Important Notes - Essays

Marriage before the exile
In the canon of the Old Testament we get no information at all about wedding ceremonies, or
the marriage institution. The reason for this must be that marriage was altogether a family and
domestic affair.1 It is in the nature of the case, in all forms of the father family that a girl until
marriage was under the care and authority of her father or nearest male relative.
No mention is made anywhere of any function of a priest in connection with it.2 The whole
proceeding was domestic and family affair, in which no priest or other outsider had any part,
except as witness, and there was no religious element in it.3
Marriage after the Exile
The purpose was procreation. Procreation being the sense and purpose of marriage, the carnal
act was the matter of chief importance.4 The ceremony had no ecclesiastical character...The
blessings only gave publicity to the ceremony. They were not priestly blessings and were not
essential to the validity of the marriage.5
Definition of Marriage
Marriage may be defined as that lifelong and exclusive state in which a man and a woman are
wholly committed to live with each other in sexual relationship under conditions normally
approved and witnessed to by their social group or society.6
1
William Graham Sumner, Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs,
Mores, and Morals (Boston, USA: Ginn & Company Publishers, 1906), p.397.
2
Sumner, Folkways, p.398.
3
4
5
6
R. K. Bower and G. L. Knapp, ‘Marriage’ in Gerffrey W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Vol.3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), p.261.
Page 1 of 27
True marriage therefore, must not be confused with wedding ceremony, which only
solemnizes and symbolizes a couple’s total commitment.7 Historically, weddings were family
or community events; not until after the 10th cent. A.D. were they performed in the church.8
Marriage is the formalization and sanctification of the union of man and woman for the
procreation of children.9
Normally the bride left her family at marriage, and from that time she, and subsequently her
children, became part of her husband’s family or clan (Gen 24:58-61) and , as such, part of
their responsibility also.10
Marriage was often a means strengthening and promoting the fortunes of the family, quite
aside from the prospect of producing children.11
The Christian concept of marriage is the union between a man and a woman that is
recognized by society and has intended permanency.12
Levirate Marriage
The importance of maintaining and protecting the family name and property led to the
institution of the levirate marriage, from the Latin levir (husband’s brother).13 Where a man
died without issue, it was the responsibility of the closest male relative, usually his brother, to
7
Bower and Knapp, ‘Marriage’, p.261.
8
9
Hazel W. Perkin, ‘Marriage’, in Merrill C. Tenney (ed.), New International Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1987), p.624.
10
Perkin, ‘Marriage’, p.624.
11
12
John P. Dever, ‘Marriage’ in J. D. Douglas (ed.), The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), p.633.
13
Page 2 of 27
marry the widow. The first baby born of this union would then be regarded as the child of the
dead man and would be entitled to his name and the entire rights of his property. Even if the
widow already had children, the male relative would still be expected to marry and support
her on the theory that women need to live under a protector all their lives.14
Deut 25:5-10 provides the legal sanction for a marriage between a widow whose husband
died without an offspring and the brother of the deceased. It is the duty of the latter to
perform the duty of a husband’s brother.15
When the brother-in-law chooses not to marry the widow, the ceremony of removal by the
widow of the brother-in-law’s sandal takes place, and the widow spits in his face as well.16
This latter is a point of interest, for this law is the only one in the OT that includes in its
statement of penalty an act of humiliation against the villain. The removal of the shoe by the
woman is not additional part of the insult. Rather, in removing the shoe, with the town’s
elders as witnesses, the woman assumes the right to her freedom and full control of her
destiny.17 (Very Important point).
It’s been suggested that the primary concern of the levirate marriage is with producing a male
child to carry on the name of the deceased husband and an heir to the dead man’s property. It
is concerned just as much, if not more, with the support and protection of the widow, and the
perpetuation of family property within the immediate family.18 (Very Important point).
14
15
Hamilton, ‘Marriage: Old Testament and Ancient Near East’, p.567.
16
17
18
Page 3 of 27
Before marriage, a woman was a member of her father’s household, and as such she was
subject to his authority. At marriage, her husband became her protector, and on his death,
through her levirate marriage, she found her new “redeemer.”19
Another type of marriage practiced in some parts of the Ancient Near East was the Levirate
marriage. This institution has its root in primitive society where a woman is acquired for
wifehood by the head of the family for one of its members.20 She is, of course, given as a
wife to one man, but when that man dies the widow still remains the property of the group
and is given as a wife to another member of the family.21
The importance of procreation and preservation of patrimony are evident in the practice of
“levirate” marriages. If a married man died without children, his brother was to cohabit with
the widow for several reasons: to prevent the widow from marrying an outsider (exogamy), to
perpetuate the name of the deceased, and to preserve within the family the inherited land of
the deceased. The first son borne by the widow was to be considered the offspring of the
deceased husband.22
Betrothal
The betrothal (Deut 28:30; 2 Sam 3:14) had a particular legal status attached to it that made it
almost identical to marriage. The law required that a man committing adultery with a
betrothed virgin should be stoned for violating his neighbour’s wife (Deut 22:23-24). The
19
20
Mendelsohn, ‘The Family in the Ancient Near East’, p.29.
21
Mendelsohn, ‘The Family in the Ancient Near East’, pp.29-30.
22
King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, p.56.
Page 4 of 27
bride’s father already used the term “son-in-law” from the time of the betrothal (Gen 19:14),
a custom that enhanced the concept of family solidarity.23
The first stage in forging the marriage relationship was the betrothal or engagement, which
lasted for several months. Made sometimes before the wedding, this promise of marriage was
practically as binding as the marriage itself.24
Endogamy & Exogamy
Marriage in biblical society was restricted to members of the group both by custom and by
conscious support of custom. Thus it was endogamous in that it excluded marital relations
with communities outside Israel. Marriage between members of different clans was not
forbidden, however. This means there was exogamy with respect to relations between
Israelite clans and endogamy with respect to non-Israelite people. We may therefore say that
the Israelite community as a whole was endogamous.25
Endogamy is the custom of marrying only within one’s own group, such as a clan, tribe, etc.
Exogamy is the custom of marrying outside one’s own clan, tribe, etc. The OT reflects both
systems in operation.26
Endogamous marriage is the norm in the patriarchal age. Thus we read that Abraham married
his half-sister (Gen 20:12), Nahor married his niece Milcah (Gen 11:29). Isaac married his
cousin Rebekah (Gen 24:15). Esau married his cousin Malhalath (Gen 28:9).27
23
24
25
Baab, ‘Marriage’, p.281.
26
27
Page 5 of 27
Jacob also married his cousins Rachel and Leah (Gen 29:12). Amram, father of Moses,
married his aunt (Num 26:59).28
Inheritance seems to have been one of the most important reasons to prefer endogamy.
According to the Hebrew Bible, endogamy was preferred.29
As a rule, endogamy (marriage within the clan or tribe) was observed, but the Bible gives
several examples of exogamy (marriage to a member outside the kinship group) that
threatened the land holdings.30
The Family
In the Hebrew culture, society was built on the family, and the family in turn on the
institution of marriage.31
Family and household constituted the basic social unit in ancient Israel, as well as the most
widely used literary metaphor. As a social unit, the extended or joint family, not the
biological family, was most important.32 The biblical family has six main features: it is
endogamous, patrilineal, patriarchal, patrilocal, joint, and polygamous.33
The basic community in the Bible was the extended family or household headed by a
father....34 No blood relationship was taken for granted.35
28
29
Marsman ‘Women in Ugarit and Israel’, p.73.
30
31
32
Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminister John Knox
Press, 2001), p.36.
33
34
Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250-587 BCE (Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1993), p.7.
35
Matthews and Benjamin, Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250-587 BCE, p.8.
Page 6 of 27
Birth of a Son & Inheritance
Because property and inheritance were primarily concerned with the males in the family, it
was almost imperative that a man have a son who could continue the family line and to whom
he could leave his estate. This need for a male successor is critical to the understanding of
Hebrew marriage practice in the OT.36
Marriage Arrangement
The Hebrew Bible has no word or laws for marriage.37 Marriages were arranged by the
parents of the two households, and the son and daughter were not always consulted (Gen.
21:21; 34:4-6; 38:6; Josh. 15:16; 1 Sam. 18:17-27; 25:44)38. While love between husband and
wife is mentioned (Gen. 34:3-4; 1 Sam. 18:20), what appears most important in the literature
is the securing of the household’s economic interests and property rights.39
The Hebrews shared with others of the ANE the practice of parentally arranged marriage.
There is, however, no OT law that mandates this.40 The first instance of a parentally arranged
marriage in the OT is Hagar selecting a wife for her son Ishmael from Egypt (Gen 21:21).41
The choice of Rebekah is the classic case of parentally arranged marriage. Isaac played no
role, other than finding the choice to his satisfaction (Gen 24). Accordingly, we note a
number of marriages in the OT in which the parents played an incidental, if not nonexistent,
36
37
Leo G. Perdue, Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins and Carol Meyers ‘Families in Ancient Israel’ in Don S.
Browning & Ian S. Evison (eds.) The Family, Religion, and Culture (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1997), p.182.
38
Perdue, Blenkinsopp, et al, ‘Families in Ancient Israel’, p.183.
39
40
Victor P. Hamilton, ‘Marriage: Old Testament and Ancient Near East’, in David Noel Freedman (ed.), The
Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol.4 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p.562.
41
Page 7 of 27
role in the marriage of their progeny.42 Example is the case of Esau (Gen 26:34-35; 28:6-9),
Shechem (Gen 34:4), and Samson (Judg 14:2). Both of these stories demonstrate that even
when the initiative for spouse selection was with the husband-to-be, the formalities of
parental arrangement were still followed. In such instances parental approval was assumed
rather than solicited.43
In the ancient Near East, marriage was in the first place an arrangement between families.44
Personal choice and love of the marriage partner were secondary importance.45 The heads of
families, usually the fathers, would discuss the marriage arrangement.46 A marriage
arrangement made between two families was considered to be binding. Part of the
arrangement was the setting of a price for the marriage deposit. 47 The woman, however, had
no part in this transaction as an independent individual under the law.48
The father was responsible for finding a suitable bride for his son, and the wishes and
feelings of the young people were largely irrelevant to this decision. On rarely occasions,
parental advice was either ignored, rejected, or not sought (Gen 26:34-35), and, in a most
unusual initiative, Michal, daughter of Saul, expressed her love for David (1 Sam 18:20).49
In general, marriages were arranged with relatives or with those of the same clan. One might
marry a member of the same tribe or possibly move outside this circle to marry within
42
43
44
Hennie J. Marsman ‘Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their social and Religious Position in the Context of the
ancient Near East’ in Old Testament Studies, Vol. XLIX (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p.72.
45
46
47
48
49
Page 8 of 27
another Israelite tribe.50 Because marriages with close relatives were common, limits of
consanguinity are recorded for the Israelites to follow (Lev 18:6-18). Formally, a man could
marry his half-sister on his father’s side (Gen 20:12; cf. 2 Sam 13:13), though this is
forbidden in Leviticus 20:17.51 Cousins – such as Isaac and Rebakah, as well as Jacob,
Rachel, and Leah – frequently married, though a simultaneous marriage with two sisters was
specifically forbidden (Lev 18:18).52
Consequently, men and women themselves rarely chose their own sexual partners. It was the
father of the household who was responsible for safeguarding the status of the men and
women in his household and deciding which were eligible to marry.53
Marriages were ordinarily arranged by the parents according to Near Eastern custom,
although this practice is not required by biblical law.54
Purpose of Marriage
In the ancient Near East the primary purpose of marriage was procreation rather than
companionship or mutual support.55
It was considered of vital importance that a marriage produce children, who inherited the
possession of their parents.56 When a woman was unable to bear children, her position within
the family could worsen.57
50
51
52
Perkin, ‘Marriage’, pp.624-625.
53
54
55
56
57
Page 9 of 27
Marriage serves primarily as a means of begetting legitimate children, love and sexual
satisfaction have their place, of course, but they are subordinated to the main purpose of
securing offspring.58
In the ancient world the primary purpose of marriage was procreation rather than
companionship, and, as a result, large numbers of offspring were regarded as an asset. But an
important secondary objective of marriage was the maintaining or increasing of family
property....59
In marriage the economic motivation was more important than the romantic. The chief goal
of marriage was to have and raise children, especially boys.60
Status of Husband & Wife
The role of the wife was always subservient to that of her husband. He was a provider,
decision-maker, protector, and master. The wife was the legal mother of his sons and
manager of his household. She obeyed his instructions, was his helper, and became his
confidante.61
By Roman times the status of the wife had improved, particularly at the higher levels of
society.62
When a woman entered matrimony, the authority over her shifted from the head of her
paternal household, usually her father, to her husband.63 Marriages generally were patrilocal
58
59
60
61
62
Page 10 of 27
in ancient Near East. When parents had made the arrangements for their children to get
married, these arrangements were considered to be binding.64 An Israelite wife was under the
authority of her husband.65 A married Israelite woman was required to wear a veil which
covered the head, not the face. It was a sign of the wife’s subordination to her husband, a sign
of his authority over her. She had to wear it when she went out in public.66
The wife in the Hebrew home was restricted but was highly respected. Though the man was
called lord and the woman was called property; a wife was not property in the usual sense.
Wives were not classified along with concubines. A wife may have been under her husband’s
authority, but she was a free woman, not bound or owned by him, as were many
concubines.67
The father is the centre of gravity in the family; he is the baal, the provider and protector of
his wives and children. And finally, a woman attained the highest station in life when she
becomes a mother; while the father represents power and authority, the mother personifies
love and affection. Motherhood is the glory of the woman, for it is only then that she
becomes a berakhah “a blessing” (Gen. 49:25).68
Women played a prominent role in the context of family life, first as mother and second as
wife. Indicative of the importance of these roles, both motherhood and marriage are common
biblical metaphors describing the relationship between God and Israel (e.g., Hosea 1-3). The
care, discipline, and training of young children were the responsibility of the mother.
63
64
65
66
Marsman ‘Women in Ugarit and Israel’, pp.147-148.
67
68
Page 11 of 27
Childbearing conferred status on women....69 The mother’s authority was exercised in the
household.70
Homemaking and childbearing were by no means inferior or unrewarding. They were
responsibilities, not restrictions.71
The father exercised the power of life and death in the household. But the authority of the
father was not absolute. His primary responsibility was for his wives and their sons and
daughters. Likewise, the father was not a despot.72
Fathers covered their genitals during worship (Exod. 28:42), and removed their sandals upon
entering a sanctuary (Exod. 3:5). Genitals symbolized power over children and sandals
denoted power over land. No signs of reproductive ability or land ownership were displayed
before Yahweh.73
Bride Price
In addition to the exchange of marriage gifts between families to strengthen their bonds, the
husband’s household was responsible for paying the mohar (Deut. 22:16-17; 1 Sam. 18:25),
the marriage fee, to the betrothed’s father (Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:16-17; 1 Sam. 18:25). Rather
than signifying a purchase, the mohar probably compensated the woman’s household for the
loss of her labor, signalled the transfer of responsibility from the family to the
husband’s...and provided her economic security in case of divorce or widowhood.74
69
70
71
72
73
74
Page 12 of 27
Since the households were patrilocal, wives joined their husband’s family.75
As soon as the marriage deposit (terhatu) was received by the family of the bride, the young
couple were inchoately married.76 It is likely that the father of the bride often restored (part of
the) groom’s marriage deposit to his daughter as indirect dowry on the day of the wedding.
This remained her personal property and functioned as a kind of insurance against future
mishaps.77 The marriage deposit is considered to be a caution, binding the groom (family) to
his commitment. Nowadays the view that the bride is purchased by this payment is
abandoned. Once the marriage deposit and gifts are exchanged, the young couple were
inchoately married.78
In addition to finding a bride who was healthy and suitable for the family alliance, parents
also had to be aware of the bride price that was payable to the girl’s father. However this is
viewed, whether as a payment for the loss of her services to her own parents or simply as a
gift, it still retains something of a stigma by implying that the exchange of gifts or money
meant that, in fact, the bride had been sold by the father to her future husband.79 The sum of
money payable for the bride price varied according to the “value” of the bride and the social
position of the family (1 Sam 18:23-25).
Before the actual marriage to place it was the custom for the bridegroom to present to the
bride’s father a sum of money or its equivalent in goods. The sum of money is called in
Babylonia, Assyria and Nuzi tirhatu, in Ugarit tirhatu and mohar, and in the Old Testament
75
76
Marsman ‘Women in Ugarit and Israel’, p.86-87.
77
Marsman ‘Women in Ugarit and Israel’, p.103
78
79
Page 13 of 27
mohar.80 Scholars differ as to the meaning of the tirhatu-mohar. One school interprets the
tirhatu-mohar as “bride-price” and hence concludes that the Ancient Near Eastern marriage
was at least originally “purchase-marriage”.81 The other school explains it as a
“compensation-gift” and hence concludes that marriage never was “purchase-marriage”.82
...shows that among the Canaanites and Hebrews, the mohar, or its equivalent in labor, was
regarded as a “price” for the girl.83 In view of the conflicting evidence as to the meaning of
the tirhatu-mohar it may be suggested that originally it was a compensation given to the
bride’s father for the loss of his daughter.84
Whatever significance the tirhatu-mohar had, it was not the only “payment” made in a
marriage transaction. Marriage gifts in various forms were also bestowed upon Canaanite and
Hebrew brides.85
In giving his daughter in marriage, the father received a “bride-price”, mohar, the amount of
money or equivalent in kind to be paid by the prospective husband to the bride’s father (Gen.
34:12; Ex. 22:15-17; 1 Sam. 18:25). It was considered a form of compensation for the loss of
the daughter.86
Patriarchy & Matriarchy
Patriarchal Marriage: This relates to the authority of the father and the effect of this
authority upon the entire marriage pattern. Descent is reckoned from the father. The emphasis
upon the authority of the father is perhaps suggested in the custom of the father’s naming his
child. In Hebrew thought the name was the essence of the self. This essence was transmitted
80
81
82
83
84
Mendelsohn, ‘The Family in the Ancient Near East’, pp.27-28.
85
86
Page 14 of 27
by the father to his son.87 Through his son he could project his very being into the future after
he had died and gone to his fathers.88 This passionate longing for sons rather than daughters
reveals the influence of the father concept upon the normal desire for children. 89 The children
are identified with the father, particularly sons; they descend from him.90
Matriarchal Marriage: This type of marriage assumes the authority of the mother but is also
used to identify the way relationship is determined. So-called “sadiqa” marriage is of two
types, the “beena” and the “mota”. The term “beena” marriage is sometimes used when the
children remain under the mother’s control and the husband settles in his wife’s home more
or less permanently. In “mota” marriage the visits are periodical.91
“Matrilinear” signifies that descent is reckoned from the mother, and “metronymic” suggests
that the wife remains with her own kin and is visited there by her husband from time to time.
For example of “beena” marriage the cases of Jacob and Moses are used. Both lived in the
home of their wives (Gen. 29:1-30; Ex. 2:21-22) for a considerable length of time. To
illustrate “mota” marriage, Samson’s visits to his wife at Timnah have been used (Judg.
15:1).92
87
88
89
Baab, ‘Marriage’, pp.279-280.
90
91
O. J. Baab, ‘Marriage’ in The Interpreter’s Dictionary to the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (New York:
Abingdon Press, 1962), p.279.
92
Page 15 of 27
In historical times the Israelites family was patriarchal, i.e. kinship, tribal affinity, and
inheritance were determined by descent from the father; though there was a time when
matriarchy existed among the Semites, these relations then being determined by the mother.93
And it must be admitted that among the Hebrews traces are found of former matriarchal
conditions, e.g. the position occupied by such women as Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah,
Keturah, and Hagar. Characteristics94
Jacob and Moses, for instance, lived with their wives families for a certain period. This was
due to the fact that they were fugitives. When they regarded it safe to go home, they joined
their own (patriarchal) family line.95
Although several theories on matrilineal and matriarchal forms of marriage...have been
proposed for the ancient Near East and Israel in particular, these should all be rejected.
Marriages generally were patrilocal and patrilineal.96
The normal form of marriage in ancient Near East was the patriarchal type in which the
woman left her own family to enter the house of her husband.97
The household was not only patriarchal, it was patrilocal.98
93
I. Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’, in Philip Schaff (ed.), The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol.4 (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.),
Accessed 24 January 2017, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.html.
94
Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’, p.
95
96
97
98
Page 16 of 27
Ancient Israel was patrilineal and authorized the father to hand on the possessions of the
household to another male from his side of the family.99
The world of the Bible was a “patriarchy”. There are a variety of patriarchal societies, but
they all have to characteristics in common. They are all “patrilocal”, which means that a
woman lives in the household of her husband. And they are all “parilinear”, which means that
the heir of the household must be a natural or adopted son of the father.100
Patrilineage regulates descent and inheritance, meaning that descent is reckoned in the
father’s line, not the mother’s. Patriarchy signifies that the father (paterfamilias) is head of
the family; addressed as ba’al, “lord”, and has authority over the household, protecting and
providing for his wife or wives and children. The father however, did not have absolute
power over his children, nor legal right of execution. The patria potestas (paternal authority)
is limited (see Deut. 21:18-21). Patrilocality indicates that the man brings his bride into his
father’s family and household, where she becomes a member and he continues to a
member.101
In ancient Israel, marriage, like the society itself, was patriarchal, with authority residing in
the father and different social statuses assigned to men and women.102
After they were married, the couple generally lived with the father of the groom until he
chose and heir.103
99
100
101
102
103
Page 17 of 27
Covenant
Marriage in biblical Israel was regarded as a covenant between bridegroom and bride. Yet the
alliance was not only considered a personal, but also communal matter, since both partners
represented their family.104
Monogamy & Polygamy
Monogamy was the preferred marriage arrangement in ancient Israel...though there are
notable exceptions. Polygamy, which included concubinage, allowed a household to increase
its labor force and its chances to provide a living male heir to inherit the estate (Gen. 12-22).
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 not only presupposes the existence of polygamy....105
The term “polygamy” literally means “many marriages.” In actual use, it simply signifies
more than one marriage alliance existing concurrently in the same family or family group.
The term may be applied to either of the two major types of marriage, the matriarchal or the
patriarchal. Polygamy was widespread in ancient Israel. It assumed the form of polygyny
(marriage with more than one woman) rather than polyandry (marriage with more than one
man).106
From the time of the patriarchs, wealthy and powerful people were able to indulge in
polygamy....107 Despite these examples of polygamy, the most general and accepted form of
marriage was monogamy, which received the sanction of the Mosaic Law....
104
105
106
107
Page 18 of 27
The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between the status of a wife and a concubine. In
general, the social position of a concubine was lower than that of a wife, but the status of a
free concubine was higher than that of a slave concubine. A marriage was established for
reasons of progeny and inheritance, while a relationship with a concubine would be
established for procreation concerns.108 The primary reason for a man to take an additional
wife or a concubine would be to acquire (more) children. The Hebrew Bible does not reject
polygyny.109 Although monogamy was the rule in all countries of ancient Near East, bigamy
and polygyny also occurred. Polygyny was restricted to the circles of royalty and the very
wealthy, while bigyny apparently occurred on a somewhat broader social scale. Childlessness
was the main reason for a husband to take a second wife....110
The ideal marriage in OT society was a monogamous one, one man for one woman, one
woman for one man. Indeed, the OT is replete with illustrations of polygamous marriages. To
be more precise, it tells of instances of polygyny (one husband, more than one wife), but no
instance of polyandry (one wife, more than one husband).111
Concubinage existed along with polygyny and was a legalized for of cohabitation.112
In all of these cases the inability of the wife to provide her husband with children is deemed
sufficient ground for taking a second wife or a concubine.113 Turning to Syria and Palestine
we find that both the Canaanite and the Israelite families were polygamous. The
Deuteronomic law takes it as a matter of fact that the normal well-to-do family consisted of
two wives (21:15). Since polygamy was the rule (with exception of the poor), a man could
108
109
110
111
112
113
I. Mendelsohn, ‘The Family in the Ancient Near East’ in The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol.11, No.2 (May,
1948), pp.24-40 (24).
Page 19 of 27
have as many wives and concubines as he could financially support (cf. II Chron. 11:18-21;
13:21).114
Polygyny indicates the practice of having several wives. While monogamy was the ideal,
polygyny was possible, though more often among the elite than the commoners. Israelite law
took polygyny for granted.115
Monogamy was the ideal, but polygyny was practiced, especially by the affluent and royalty,
as in the case of “political marriage”....116
Restriction on Sexual Relations
Lev. 18:18 notes that it is forbidden for a man to be married to two sisters at the same time.
Thus Jacob’s marriage was not according to Israelite law. Beside Jacob’s marriage of two
sisters, Genesis also mentions marriage with a half sister (20:12; cf. Lev. 18:9; 20:17). Other
forbidden sexual relationships are that of a father-in-law with daughter-in-law (Gen. 38, cf.
Lev. 18:15; 20:12) and that of daughters with their father (Gen. 19:30-38, cf. Lev. 18:6-7).117
...the Old Testament legislation considers adultery also as a grave offense against morality.
Both parties are punished by death because they have committed an evil act in Israel (Lev.
202:20; Dt. 22:22-27). On the other hand, if a man assaulted a virgin he must pay fifty
(shekels) of silver to her father, marry the girl, and because he had violated her, she could
never be divorced (ibid. 28-29).118
114
115
116
117
118
Page 20 of 27
Marriage to the children of one’s father was forbidden, punishable by death (Lev. 18:9, 11).
Divorce
In the pre-Christian period, divorce was an option that was always available to the husband
and sometimes also to the wife.
Normally, however, there was distinct tendency in Jewish tradition to discourage divorce, and
following Egyptian custom, a substantial fine of “divorce money” was levied as a
deterrent.119
The status of the wife was not very high, however, and the bill of divorce could take the form
of a simple repudiation by the husband in some such expression as, “She is not my wife, and I
am not her husband (Hos 2:2).120
The divorce formula in Hosea 2:2 (“She is not my wife, I am not her husband”) may have
been part of a written bill of divorce (cf. Dt. 24:1), and if that was so one may assume that a
written marriage contract was in use.121
Ancient Near East marriages were notoriously dissoluble. A man could divorce his wife at his
pleasure, a woman was threatened with dire results if she wished to exercise the same
privilege.122 As was the case in Assyria, a Hebrew could divorce his wife at will and was not
obliged to make any provision for her future maintenance. Later, the Deuteronomic
legislation put some restrictions in the way of unjustified divorce. The husband had to give
his wife a “bill of divorce” (24:1; cf. Isa. 50:1; Jer. 3:8). A man could not divorce his newly
119
Perkin, ‘Marriage’, pp.626-627.
120
121
122
Page 21 of 27
married wife on the pretext that she is not a virgin; he had to prove it and if his accusation
was false, he had to pay a fine and could not divorce her (22:19). A man could not remarry
his divorced wife after she had married another man (24:1-4).123
Owing to the importance of family life, divorce was presumably not a frequent occurrence.
Although divorce was condoned, it was a serious matter and was not considered ordinary.
The law of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 gives only to the husband, not the wife, the power to initiate
divorce proceedings – and at any time and for any reason, without an obligation to provide
for her support. He was required to give her a written document of divorce, lest she be
accused of adultery upon remarriage, which was permitted to her.124
Marriage Contract
There is no evidence that a written contract was deemed necessary to legalize marriage in
Palestine though it is hardly likely that it was unknown.125
Marriage was not a single event, but a drawn-out process of negotiations (Gen 24:52-54).
Each stage furthered the alliance between the two households and spelled out their contract in
more exact terms.126
But in the world of the Bible, sexual relationships were more than romantic; they were
political and economical as well. Marriage was a delicately negotiated covenant sealing a
significant political or economic contract. It was designed to bring together two households
that were willing to exchange substantial goods and services with each other over a
123
124
125
126
Page 22 of 27
significant period of time (Gen 24:3-4; 34:21; Exod. 2:21; 1 Sam 25:43). Marriage was more
a matter of business than pleasure.127
Marriage was not considered a religious rite but a “civil contract”128
Usually, before the agreement is reached, the bride’s family especially the father investigates
the background of their would-be son-in-law to ascertain whether he will be a good provider,
a kind father, and respected citizen.129 It is suggested that the consent of the girl is usually not
necessary to the engagement, though it is probable that she is usually consulted as in the case
of Rebekah.130 These negotiations are carried out by the girl’s father or guardian on behalf of
his unmarried daughter. This is because she belongs to her father, who has the right to sell her
(Ex. 21:7).131
This happens after the marriage contract has been written up by responsible males resulting in
the bride’s father surrendering her daughter to the groom, who takes her as a wife to his
house.132
127
128
129
Malina, The New Testament World, p.144.
130
I. Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’, in Philip Schaff (ed.), The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol.4 (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.), p.274.
Accessed 24 January 2017, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.html. Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law
in Biblical Israel: An Introduction, p.58, affirm this by alluding that there are hints in the Bible that suggest that
the bride has some right of refusal especially if the marriage involves going to a foreign land. See Genesis
24:57-58.
131
Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’, p.274.
132
Malina, The New Testament World, p.143
Page 23 of 27
One intriguing revelation is that the bride after completion of the marriage process is not
immediately “...integrated into her husband family but will remain for most part of her life on
the periphery of his family”133 until she has become the mother of a son.134 I. Benzinger
affirms this by asserting that “in bearing sons she gave to the tribe its most valuable
possession”.135 Again by becoming the mother of a son the wife held a position of distinction
in the family.136 This is because the birth of a son guarantees her security and status
recognition in her husband’s family”.137
Inheritance was patrilineal, and residence after marriage was normally patrilocal.138
For Westbrook and Wells, this accord, in the normal situation was an essential condition for a
legitimate marriage since the bride is the object of the transaction and not the party.139
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Westbrook and Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel, pp.56-57.
Page 24 of 27
The practice and understanding of marriage evolved during the time of Moses with certain
laid down regulations. These new set of laws were to solidify as well as to control those
aspects of the marriage that might disturb the public order sanctioned by God and the king.140
These rules were not intended to change how people were to contract marriage but rather
were to change the forms of marriage as well as to give a deeper understanding to the
meaning of marriage. Practices such as sexual hospitality (Ex. 20:14, 17; Deut. 5:18, 21;
2Sam. 3:6-11), incest and etc, were “perceived as an affront against the male in whom the
female is embedded”.141
The laws made the people to understand that “the blood on both conjugal partners symbols
that their marriage is a type of blood relationship – the husband ‘cleave to his wife, and they
become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24)”.142 Marriage was therefore to be understood as a covenant
between the two parties and not just a contract. Divorce was also regulated by the laws.143
However, “Christ condemned the laxity of the Jewish laws of divorce...”144 and emphasised
the original intention of God for marriage by stressing that marriage was intended by God to
be monogamous and permanent (Matt. 19:4-6).
140
Malina, The New Testament World, p.148. See also Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’,
pp.274-275.
141
Malina, The New Testament World, p.149. Sexual hospitality was prevalent during the Patriarchal period
where we see Abraham giving out his wife Sarah whenever he was faced with a challenge or in danger (Gen.
20:1-13).
142
Malina, The New Testament World, p.149. According to Malina, ‘Sirach views the wife as embedded in the
husband, since divorce means to cut her off from your flesh (Sir. 25:26); this is a further indication that marriage
is considered a sort of blood relationship, resulting in ‘one flesh’, much as children are one flesh with their
parents.’
143
Benzinger, ‘Family and Marriage Relations, Hebrew’, p.275. See also Mendelsohn, ‘The Family in the
Ancient Near East’, p.32.
144
Sehling, ‘Marriage’, p.193.
Page 25 of 27
BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE OF MARRIAGE
Our study of the theme of marriage and of the Old Testament teaching on marriage takes its
point of departure from the foundational narrative in Genesis 1-3, which roots the institution
of marriage firmly in the will of the Creator....145
...and it was God who made the woman of his own sovereign will as a suitable helper for the
man (Gen. 2:18, 20).146
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-17 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990).
In this particular case we should note that it is God who makes the judgement about the
unsuitability of man’s aloneness. Man is not consulted for his thoughts on the matter. At no
point does man offer to God any grievance about his current circumstances. P.175
It suggests that what God creates for Adam will correspond to him. Thus the new creation
will be neither superior nor an inferior, but and equal.
Marriage from the Christian point of view may be defined as:
that lifelong and exclusive state in which a man and a woman are wholly committed to live
with each other in sexual relationship under conditions normally approved and witnessed to by
their social group or society.147
145
Andreas J. Kostenberger and David W. Jones God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation
(Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2004),
146
Kostenberger and Jones, God, Marriage, and Family, p.35.
147
R. K. Bower and G. L. Knapp, ‘Marriage’ in Gerffrey W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Vol.3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), p.261.
Page 26 of 27
Again, marriage may be defined as “the formalization and sanctification of the union of man
and woman for the procreation of children”.148 These definitions of marriage bring to light
the following points: first is the permanency of the marriage relationship. The definition does
not have divorce in view. Secondly, marriage is designed for man and woman and not for the
same sex. Again, it is meant to be monogamous and not polygamous. Thirdly, marriage is the
means by which approved sexual relationship can be achieved. Fourthly, marriage must be
approved and witnessed by the society and lastly marriage is intended for the procreation of
legitimate children.
Hazel W. Perkin, ‘Marriage’, in Merrill C. Tenney (ed.), New International Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids,
148
Michigan: Zondervan, 1987), p.624.
Page 27 of 27

Important Notes - Essays

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Important Notes - Essays

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Marriage before the exile

except as witness, and there was no religious element in it.3

Marriage after the Exile

essential to the validity of the marriage.5

approved and witnessed to by their social group or society.6

their responsibility also.10

aside from the prospect of producing children.11

recognized by society and has intended permanency.12

perform the duty of a husband’s brother.15

destiny.17 (Very Important point).

through her levirate marriage, she found her new “redeemer.”19

and is given as a wife to another member of the family.21

a custom that enhanced the concept of family solidarity.23

practically as binding as the marriage itself.24

Endogamy & Exogamy

the Israelite community as a whole was endogamous.25

married his aunt (Num 26:59).28

According to the Hebrew Bible, endogamy was preferred.29

threatened the land holdings.30

endogamous, patrilineal, patriarchal, patrilocal, joint, and polygamous.33

father....34 No blood relationship was taken for granted.35

Hebrew marriage practice in the OT.36

is the securing of the household’s economic interests and property rights.39

rather than solicited.43

no part in this transaction as an independent individual under the law.48

specifically forbidden (Lev 18:18).52

women in his household and deciding which were eligible to marry.53

although this practice is not required by biblical law.54

companionship or mutual support.55

the family could worsen.57

important secondary objective of marriage was the maintaining or increasing of family

of marriage was to have and raise children, especially boys.60

Status of Husband & Wife

becomes a berakhah “a blessing” (Gen. 49:25).68

Homemaking and childbearing were by no means inferior or unrewarding. They were

responsibilities, not restrictions.71

daughters. Likewise, the father was not a despot.72

husband’s...and provided her economic security in case of divorce or widowhood.74

position of the family (1 Sam 18:23-25).

was at least originally “purchase-marriage”.81 The other school explains it as a

“compensation-gift” and hence concludes that marriage never was “purchase-marriage”.82

bride’s father for the loss of his daughter.84

Patriarchy & Matriarchy

or less permanently. In “mota” marriage the visits are periodical.91

Keturah, and Hagar. Characteristics94

their own (patriarchal) family line.95

Although several theories on matrilineal and matriarchal forms of marriage...have been

Marriages generally were patrilocal and patrilineal.96

The household was not only patriarchal, it was patrilocal.98

household to another male from his side of the family.99

chose and heir.103

represented their family.104

Monogamy & Polygamy

notable exceptions. Polygamy, which included concubinage, allowed a household to increase

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 not only presupposes the existence of polygamy....105

reasons of progeny and inheritance, while a relationship with a concubine would be

was the main reason for a husband to take a second wife....110

instance of polyandry (one wife, more than one husband).111

took polygyny for granted.115

as in the case of “political marriage”....116

Restriction on Sexual Relations

never be divorced (ibid. 28-29).118

and sometimes also to the wife.