanced. it is easy to see how these customs
could change, creating an illusion that the wife was
being purchased.
It is important to clearly define the sequence of
events from betrothal to marriage.
- first, a negotiation took place.
- second, at the conclusion of the negotiation and
the exchange of gifts (possibly sealing the
covenant between the families), the couple were
considered betrothed. The bride was introduced,
and the covenant was sealed with a cup of wine
(cf., Greenwood and Scott, 1990, pg.40);
- third, the girl would normally be transferred to
her husband's home.
- fourth, the marriage was consummated.
Steps two, three and four could occur over a short
period of time, or they could be extended over years. If
the girl was extremely young, the waiting period might be
considerable. In later Hebrew history, the waiting period
between betrothal and marriage became obligatory; twelve
months in the case of a virgin and three months in the
case of a widow (Mace, 1953). If a girl or woman was a
slave or a captive taken in war, the first step was
omitted and all that was necessary was physical
consummation to make the person a concubine (Deut.
21:13).
Mace finds nowhere in the Old Testament any formal
contract which was necessary for the institution of
either the betrothal or the marriage. Such a document was
necessary in ancient Babylon. de Vaux (1965) maintains
that it was customary to have a written contract which
most often accompanied marriage in the Near East.
However, since a "bill of divorcement" was used
before the exile (cf., Deut. 24: 1-3; Jer. 3: 8), it
might be assumed that there was such a document drawn up
at the inception of the marriage. Wight (1953) states
that "after the exile, the betrothal included
signing a written document of marriage" (cf., Stapfer, 1885).
One thing is certain, however: in the Old Testament,
Israelite marriage is based on a covenant where the
husband and the wife agree to enter into a specified
relationship to each other (cf., Prov. 2:17; Ezek. 16:8;
Mal. 2:14). In this covenant agreement, Yahweh is
regarded as the witness to the covenant (cf., Westcott,
1985). The covenant involved the idea of pledge and
commitment as well as friendship and peace. The marriage
covenant will be examined in greater detail later.
Edershim (1953) points out that at the time of Christ,
there were regular Shitre Erusin or writings of betrothal
drawn up by the authorities, the cost being paid by the
bridegroom. These writings stipulated such things as
mutual obligations and the dowry. The Chethubah was a
marriage contract--without it the Rabbis regarded the
marriage as merely legalized concubinage. The marriage
contract provided for a minimum settlement of 200 dinars
for a maiden, 100 dinars for a widow, and 400 dinars for
a priest's daughter. These writings were common at the
time of Christ. Edershim does not tell us how far back
they go. Edershim's thesis is supported by de Vaux
(1965), who points out that two texts in the Old
Testament may allude to a written contract (Prov. 2:17
and Ex. 16:8). However, de Vaux indicates that by the
fifth century B.C., written documents were used, and that
by the Greco-Roman era, the custom was firmly
established. de Vaux maintains that contracts of marriage
may have been in use even before the Exile (cf., Deut.
24:1-3 and Jer. 3:8).
Burrows (1938) raises an interesting question: what
established the marriage relationship? In other words,
when can a woman be called a wife? In the Israelite
culture, there are two possibilities:
- when the mohar is paid, or
- when the physical consummation of the union
occurs.
Burrows is emphatic here--the payment of the mohar
closed the transaction and established the contract. The
delivery of the bride was not necessary. In fact, in many
cases, the bride stayed in the home of the father for
several years until the couple was old enough to be
married. Yet, this betrothal period was binding. In fact,
a violation of a betrothed virgin was, like adultery, a
capital offense. J. Neubauer is quoted by Burrows as
suggesting that the taking of the bride away from her
father's home and the subsequent sexual intercourse was
what established the marriage relationship. In Gen.
24:67, it states that:
- Isaac brought her (Rebekah) into his mother's
tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his
wife; and he loved her...
Burrows maintains that the verb, "take" is
also used in Gen. 4:19 and I Sam 25:40-43 in reference to
marriage. But he states that it does not indicate that
sexual intercourse legally established marriage. He
maintains that the delivery of the bridal gift created an
obligation, sealed the marriage covenant and established
the bridegroom's right to his bride, whether or not the
marriage was actually carried out at the same time.
Midziner (1884) states that in Mosaic Law, no fixed
forms of concluding marriages are mentioned. The families
simply recognized the difference between the betrothed
and the married. By the act of the man taking the woman
from her home to the bridal chamber or nuptial apartment,
the woman was considered no longer under her parents'
authority, but under her husband's authority. The
marriage was regarded as consummated even though sexual
intercourse had not taken place.
Was There A Marriage
Ceremony?
It is difficult to determine if there was a marriage
ceremony per se in early Israelite history. Mace (1953)
feels that the elaborate reconstructions of ceremonies by
some scholars hinge on the thinnest of evidence. If
mention is made in scripture of a rite, it cannot be
taken as normative for the culture. But here is what can
be gleaned from a study of this topic:
- a wedding was an occasion of great joy (cf.,
Jer.
7:34, 16:9, 25:10, 33:11; Is. 62:5);
- special attire was worn, as was common on festive
occasions: the bridegroom may have worn a garland
while the bride may have worn jewels (Is 61:10)
as well as a veil (Gen: 24:65).
- the marriage ritual in the Old Testament included
three separate incidents: the transfer of the
bride to the husband's home, the feast, and the
physical consummation.
In rabbinic times, the period of betrothal varied, and
the actual date of the wedding was specified by the
groom's father (cf., Greenwood and Scott, 1990). Two
factors influenced the date, according to Greenwood and
Scott: the groom's completion of the bridal chamber and
finances. The bridal chamber, sometimes a room in the
father's house but more often, a separate building on the
father's property, was made as luxurious and beautiful as
possible. The father made the final decision when the
bridal chamber was ready. The usual period of time
between betrothal and marriage was about a year (cf.,
Wight, 1953). Then, two sets of invitations were issued:
the first alerted guests to the upcoming wedding, but no
date was given, while the second invitation summoned the
guests to the wedding (cf., Esther 5: 8; 6: 14).
Mace (1953) indicates that the transfer (referred to
as the tradito puellae) was highly significant in the
life of a Israelite woman as it symbolized her transfer
from one family to another. The actual timing of the
abduction of the bride was kept a secret, as best as
possible. The groom, accompanied by his shoshben, or best
man, and his friends would go to the bride's house in a
noisy and festive nighttime procession (Judges 14:11;
Matt. 9:15). Most likely, music in the form of
tambourines and a band accompanied the procession, and
palms and myrtle branches were taken before the couple,
with grain and money being thrown towards them. Once at
the house, a short ritual followed where the bride's
parents would embrace their daughter and give their
benediction (cf., Gen. 24:60 and Ruth 4:11-12). Perhaps,
the shoshben acted as master of ceremonies. The bride
also had her entourage as well, corresponding to
modern-day bridesmaids. Sisters and close friends were
included among the "maidens" (cf., Psalm 45: 9,
14; Song of Solomon 1:5; 2:7; 3:5; 8:4).
The midnight wedding procession would return to the
bridegroom's house using the longest route possible, thus
ensuring that as many people as possible could share in
the excitement. The groom would lead the way, followed by
his veiled bride. They would stop at the huppah or bridal
canopy, situated outdoors, perhaps in the village
marketplace, before proceeding on to the house. Here,
many people would see the bride and groom together under
the stars, which reminded them of God's promise to
Abraham (Gen. 15:5). Wight (1953) states that here, one
of the fathers would bestow a benediction.
The festivities would go on for seven days (Judges 14:
12-17), with guests returning each evening if they had
daily tasks to attend to. It was a type of "open
house" where the bride and groom would emerge from
their bridal chamber to greet guests and join in the
celebration. Food and wine were plentiful. Celebrants
sang, danced, played games, and took part in various
amusements and competitions of skill (Greenwood and
Scott, 1990). Love songs were sung in praise of the
couple (cf., Jer. 16.9; Ps. 45). There is no official
ceremony mentioned in the scriptures that solemnize the
marriage. de Vaux (1965) suggests that the husband stated
to his bride and the company gathered, "She is my
wife and I am her husband, from this day for ever."
A second century A.D. formula, found in the Judean
desert, simply read, "Thou shalt be my wife."
Fielding (1942) maintains that the man repeated the
formula, "Be thou consecrated to me." Wight
(1953) suggests that the only statements given were
benedictions of relatives and friends.
The consummation of the marriage probably took place
on the first night of the festivities (Gen 29:23, 25,
27). A special bridal chamber, a tent in the early days,
would be prepared. Most likely, it was at this time that
the bridal veil was lifted. The bride went into her
chambers with her hair unloosed--her head and hair were
usually covered (cf., I Cor. 11:1-10). Some scholars make
a great deal about this being the first time the groom saw
the face of the bride, but this seems highly unlikely. He
most likely had seen the woman in many social occasions.
The final ritual in the consummation was the proving of
the bride's virginity. This usually involved the bride's
parents securing the necessary proof, which might have
been displayed to all the people at the feast. Greenwood
and Scott (1990) claim that the festivities could not
begin until the best man announced that the marriage had
been consummated. This was done in a triumphal shout of
approval since it recognized that he had carried out his
specific responsibility of delivering a chaste bride to
her husband. Edershim (1953) points out that in some
mystic writings, God is described as acting as the friend
of the bridegroom in Eden. One ancient writing has God
taking the cup of blessing and speaking the benedictions,
while Michael and Gabriel act as the friends of the
bridegroom at the wedding of Adam and Eve. Fielding
(1942) adds an unusual twist to the consummation of the
marriage. He claims that. originally, two brides men led
the couple to the bridal chamber where they watched the
couple have intercourse. He claims that the purpose of
this was to witness the consummation of the marriage,
which was held as highly important. When the custom of
the presence of the witnesses became objectionable, a
tent affording more privacy was substituted.
Apparently, not all marriages involved such elaborate
festivities. Kruger (1984) suggests that Ancient Near
Eastern peoples used symbolic language or gestures to
communicate the making or breaking of a relationship or
agreement. Further, no written or oral contract was
necessary. Clothes were of particular significance since
they were thought to be an extension of a person's
personality. Kruger provides some examples:
- In Ancient Babylonia, when a man stripped his
wife's garments off, thus exposing her publicly,
this validated the dissolution of marriage;
- Removing a son's robe by his mother denoted the
severing of family ties, according to an ancient
Hittite law;
- Removal of garments signified an heir's
renouncement of his right to a thrown, according
to one Ugarit text;
- In Ezekiel 26:16, this same gesture of stripping
off of robes and embroidered garments signified
abdication of the throne.
Kruger states that the hem was of particular symbolic
significance in the Ancient Near East. Cutting the hem of
the wife's garment effected the dissolution of the
marriage. Just as it was the responsibility of the
husband to provide his wife with clothes, i.e., to cover
her nakedness, the symbolic gesture of cutting the hem of
her garment signified to others that the husband was
uncovering her nakedness, that is, ceasing the essential
sustainment of his wife. This was presumably done in the
presence of witnesses. Of course, the husband always had
the option of stripping off all of the wife's garments,
thus exposing her nakedness, but it appears that this was
usually reserved for wives who were caught in adultery
(cf., Hosea 2:10).
The hem was also of special significance in Ancient
Near Eastern marriage. Two Old Testament passages allude
to this (Ruth 3:9 and Ezekiel 16:8). In both passages,
the symbolic gesture is performed by a prospective
husband on his wife-to-be, and in both cases, the gesture
involves the spreading over of the hem. In some
manuscripts, the passage in Ruth involves the spreading
of "wings" (knfyk, plural of kanaf) over Ruth,
which would have implied a plea for protection. But
Kruger makes a compelling case for the favoring of
manuscripts which show Ruth requesting that Boaz spread
his kanaf or skirt over her. Since he is the next of kin,
Kruger interprets this passage in light of the goel
institution, where the symbolic gesture refers to a
marriage proposal.
Biale (1992) concurs with Kruger and suggests that the
phrase, "cover nakedness" or "spread a
covering", evidently means marriage.
- To "uncover the genitals is a transgression,
but to "cover" them by marriage makes
sexual activity permissible.
There is, however, some disagreement among scholars as
to what actually happened between Ruth and Boaz. Biale
suggests that the narrative implies that Ruth seduced
Boaz. She washes herself, dresses in her finest clothes
and puts on perfume, and waits until Boaz has eaten and
drank wine and fallen asleep. At that point, she uncovers
his feet and lays down. In the middle of the night, Boaz
wakes up and finds Ruth sleeping beside him. Had this
happened in contemporary culture, Boaz's first thought
would have been, "What did I do with this woman last
night. The last thing I remember is that I was drinking
and having a good time. Did I have sex with this
woman?" Ruth invites Boaz to spread his cloak over
her, thus making the presumed sexual activity legitimate.
It should be noted that not all scholars agree with
Biale's interpretation. Reed (1985) states that both Ruth
and Boaz were honorable persons (cf., Ruth 3:11; 2:1-3)
and would not have compromised themselves. (The reference
to Boaz as a man of great wealth should more rightly be
translated, "a man of standing or valor",
according to Reed). He claims that just as Ruth had
placed herself under the wings of God (2:12), so she
placed herself under the wing or corner of Boaz's
garment. Even if sexual activity did not take place, the
context clearly speaks of a situation where Ruth asks
Boaz to assume responsibility for her security and
protection by marrying her and becoming her
kinsman-redeemer. Dyer indicates that "the symbolic
act of spreading the lower part of one's garment over
another signified protection and betrothal" (Dyer,
1985, pg. 1256). Kruger (19884) acknowledges that this
symbolic act may denote aid and protection, but it might
also denote authority, and with it, the willingness to
provide sustenance according to the marriage customs of
the Ancient Near East.
Smith (1903), referring to early Arabian traditions,
describes a situation where a man had a right to marry a
widow if he "came at once and threw his garment over
her." This symbolic act confirms Biale's
interpretation that spreading the corner of one's garment
over another was the same as claiming her as his wife.
Smith also (1903) reports that in early Arabic times,
there was a principle that the guest was inviolable. Any
person, whether they be murderer or thief, if they ate or
drank with the host family or pitched their tent next to
them, or even joined garments, would be protected. The
extent of the protection could be temporary or permanent.
This supports the idea that the placing of a corner of a
robe over another signified protection, at the very
least.
The Ezekiel passage speaks of a metaphorical marriage
between God and Israel, the wife. God covers Israel's
nakedness with his robe and enters into a covenant with
her "so that you became mine". Kruger (1984)
points out that the contents of the legal commitment of
the husband involved the anointing with oil, the
supplying of clothes, and the provision of food (cf.,
Ezek. 16: 9-13), which suggests the material assistance a
husband is expected to provide. Although this
interpretation is certainly consistent with the Hosea
example, I would point out that the material assistance
God provided to his bride went far beyond what would be
considered normal sustenance. It involved lavish gifts of
expensive apparel (embroidered cloth, porpoise skin
sandals, fine linen and silk) and jewelry (gold and
silver rings, earrings and a crown).
Hegg (1988) concurs with this view, stating that the
hem of a garment was used "in the context of
oath-making and therefore in covenants and
agreements". Hegg points out that in several ancient
sources, it appears that the terminology, "to take
hold of the hem" may have been functionally
equivalent to swearing an oath. Hegg further points to
the reason why the hem was so important--the bride price
was bound up in the hem of the bride, according to one
Babylonian document. Hegg also points out that the hem
was used as a substitute for a seal in some business
transactions, either by impressing its design on a tablet
or by seizing or grasping it while making an oath. In
other writings, the seizing of the hem signified loyalty.
What is clear from all of these evidences is that the hem
symbolically represented the person wearing the garment.
Thus, to grasp the hem meant that a relationship with the
person was effected. This relationship implied a sense of
loyalty and submission to an agreement or covenant.
Cutting or altering the hem signified a severing of the
relationship, as in divorce. These meanings perhaps shed
light on the Markian account of the woman with the
hemorrhage who touched Jesus' robe (Mark 5:25-34). The
significance of the touch of the garment was that she
established a relationship with the person of Jesus, a
relationship characterized by loyalty and submission.
Biale (1992) suggests that not only does God marry
Israel by the covering of her nakedness, he uses the
sexual component of the marriage ritual--intercourse--to
signify the making of a covenant. Since there is the
distinct possibility that a covenant was formed by a
statement (such as, "Thou shalt be my wife") or
a gesture (such as covering the women with a garment), it
is not necessary to conclude that sexual intercourse made
the covenant. Although the context specified in the
passage, "you (Israel) were at the time for
love" is suggestive of sexual readiness, it does not
mean that sexual intercourse effected the covenant. Jay
Adams states that:
- the covenant is made at the time of engagement by
contract (not by sexual union), but the two begin
to fulfill all the terms of the covenant only
after the wedding ceremony and celebration when
they actually begin to live together (Adams,
1980, pg. 15-16).
It should be recognized that betrothal was much more
binding than our contemporary custom of engagement. Some
scholars speak of betrothal as "inchoate
marriage", a union complete in all respects except
physical consummation (cf., Driver and Miles, 1935).
Betrothal was considered so binding that the woman is
referred to as a wife (e.g., Deut. 28:30; Judges 14:15,
16, 20; 15:1; I. Sam., 19:11; II Sam. 3:14). Apparently,
physical consummation was thought to complete the
marriage in the realm of personal relationship, just as
the bride-gift was essential in the forging of the
relationship. The woman was considered a wife regardless
of whether the man and woman had sexual intercourse. If
this interpretation is true, then it brings into sharp
focus the question posed above regarding the role of
sexual intercourse as the way a covenant was made. If the
covenant was made by the payment of the bride-price, or
the covering with a garment or hem of a garment, what
role did sexual intercourse play? Although the Ezekiel
passage clearly speaks of making an oath and entering
into a covenant, it does not provide us with any reason
to state categorically that physical consummation was
necessary for the covenant to be made. As stated above,
no fixed forms of concluding marriages are mentioned in
Mosaic Law (Mielziner, 1884). The act of the man taking
the woman from her home to the bridal chamber signified
that the woman was considered under her husband's
authority and the marriage was regarded as consummated
even though sexual intercourse had not taken place. From
a careful study of Old Testament passages, it is clear
that there was substantial variation in the procedures
used to initiate betrothal and marriage. In Judges 14,
Samson sees a young Philistine woman in Timnah whom he
wishes to have as his wife. He returns to tell his mother
and father of his wishes, and takes them with him back to Timnah. After a while, Samson proceeds with plans for a
wedding feast. On the first day of the seven day feast,
Samson gives a riddle to the people in attendance. The
stakes are considerable: if Samson wins, he will receive
from the relatives thirty linen wraps and thirty changes
of clothes. If Samson loses, he will have to give the
relatives the same. Apparently, the marriage is not
consummated on the first night of the feast since
Samson's wife feels Samson hates her and does not love
her because he would not tell her the answer to the
riddle. When she finally coerces him to tell the answer
and she in turn tells her relatives, Samson travels about
twenty-two miles into Philistia and kills thirty men. He
returns with the spoils, including thirty changes of
clothes, and gives it to the relatives who answered the
riddle. Meanwhile, Samson's wife was given to his best
man by her father. When Samson returns and wants to
consummate the marriage in her room, her father forbids
him to enter, saying that he gave her to his best man
since he thought Samson hated her.
Two things are clearly seen in this passage. First,
the woman who is betrothed is considered a wife. Second,
the payment of the mohar varies with the circumstance.
Apparently, in this case, the bride-price was contingent
upon the winning of a wager which was to be determined at
the end of the seven-day feast. Even though the wager was
finally paid, it came too late since his wife had already
been given away to Samson's best man, thereby nullifying
the contract. While the elements involved in betrothal
and marriage (the mohar, the marriage feast, the
consummation) were involved, the actual order of events
and the manner in which they were fulfilled varied from
one occasion to the next.
At the time of Christ, it appears that little had
changed with respect to betrothal and marriage. Edershim
(1953) points out that the betrothal was legally binding
under one of four conditions:
- the handing to a woman directly or through
messengers some money;
- a letter;
- cohabitation (strongly disapproved by Rabbis);
- a statement made that a man intended to espouse a
woman as his wife.
In the middle of the fourth century, when the
redaction of the Palestinian Talmud was under way,
matters were formalized to a greater degree. Mielziner
(1884) points out that a general theory of Talmudic Law
states that no contract can be formed by mere consent.
Either money (kaseph) or a written document (sh'tar) had
to be given, always in the presence of two male witnesses
who were not close relatives. The money did not have to
be large: a peruta which was the smallest copper coin in
Palestine could be used. When the money or the written
document was given to the girl, the man would say one of
several phrases:
- Be thou consecrated (wedded) to me.
- Be thou my betrothed.
- Be my wife.
- Be mine.
Stapfer (1885) states that the man would repeat:
- See by this ring (or this token) thou art set
apart for me, according to the law of Moses and
of Israel.
Apparently, "according to the law of Moses and of
Israel" was added at a later time (Mielziner, 1884).
Mielziner points out that betrothal by sh'tar was
resorted to only under extraordinary conditions. The
presence of the boy and girl was not absolutely
necessary.
Since the 16th century, Jews have combined the
betrothal and the ceremonies of the nuptials on one day.
The joint act takes place under the nuptial baldachia
which represents the ancient bridal chamber (chuppa). It
was here that the couple had a benediction over a cup of
wine (Mielziner, 1884).
It might be noted here that Jesus, in his words on
marriage, goes back beyond even the earliest Israelite
customs to the Garden of Eden, where man and woman were
joined together into an indissoluble monogamous union,
that is, a one-flesh relationship. Nothing is mentioned
in the scriptures about a ceremony involving Adam and
Eve, so we can only glean one element of this union: Adam
and Eve were introduced, leading Adam to exclaim,
"This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my
flesh." We are given no further details concerning
the union, including whether or not they had sexual
intercourse.
Marriage in the Early
Church Period and Thereafter
Moving forward to the early Church period, there is
little reason to add anything to the above discussion of
the marriage ceremony for Israelites or Gentiles. Most
likely, the marriage was simply ratified by the baptism
of one or both parties, with or without any further
ceremonies or vows (James, 1955). At first, the Church
was content to recognize any marriage, whether Israelite
or pagan, irrespective of the rites which were used.
However, James states that the Church, as a spiritual
society, began to devise its own ceremonies more
consistent with the idea that Christian marriage was a
sacrament. Thus a benediction, appropriate prayers, and
the Eucharist were added to hallow the union. Tertullian
describes the ceremony in this manner:
- ...that marriage which is made by the Church,
confirmed by the Holy Sacrifice (the Eucharist
oblation), sealed by the blessing, which the
angels proclaim and which is ratified by our
Father in heaven.
Thaddeus Wojcik, writing from the Orthodox tradition,
places great significance on the Eucharist:
- Matrimony was accomplished in the early Church
when the two people partook of the Eucharist. The
two are united into one flesh by the "One
Flesh," which is the common cup or the
Eucharist...There was no need for a separate
ceremony since marriage is an extension of the
church which is the Eucharist. The Orthodox
patristic tradition consider matrimony in terms
in which the marital union is connected to the
sacramental union of Christ and the Church (Wojcik, 1968, pg. 12).
Before Constantine, two Christian people wanting to
marry simply received permission from their bishop.
According to Wojcik, the Church did not see herself as
the performer of the marriage, but as the sanctifier of a
civil marriage which had already occurred.
- The Church did not attempt to change the existing
social order, but to transform individuals (Wojcik, 1968, pg. 21).
The Roman Catholic tradition also places importance on
the Eucharist. Riker and Riker (1963) state that:
- Receiving communion together unites the married
persons mystically, and calls to mind how similar
and close their marriage is to the mystical union
between Christ and His members. As the Eucharist
is the source of their life in the family of the
Church, so it will be the source of their life in
the family they make (Riker and Riker, 1963, pg.
122).
How Common Was Polygamy?
Although the Creation narrative presents monogamy as
the will of God, it is clear that polygamy was tolerated
by the Israelites, even in the time of Christ. de Vaux
(1965) and Dwight (1836) points out that polygamy first
appeared in the reprobate line of Cain, when Lamech took
two wives (Gen. 4:19-24). Some scholars cite one other
instance of polygamy before the flood (Gen.6:1-7), but
Evans (1870) points out that there is no evidence that
the "sons of God" took more than one wife.
However, Dwight (1836) suggests that polygamy became so
widespread that it led to the wickedness that God
condemns, which occasioned the flood.
After the flood, polygamy is not mentioned again until
Abraham. At first he had only one wife, but when Sarah
was found to be infertile, he had intercourse with her
handmaid Hagar (Gen 16:1-2). The scriptures state that
Sarai gave Hagar to "her husband Abraham as his
wife", but it is unclear whether this constituted a
polygamous marriage. de Vaux suggests that Abraham was
simply following the custom of the time while limiting
his marriages to having only one lawful marriage at a
time. Several times throughout the narrative, Hagar is
referred to a Sarai's maid, not Abraham's wife (Gen 16:9;
21:10, 12, 13; 25:12). Abraham did marry Katurah, but
this was seven years after Sarah's death (Gen. 25:1).
Boadt (1984) suggests that Abraham was polygamous, but
that the first wife had special privileges. The second
wife, he claims, was taken in order to have children if
the first wife was unable to, and her status was clearly
subordinate to the first wife (cf., Genesis 16). It
should be noted that Abraham also had concubines (Gen.
25:6), but their identities remain a mystery. Evans
(1870) maintains that they were probably Hagar and Keturah, who was "probably of inferior birth, and
therefore here called a concubine." Since in Gen.
25:1, Keturah is called a wife, I prefer the logically
purer interpretation that Abraham had concubines, a
situation consistent with his great wealth.
In succeeding generations, the restriction of monogamy
was relaxed. Esau had three wives. Jacob had two
principal wives and two slave concubines (Gen. 29:23-30;
30:4-9). Wight (1953) states that the Mosaic law allowed
polygamy among the Israelites, and gave the wives
protection against abuse. Mielziner (1884) states that
the Mosaic law regarded polygamy as an evil which
"could not at once be eradicated and in some ways
was preferable to the greater evil of concubinage."
Therefore, Israelites presupposed monogamy as a rule
(cf., Deut. 20:7; 24:5; 25:5-11), they "endured
polygamy under some restrictions, without, however,
expressly sanctioning it" (cf., Deut. 21:15-17).
Evans (1870) disagrees that Mosaic law was tolerant of
polygamy. In fact, he finds no place where Mosaic law
directly permits it, and at best, it only supposes that
polygamy exists (cf., Ex. 21:7-11; 22:16; Deut. 17:17;
21:11; 21:15; 22:28; Lev. 18:18).
In Israel, under the Judges and the monarchy, men took
many wives and bigamy was a recognized fact (e.g., Gideon
[Judges 8:30-31]). Later, David as well as Solomon took
multiple wives in direct violation of the legislation
that kings were not to "multiply wives" (Deut.
17:17). The Bible states that Solomon, who had seven
hundred wives and three hundred concubines, allowed
himself to be led astray by his wives, something
mentioned in the Deuteronomy passage: "lest his
heart turn away". One reason for this was that a
wife might be a foreign princess which brought with it
dangers of faction and idolatry. Rehoboam, Abijah, Ahab, Jehoram, Joash, and Zedekiah all had multiple wives.
The Talmud fixed the number of wives to four for a
commoner and eighteen for a king. In practice, bigamy was
probably limited to the royalty (because of the high cost
of supporting multiple wives), and the most common form
of marriage practiced by the Israelites was monogamy (de Vaux, 1965;
Parrinder, 1958; Dwight, 1836). As these
scholars rightly point out, the original law of marriage
in the second chapter of Genesis left room for only one
husband and one wife, and that law was binding on
everyone. Wight (1953) points out that the Old Testament
favored monogamy by picturing unhappy homes when polygamy
was practiced (e.g., Genesis 30; I Sam. 1) as well as
showing good examples in Adam, Noah, Isaac, Joseph,
Moses, Job, the high priests, and the prophets.
Many scholars contend that polygamy all but
disappeared by the time of Christ. For example, Pearson
(1972) contends that the lex Antoniana de civitate,
passed in 212 A.D., forbid polygamy among the Romans, and
that the impact of this law was felt among the Jews. He
states that:
- it is doubtful that polygamy, except for rare
cases, was, or could be, practiced in the first
century among the Jews (Pearson, 1972, pg. 66).
Evans (1870) emphatically states that:
- there is no mention in any writer, sacred or
profane, of polygamy among the Jews after the
Captivity. There is no reason to believe that it
was lawful or common among the Greeks. To the
Romans it was utterly unknown throughout their
whole history (Evans, 1870, pg. 159).
However, Adams (1980) presents evidence that polygamy
continued among the Jews as well as the Gentiles.
Josephus observed cases of polygamy, and further, the
Roman law passed in 212 A.D. specifically exempted the
Jews. Although this exemption was later repealed in 285
A.D. by Diocletian, in 393 A.D., Theodosius moved to
enforce the anti-polygamy law for all people since
polygamy still was practiced at that time by the Jews.
Adams contends that it was not until the eleventh century
that the Jews abandoned polygamy. Adams further states
that an examination of Greek marriage contracts indicate
that polygamy existed in New Testament times.
With apparently two exceptions, The New Testament
seems silent on this issue. Those exceptions are Paul's
statements to Timothy and to Titus:
Many scholars and pastors interpret this statement as
meaning that a pastor or elder should be married to one
only and never another, even after the death of a spouse.
The view of excluding remarried widowers was held by many
Church Fathers who were swayed either by the ascetic
spirit, by Montanism, or by a Christianized Gnosticism
(Pearson, 1980). Others take a more relaxed stance and
allow remarriage only after death of a spouse. Others
take this statement as an admonition against successive
polygamy where a man separates from his wife and marries
another woman before the marriage is legally terminated (Conybeare and
Howson, 1968). Still others take the
statement to forbid polygamy in the traditional sense of
having more than one wife at a time (Adams, 1980). The
latter two views support the contention that polygamy
existed in one form or another in New Testament times.
Mielziner (1884) is of the opinion that monogamy was
generally practiced due to a "consequence of the
circumstances that monogamy was more congenial to the
climate and customs of European nations, as it primarily
prevailed among Greeks and Romans, as well as among the
ancient Germans..." He states that rabbis did not
expressly prohibit polygamy until the convening of the
Rabbinical Synod at Worms in the eleventh century. He is
of the opinion that Christianity did little to influence
the prevalence of monogamy because the New Testament did
not condemn polygamy but simply ordained that a bishop or
presbyter shall be monogamous.
In summary, it would appear that polygamy was
permitted by the Old Testament, and apparently continued
among both Jews and Gentiles past the time of Christ in
isolated instances.
For other information on Israelite marriage customs
and ceremonies, Mace (1953) appears to be an excellent
source. Dwight (1836) has valuable insights on the
question of polygamy and incest.
What Was the Status of Women?
Did the Israelites view men and women as equal in all
respects or did they view men and women as equal in
person but different in role to the extent that women
were subject to men? A third question is also in order:
did the Israelites view men and women as unequal?
After the Fall, the relationship between men and women
deteriorated. The effects of sin on the position of women
became evident ("your desire shall be for your
husband and he shall rule over you"). Wight (1953)
states that the wife's position was subordinate to the
husband's, "at least in office, if not in
nature." However, her position was not that of a
slave for she could exert influence over her husband
(e.g., Sarah and Abraham). Thompson (1880) states that
"Oriental women are never regarded or treated as
equals by the men." Women ate last, followed the men
on a walk, and were kept closely confined. Wight states
that attitude of the Arabs toward boy babies was shared
by the Israelites in both Old Testament and New Testament
times:
- May the blessings of Allah be upon thee, May your
shadow never grow less, May all your children be
boys and no girls.
Boys were desired because they acted to increase the
family size, wealth and importance. Girls were not
desired because they left the home when they became
married.
Even so, Williams (1981) finds ample evidence in the
Old Testament that women were treated with respect and
honor as well as mistreated. Williams concludes his
review of the place of women in the Old Testament this
way:
- A place of dignity and honor was given to women
in the Old Testament. Men dominated the religious
and political spheres and were also the leaders
in the family structure, but within this
structure women achieved an unquestioned honor as
wife and mother. Even without the knowledge
concerning women found in the New Testament, the
Old Testament teaching becomes significant when
compared to the treatment of women in
contemporary nations. The place of women in the
Old Testament cannot be equated with the place
accorded them in Rabbinic teachings (Williams,
1981, pg. 50).
Wight also points out that children held the mother in
as much esteem as the father, even when they reached
adulthood. Both mother and father were thought to derive
their authority from God. Further, Wight concurs with
Thompson when he states that:
- The position of women among them was far higher
than with the Arabs, and the character of Hebrew
women must have been, on the whole, such as to
command and sustain the higher position. The
Arabs can show no list of pious and illustrious
ladies like those who adorn the history of the
Hebrews (Thompson, 1880, pg. 12-13).
Both Williams (1981) and Osborne (1986) maintain that
through the centuries, the Israelite attitudes toward
women changed. Whereas the Old Testament thought of male
and females as equal, but made women subordinate in rank
to men based on role differentiation, by the time of
Jesus, these views had changed. These negative views are
represented in writings of the rabbis:
- Rather should the words of Torah be burned than
entrusted to a woman.
Praise be God that he
has not created me a woman.
Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the
Universe, who hast not made me a woman.
A hundred women are worth only two men.
Terrien (1976) pinpoints the shift in how men viewed
women as occurring after the exile. He asserts that the
prophet Ezekiel attempted to explain the disaster of 587
B.C. by using the language of sexuality:
- no longer as a metaphorical tool but in the sense
of ritual purity and impurity. Sin awareness, on
the national and individual levels, tended to be
related in lesser degree than before to
existential failure and social injustice and to
be associated with ritual uncleanness, which
meant, in effect, physical contact with corpses,
foreigners, and women (Terrien, 1976, pg. 23).
Terrien claims that after the exile, and the
development of Judaism in the sixth century B.C., women
were segregated in temple and synagogue. It was at this
time that complex legislation began being drafted to
control how men and women related socially and sexually.
Terrien suggests that this was partly due to an
overreaction to the sexual rites of this pagan
environment. All this was done within a social and
theological ambivalence which on the one hand affirmed
the equality of women in light of the creation account
while on the other hand degraded the woman in light of
ritual uncleanness.
Terrien is correct in his assertion that there was a
shift from Mosaic Yahwism with its gospel and moral law
to Judaism with its traditions, rituals and penitence.
However, his claim that Ezekiel's emphasis on ritual
impurity as a factor in causing a shift in the view
towards women is more difficult to confirm.
Ezekiel was the son of a Jerusalem priest named
Buzi.
He was exiled to the Babylonian village of Tel Aviv, and
remained in exile during his entire prophetic career.
Ezekiel's prophetic message is simple:
- ...the entire history of the people, from before
the exodus from Egypt to the present, has been
one of continual rebellion against God. Such
wickedness deserves punishment (Seltzer, 1980,
pg. 120).
Yet, Ezekiel does not stop there: he points out to the
exiles that there is hope if individuals repent (Ezek.
18:14-20):
- Each man is responsible for his own sins...The
fate of Jerusalem may have been sealed long
before, but God's decree for the next generation
depends on its own actions, and is not sealed.
The heart of Ezekiel's later oracles is that God
is surely going to restore the people (Seltzer,
1980, pg. 120).
This restoration involves the restoration of a Davidic
king under God's just rule, and the rebuilding of the
Temple (Ezekiel 40-43). It is here that scholars find the
evidence to claim that Ezekiel is preoccupied with ritual
uncleanliness and cultic purity, since he sees the
restored Israelite commonwealth organized to offer
sacrifices and to be taught:
- ...the difference between the holy and the
profane, and cause them to discern between the
unclean and the clean (Ezek. 44:23)
Seltzer states that Ezekiel does in fact straddle:
- ...the prophetic and the priestly sectors of
Israelite religion: He is a man with a priestly
point of view, concerned with expiation, ritual uncleanliness, and cultic purity, who has adopted
prophecy as a form of experience and
communication. Ezekiel is as closely related to
Leviticus as Jeremiah is to Deuteronomy (Seltzer,
1980, pg. 121).
Seltzer maintains that Ezekiel mutes some of the main
themes of classical prophecy. What are these main themes?
Seltzer maintains that the early classical prophets
(e.g., Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah):
- depicted the presettlement existence of the
people as a time of intimacy with God...they
called for a total rejection of idolatry in all
its forms and for an immediate implementation of
justice...(and an) emphasis on
self-transformation, absolute faithfulness, and
the end of arrogance (Seltzer, 1980, pg. 93).
However, the theme of faithfulness (and its opposite,
adultery) as found in Hosea certainly is shared by
Ezekiel. Both picture adulterous Israel as a faithless
wife seeking out lovers. As Biale (1992) points out,
biblical law forbid intermarriage between Hebrews and
Canaanite nations (Deut. 7: 1-3) because intermarriage
leads to idolatry.
- To take foreign wives led to idolatry because the
covenant with God was understood as a
metaphorical marriage. This is especially so in
the prophetic literature, with Israel feminized
as the wife (Biale, 1992, pg. 21).
Both Ezekiel and Malachi used the marriage metaphor
(Ezek. 16:8; Mal. 2: 11-14) and saw worship of a foreign
God as metaphorical adultery. Westcott (1985), in his
review of the marriage covenant in the Old Testament,
states that the prophets used the marriage metaphor to
deal with two issues that threatened their relationship
with God: first, the covenant relationship with God was
relational, not merely ritual, and second, the covenant
relationship was exclusive.
Ezekiel was certainly an important source of ideology
that would influence the development of Judaism (cf.,
Seltzer, 1980). In this sense, Terrien's comments
concerning Ezekiel's preoccupation with ritual
uncleanliness as a reason for the shift in the Israelite
view of women may have some validity. However, it is
clear that Ezekiel was concerned both with the loss of
intimacy with God, as seen in the violated marriage
covenant between God and Israel as well as the
restoration of Israel and Temple worship. Ezekiel was
clearly concerned with justice and righteousness as were
the classical prophets (cf., Ezek. 45:9). Perhaps the
readers of Ezekiel, due to their own biases, did not
recognize this dual emphasis. Exilic prophets certainly
had few kind words to say about their contemporaries
(cf., Isaiah 56:9-57:13).
A more serious flaw in Terrien's reasoning appears to
be oversimplification. Ezekiel was only one of several
Exilic and post-exile writers being read at that time.
Framers of Judaism who changed the status of women would
have been exposed to arguments concerning oppression
(Isaiah 58:6; Mal. 3:5). The writer of the Proverbs
pictures wisdom as a woman who promises insight and
knowledge (Proverbs 1: 20-33; 9:1-12). The book of Esther
circulated during this time period, and told of a Jewish
woman who became queen and saved the Jewish people from
threat of persecution and destruction.
Another important factor that decreased the status of
women might have come from the encroachment of Greek
influence that was spreading throughout the Near East
(cf., Seltzer, 1980). The Greek view of women was very
low indeed, as will be shown in the next section. Seltzer
states that "the cultural style of the entire area
was thus drastically transformed, affecting a significant
segment of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, as well"
(pg. 156). Some Jews adopted the Greek lifestyle without
becoming pagan.
Perhaps the most obvious factor overlooked by Terrien
is the resurgence of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the
Temple. Prior to 587 B.C., Jerusalem was sparsely
populated and impoverished. Old Israelite territories
were occupied by other peoples. The Persian government
allowed Nehemiah and Ezra to rebuild Jerusalem. At the
same time, Ezra convinced Israelites to give up their
foreign wives (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13:23-27; Mal. 2:10-16).
But certainly the most crucial act of Ezra was the
assembling in Jerusalem of "all the people gathered
as one man" at the square in front of the Water Gate
where the book of the law of Moses was read and explained (Neh. 8-10). Seltzer (1980) comments that:
- many modern historians feel that it was at this
very moment when the Torah book, the Pentateuch
in close to its final form, became the
unchallenged norm of Israel's religion and when
Judaism took its single most important step to
becoming a religion of Scripture, indeed, the
first scriptural religion" (Seltzer, 1980,
pg. 130).
Seltzer goes on to indicate that the completion of
Torah undermined the function of the prophets. The
descendants of Aaron were in charge of the primary Jewish
institution, the Temple, assisted by the scribes,
responsible for compiling the significant writings. The
important thing to note here is that the Torah became the
authoritative word of God, including the book of
Leviticus with its theme of ritual purity.
How could the status of women be transformed so
drastically? Seltzer provides us with his explanation:
- ...the Bible was to be the source of tens of
thousands of discrete quotations, fragments of
divine wisdom and knowledge applied to situations
often quite unlike their original context. The
underlying biblical ideas also developed,
controlling the way the text is interpreted, but
they too changed as a result of having
encountered new cultural and social environments
(Seltzer, 1980, pg. 163).
Thus, Torah expanded from the first five books of the
Bible to Torah, in the broad sense: "the whole body
of doctrines and laws derived from and read into these
sacred texts" (Seltzer, 1980, pg. 8).
- Torah becomes Israel's wisdom, as Jewish exegetes
and religious philosophers will never cease to
point out, making possible the derivation of new
levels of meaning from the sacred text (Seltzer,
1980, pg. 163).
Although it is difficult to pin down the precise
factors that led to the shift in the status of women, one
thing is certain: the shift is dramatic. In the Old
Testament, we see women taking positions of prominence
(e.g., Miriam, Huldah and Deborah). By the first century,
the "good wife" takes her place as her
husband's portion or property and is silent (Osborne,
1986). Josephus specifically stated that women were
inferior and that men should have all authority. One
rabbi taught that the woman was the cause of sin entering
the world, and that the man should not allow his wife to
control him. Women were exempt from pilgrimages to
Jerusalem and from certain rituals and practices,
including the study of Torah. These practices did vary
from locale to locale and rabbi to rabbi, so that in some
circles, women could teach Torah, but not to their sons.
Although some authorities indicate that women were
secluded within the home, where the husband or father
exercised complete dominance, this appears to have taken
place mainly in cities. Apparently, women had greater
freedom in rural areas where they could spin wool to make
clothes, shop, sell crafts or food, keeping the extra
income. Osborne believes that while the rabbis preached
an increasingly negative and oppressive message
concerning women, social customs varied a great deal and
took time to become deeply entrenched in the culture.
Apparently, Jesus had much contact with women, especially
in rural areas, and in at least one instance, there is
evidence that he was breaking Jewish mores. When Jesus
met the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well (John 4: 7-30),
John tells us that
- ...his disciples came, and they marveled that He
had been speaking with a woman (vs. 27).
Jesus' disciples were not astonished that he was
speaking with a Samaritan but that the Samaritan was a
woman. This is striking in light of the fact that the
Samaritans were hated for forming a separate religion
based on the Jewish scriptures. They claimed to be
Israelites in origin, but they claimed that God had
intended to be worshiped not in the Temple Mount in
Jerusalem but Mount Gerizim near Shechem (Deut. 11:29;
John 4: 20-21).
Biale (1992) provides insights to support Osborne's
views. Biale points out that rabbinic culture was not
monolithic, but in conflict. The literary texts abound
with inconsistencies and contradictions. Some texts
required men to avoid women at all costs, including their
own wives, while other texts treated women with respect
and affirmed a woman's privilege of making herself
sexually attractive. Biale concludes that:
- It would therefore be a gross distortion to say
that rabbinic literature universally regarded
women's bodies as repugnant or demonized women
themselves (Biale, 1992, pg. 45).
What appears consistent, however, is the rabbis'
preoccupation with the sexual passions that might
overpower the body. The rabbis had to devise ways for the
sexual drive to be channeled to serve two purposes: Torah
study and procreation. The negative and even oppressive
view toward women as pointed out above is consistent with
rabbinic values. Although a few rabbis entertained the
notion of celibacy, most took a more moderate position,
but one characterized by strict boundaries and
regulations concerning sexual ethics and the roles of men
and women. Hence, the study of Torah pertained only to
men. Rabbis banned women from studying Torah since they
thought they would be prone to
"lasciviousness".
Reflections
My purpose in exploring early Israelite culture was to
provide us with the eyes and ears of scripture's original
intended audience. Since recorded scripture covers
centuries of cultural evolution, where both marriage as a
social institution and the intended receiver of scripture
changed, our task of developing a biblical understanding
of marriage is enormously complex. At best, I would hope
that you would refrain from placing your 20th century
meanings onto marriage when you read Old Testament
accounts relating to this institution. From this review
of Israelite traditions, it seems obvious that this would
represent a grave mistake. Most 20th century North
Americans would be dead wrong in assuming that their
concepts of courtship, engagement and marriage applied to
the Old Testament cultures. Romantic love and bonding
probably developed after marriage for the most part. You
may want to take this opportunity to list a number of
concepts you hold that are relevant to the North American
marriage, and then compare your list with what you have
learned about Israelite marriage traditions. Which
expectations are similar and which are different?
Ancient traditions practiced by a people over a long
period of time come to reflect their values and their
lifestyles. They define and give meaning to them,
providing order to their universe. While culture is the
strength of a people, it is fragile and susceptible to
outside forces. For the Israelites, these outside forces
represented two forms: other cultures, on the one hand,
and Yahweh's interventions and commandments on the other.
Change always redefines culture. When this change is
overwhelming, the new overthrows the old. Then we see an
ensuing conflict between these opposing forces that may
last for centuries. The exile represents such a
horrendous change. The Ten Commandments also represent
this type of earth-shattering change.
At each point in the life of a culture, the eyes and
ears of the receiver of scripture will be influenced not
only by the ancient traditions practiced for centuries
but also the ideas and practices brought by the new
changes. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth in part means
being sensitive to the culture of the original intended
receiver of scripture as well as being sensitive to how
they are impacted by the past.
As I review this chapter, I am impressed by the way in
which the relationships between people are defined by
language. The very structure of thought is found in
language and thus idioms can be very instructive of the
culture's world view. In this chapter, I introduced the
idea of the spreading of a hem of a garment as a way of
initiating a relationship. Obviously, this action is not
normative in 20th century North America, and so our
understanding of scripture is deficient unless we heed
the way language helps define relationships.
One final thought. Although I have yet to define a
biblical model of marriage, I still am haunted by an
unmistakable impression that as the Israelite culture
evolved, distortions became increasingly apparent. For
example, the status of women seems more and more to be
subject to the whims and manipulations of men. Polygamy
was permitted even past the time of Christ. Evangelical
writers who extol the virtues of ancient Israelite
culture in the way it perceived and treated women have
their head in the sand on this issue. The distortion of
sin can be observed running rampant throughout the pages
of scripture, and single examples of high status for
women cannot be considered normative for the subculture
being examined or for women in general.
Readers of
this document are permitted to download any portion
provided "all such use is for . . . personal
noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as
follows: Twelker, Paul A. (1998). The Biblical
Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and
Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity. Deerfield: Trinity
International University. Internet resource available at
URL: <http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/BDFMChap1.htm
>(last updated 20 April 1998). Copyright 1998 Paul A. Twelker.
Return to Top
Return to Index
Go to Chapter 2 Jewish
Tradition and Sexuality
|
