CASAMENTO - MARRIAGE

MARRIAGE. Marriage is the state in which men and women can live together in sexual relationship with the approval of their social group. Adultery and fornication are sexual relationships that society does not recognize as constituting marriage. This definition is necessary to show that in the OT polygamy is not sexually immoral, since it constitutes a recognized married state; though it is generally shown to be inexpedient.

I. The status of marriage

Marriage is regarded as normal, and there is no word for ‘bachelor’ in the OT. The record of the creation of Eve (Gn. 2:18-24) indicates the unique relationship of husband and wife, and serves as a picture of the relationship between God and his people (Je. 3; Ezk. 16; Ho. 1-3) and between Christ and his church (Eph. 5:22-33). Jeremiah’s call to remain unmarried (Je. 16:2) is a unique prophetic sign, but in the NT it is recognized that for specific purposes celibacy can be God’s call to Christians (Mt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9), although marriage and family life are the normal calling (Jn. 2:1-11; Eph. 5:22-6:4; 1 Tim. 3:2; 4:3; 5:14).

Monogamy is implicit in the story of Adam and Eve, since God created only one wife for Adam. Yet polygamy is adopted from the time of Lamech (Gn. 4:19), and is not forbidden in Scripture. It would seem that God left it to man to discover by experience that his original institution of monogamy was the proper relationship. It is shown that polygamy brings trouble, and often results in sin, e.g. Abraham (Gn. 21); Gideon (Jdg. 8:29-9:57); David (2 Sa. 11; 13); Solomon (1 Ki. 11:1-8). In view of oriental customs Heb. kings are warned against it (Dt. 17:17). Family jealousies arise from it, as with Elkanah’s two wives, one of whom is an adversary to the other (1 Sa. 1:6; cf. Lv. 18:18). It is difficult to know how far polygamy was practised, but on economic grounds it is probable that it was found more among the well-to-do than among the ordinary people. Herod the Great had nine wives at one time (Jos., Ant. 17. 19). Polygamy continues to the present day among Jews in Muslim countries.

When polygamy was practised the status and relationship of the wives can be gathered both from the narratives and the law. It was natural that the husband would be drawn to one rather than another. Thus Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy, loved Rachel more than Leah (Gn. 29). Elkanah preferred Hannah in spite of her childlessness (1 Sa. 1:1-8). In Dt. 21:15-17 it is admitted that the husband may love one wife and hate the other.

Since children were important to carry on the family name, a childless wife might allow her husband to have children by her slave. This was legal in civilized Mesopotamia (e.g. the Code of Hammurapi, §§ 144-147), and was practised by Sarah and Abraham (Gn. 16) and Rachel and Jacob (Gn. 30:1-8), though Jacob went farther and accepted Leah’s maid also, even though Leah had already borne him children (Gn. 30:9). In these cases the rights of the wife are safe-guarded; it is she who gives her maid to her husband for a specific occasion. It is difficult to give a name to the status of the maid in such a relationship; she is a secondary, rather than a second, wife, though, if the husband continued to have relations with her, she would have the position of concubine. This is perhaps why Bilhah is called Jacob’s concubine in Gn. 35:22, while Hagar is not classed with Abraham’s concubines in Gn. 25:6.

Wives would normally be chosen from among the Hebrews (e.g. Ne. 13:23-28). Betrothal and marriage would then follow a normal pattern (see below). Sometimes they were bought as Heb. slaves (Ex. 21:7-11; Ne. 5:5). It is commonly asserted that the master of a household had sexual rights over all his female slaves. No doubt there were flagrant examples of such promiscuity, but the Bible says nothing about them. It is noteworthy that Ex. 21:7-11 and Dt. 15:12 distinguish between an ordinary female slave, who is to be released after 7 years, and one who has been deliberately taken as a wife, or concubine, and who cannot claim her release automatically. Since her rights are here established by law, the head of the house or his son must have gone through some ceremony, however simple, of which the law can take cognizance. In speaking of her rights this passage does not make them depend upon her word against the word of the head of the house, nor even upon her having borne him or his son a child. It is difficult to say what her status was. No doubt it varied according to whether she was the first, second, or only ‘wife’ of the householder. Where she was given to the son of the house, she might well have full status as his wife. The fact is that this law, as the context shows, deals with her rights as a slave and not primarily as a wife.

Wives might also be taken from among captives after a war, provided that they were not Palestinians (Dt. 20:14-18). Some writers regard these captives as concubines, but the regulations of Dt. 21:10-14 regard them as normal wives.

There is no law dealing with concubines, and we do not know what rights they had. Obviously they had an inferior position to the wives, but their children could inherit at their father’s discretion (Gn. 25:6). Judges records the rise to power of Abimelech, the son of Gideon’s concubine (Jdg. 8:31-9:57), and also tells the tragic story of the Levite and his concubine (Jdg. 19). The impression given by 19:2-4 is that this concubine was free to leave her ‘husband’, and that the man relied on persuasion to bring her home. David and Solomon copied oriental monarchs in taking many wives and concubines (2 Sa. 5:13; 1 Ki. 11:3; Ct. 6:8-9). In the last two passages it seems that the concubines were drawn from a lower class of the population.

In normal marriages the wife came to the husband’s home. There is, however, another form of marriage in Jdg. 14-15. This is practised among the Philistines, and there is no record of it among the Israelites. Here Samson’s wife remains at her father’s home, and Samson visits her. It might be argued that Samson had intended to take her home after the wedding, but went off alone in a rage after the trick that she had played on him. Yet she is still at her father’s house in 15:1, even though in the meantime she has been married to a Philistine.

II. Marriage customs

The marriage customs of the Bible centre in the two events of betrothal and wedding.

a. Betrothal

In the Near East betrothal (Talmudic ÕeµruÆséÆn and qidduÆsûéÆn) is almost as binding as marriage itself. In the Bible the betrothed woman was sometimes called ‘wife’ and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gn. 29:21; Dt. 22:23-24; Mt. 1:18, 20), and the betrothed man was called ‘husband’ (Joel 1:8; Mt. 1:19). The Bible does not legislate for broken betrothals, but the Code of Hammurapi (§§ 159-160) stipulated that if the future husband broke the engagement the bride’s father retained the bride-gift; while if the father changed his mind he repaid double the amount of the gift (see also the Law codes of Lipit-Ishtar, 29, and Eshnunna, 25). Presumably there was some formal declaration, but the amount of publicity would depend on the bridegroom. Thus Joseph wished to dissolve the betrothal to Mary as quietly as possible (Mt. 1:19).

God’s love and faithfulness towards his people are pictured in terms of a betrothal in Ho. 2:19-20. The betrothal included the following steps:

(i) Choice of a spouse. Usually the parents of a young man chose his wife and arranged for the marriage, as Hagar did for Ishmael (Gn. 21:21) and Judah for Er (Gn. 38:6). Sometimes the young man did the choosing, and his parents the negotiating, as in the case of Shechem (Gn. 34:4, 8) and Samson (Jdg. 14:2). Rarely did a man marry against the wish of his parents, as did Esau (Gn. 26:34-35). The girl was sometimes asked whether she consented, as in the case of Rebekah (Gn. 24:58). Occasionally the girl’s parents chose a likely man to be her husband, as did Naomi (Ru. 3:1-2) and Saul (1 Sa.18:21).

(ii) Exchange of gifts. Three types of gifts are associated with betrothal in the Bible: 1. The moµhar, translated ‘marriage present’ in rsv and ‘dowry’ in av (Gn. 34:12, for Dinah; Ex. 22:17, for a seduced maiden; 1 Sa. 18:25, for Michal). The moµhar is implied but not so named in such passages as Gn. 24:53, for Rebekah; 29:18, the 7 years’ service performed by Jacob for Rachel. Moses’ keeping of the sheep for his father-in-law may be interpreted in the same way (Ex. 3:1). This was a compensation gift from the bridegroom to the family of the bride, and it sealed the covenant and bound the two families together. Some scholars have considered the moµhar to be the price of the bride, but a wife was not bought like a slave. 2. The dowry. This was a gift to the bride or the groom from her father, sometimes consisting of servants (Gn. 24:59, 61, to Rebekah; 29:24, to Leah) or land (Jdg. 1:15, to Achsah; 1 Ki. 9:16, to Pharaoh’s daughter, the wife of Solomon), or other property (Tobit 8:21, to Tobias). 3. The bridegroom’s gift to the bride was sometimes jewellery and clothes, as those brought to Rebekah (Gn. 24:53). Biblical examples of oral contracts are Jacob’s offer of 7 years’ service to Laban (Gn. 29:18) and Shechem’s promise of gifts to the family of Dinah (Gn. 34:12). In TB a contract of betrothal is called sû^et\ar qidduÆsûéÆn (Moed Katan 18b) or sû^et\ar ÕeµruÆséÆn (Kiddushin 9a). In the Near East today the contributions of each family are fixed in a written engagement contract.

b. Wedding ceremonies

An important feature of many of these ceremonies was the public acknowledgment of the marital relationship. It is to be understood that not all of the following steps were taken at all weddings.

(i) Garments of bride and groom. The bride sometimes wore embroidered garments (Ps. 45:13-14), jewels (Is. 61:10), a special girdle or ‘attire’ (Je. 2:32) and a veil (Gn. 24:65). Among the adornments of the groom might be a garland (Is. 61:10). Eph. 5:27; Rev. 19:8; 21:2 refer figuratively to the white garments of the church as the Bride of Christ.

(ii) Bridesmaids and friends. Ps. 45:14 speaks of bridesmaids for a royal bride, and we assume that lesser brides had their bridesmaids also. Certainly the bridegroom had his group of companions (Jdg. 14:11). One of these corresponded to the best man at our weddings, and is called ‘companion’ in Jdg. 14:20; 15:2, and ‘the friend of the bridegroom’ in Jn. 3:29. He may be the same as ‘the steward (av ‘governor’) of the feast’ in Jn. 2:8-9.

(iii) The procession. In the evening of the day fixed for the marriage the bridegroom and his friends went in procession to the bride’s house. The wedding supper could be held there: sometimes circumstances compelled this (Gn. 29:22; Jdg. 14), but it may have been fairly common, since the parable of the Ten Virgins in Mt. 25:1-13 is most easily interpreted of the bridegroom going to the bride’s house for the supper. One would, however, expect that more usually the bridegroom escorted the bride back to his own or his parents’ home for the supper, though the only references to this in Scripture are in Ps. 45:14f.; Mt. 22:1-14 (royal weddings), and probably in Jn. 2:9f.

The procession might be accompanied by singing, music and dancing (Je. 7:34; 1 Macc. 9:39), and by lamps if at night (Mt. 25:7).

(iv) The marriage feast. This was usually held at the house of the groom (Mt. 22:1-10; Jn. 2:9) and often at night (Mt. 22:13; 25:6). Many relatives and friends attended; so the wine might well run out (Jn. 2:3). A steward or friend supervised the feast (Jn. 2:9-10). To refuse an invitation to the wedding feast was an insult (Mt. 22:7). The guests were expected to wear festive clothes (Mt. 22:11-12). In special circumstances the feast could be held in the bride’s home (Gn. 29:22; Tobit 8:19) The glorious gathering of Christ and his saints in heaven is figuratively called ‘the marriage supper of the Lamb’ (Rev. 19:9).

(v) Covering the bride. In two cases in the OT (Ru. 3:9; Ezk. 16:8) the man covers the woman with his skirt, perhaps a sign that he takes her under his protection. D. R. Mace follows J. L. Burckhardt (Notes on the Bedouin, 1830, p. 264) in saying that in Arab weddings this is done by one of the bridegroom’s relations. J. Eisler, in Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt, 1910, says that among the bedouin the bridegroom covers the bride with a special cloak, using the words, ‘From now on, nobody but myself shall cover thee.‘ The Bible references suggest that the second custom was followed.

(vi) Blessing. Parents and friends blessed the couple and wished them well (Gn. 24:60; Ru. 4:11; Tobit 7:13).

(vii) Covenant. Another religious element was the covenant of faithfulness which is implied in Pr. 2:17; Ezk. 16:8; Mal. 2:14. According to Tobit 7:14, the father of the bride drew up a written marriage contract, which in the Mishnah is called k^et_uÆb_aÆ.

(viii) Bridechamber. A nuptial chamber was specially prepared (Tobit 7:16). The Heb. name for this room is h\uppaÆ (Ps. 19:5; Joel 2:16), originally a canopy or tent, and the Gk. word is nymphoµn (Mk. 2:19). The word h\uppaÆ is still used among Jews today of the canopy under which the bride and bridegroom sit or stand during the wedding ceremony.

(ix) Consummation. The bride and groom were escorted to this room, often by the parents (Gn. 29:23; Tobit 7:16-17; 8:1). Before coming together, for which the Heb. uses the idiom ‘to know’, prayer was offered by husband and wife (Tobit 8:4).

(x) Proof of virginity. A blood-stained cloth or chemise was exhibited as a proof of the bride’s virginity (Dt. 22:13-21). This custom continues in some places in the Near East.

(xi) Festivities. The wedding festivities continued for a week (Gn. 29:27, Jacob and Leah) or sometimes 2 weeks (Tobit 8:20, Tobias and Sarah). These celebrations were marked by music (Pss. 45; 78:63) and by joking like Samson’s riddles (Jdg. 14:12-18). Some interpret Canticles in the light of a custom among Syrian peasants of calling the groom and bride ‘king’ and ‘queen’ during the festivities after the wedding and of praising them with songs.

III. Forbidden degrees of marriage

These are listed in Lv. 18 in detail, and less fully in Lv. 20:17-21; Dt. 27:20-23. They are analysed in detail by David Mace, Hebrew Marriage, pp. 152f. We presume that the ban held good both for a second wife during the first wife’s lifetime and for any subsequent marriage after the wife’s death, except for marriage with the wife’s sister: for Lv. 18:18, in saying that the wife’s sister may not be married during the wife’s lifetime, implies that she may be married after the wife is dead.

Abraham (Gn. 20:12) and Jacob (Gn. 29:21-30) married within degrees of relationship that were later forbidden. The scandal in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1) may have been marriage of a stepmother after the father’s death, but, since the woman is called ‘his father’s wife’ (not widow), and the act is called fornication, it is more likely to be a case of immoral relationship with the man’s young second wife.

IV. The levirate law

The name is derived from Lat. levir, meaning ‘husband’s brother’. When a married man died without a child his brother was expected to take his wife. Children of the marriage counted as children of the first husband. This custom is found among other peoples besides the Hebrews.

The custom is assumed in the story of Onan in Gn. 38:8-10. Onan took his brother’s wife, but refused to have a child by her, because ‘the seed should not be his’ (v. 9), and his own children would not have the primary inheritance. This verse does not pass any judgment on birth control as such.

Dt. 25:5-10 states the law as applying to brethren who dwell together, but allows the brother the option of refusing.

The book of Ruth shows that the custom extended farther than the husband’s brother. Here an unnamed kinsman has the primary duty, and only when he refuses does Boaz marry Ruth. A further extension of the custom here is that it is Ruth, and not Naomi, who marries Boaz, presumably because Naomi was too old to bear a child. The child is called ‘a son to Naomi’ (4:17).

The levirate law did not apply if daughters had been born, and regulations for the inheritance of daughters are given to the daughters of Zelophehad in Nu. 27:1-11. It might seem strange that vv. 9-11 seem to ignore, or even contradict, the levirate law. It could be argued that Dt. 25:5-10 had not yet been promulgated. On the other hand, when a law arises out of a specific occasion one must know the exact circumstances in order to judge what the law professes to cover. There would be no contradiction of the levirate law if Zelophehad’s wife had died before he did, and the law here confines itself to similar cases. Nu. 27:8-11 would operate when there were daughters only, or when a childless wife had predeceased her husband, or when the late husband’s brother refused to take the childless widow, or when the wife remained childless after the brother had married her.

In Lv. 18:16; 20:21 a man is forbidden to marry his brother’s wife. In the light of the levirate law this clearly means that he may not take her as his own wife, whether she has been divorced during her husband’s lifetime or has been left with or without children at her husband’s death. John the Baptist rebuked Herod Antipas for marrying the wife of his brother Herod Philip (Mt. 14:3-4); Herod Philip was still alive.

In the NT the levirate law is used by the Sadducees to pose a problem about the resurrection (Mt. 22:23ff.).

V. Divorce

a. In the Old Testament

In Mt. 19:8 Jesus says that Moses ‘allowed’ divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. This means that Moses did not command divorce, but regulated an existing practice, and the form of the law in Dt. 24:1-4 is best understood in this sense. av and rv imply a command in the second half of v. 1, but the rsv follows Keil, Delitzsch, S. R. Driver and lxx, in making the ‘if of the protasis extend to the end of v. 3, so that v. 4 contains the actual regulation. On any translation we gather from this section that divorce was practised, that a form of contract was given to the wife, and that she was then free to remarry.

The grounds of divorce here are referred to in such general terms that no precise interpretation can be given. The husband finds ‘some uncleanness’ in his wife. The Heb. words, Ôerwat_ daµb_aµr (literally, ‘nakedness of a thing’), occur elsewhere only as a phrase in Dt. 23:14. Shortly before the time of Christ the school of Shammai interpreted it of unfaithfulness only, while the school of Hillel extended it to anything unpleasing to the husband. We must remember that Moses is not here professing to state the grounds of divorce, but accepting it as an existing fact.

There are two situations in which divorce is forbidden: when a man has falsely accused his wife of pre-marital unfaithfulness (Dt. 22:13-19); and when a man has had relations with a girl, and her father has compelled him to marry her (Dt. 22:28-29; Ex. 22:16-17).

On two exceptional occasions divorce was insisted on. These were when the returned exiles had married pagan wives (Ezr. 9-10 and probably Ne. 13:23ff., although divorce is implied here, rather than stated). In Mal. 2:10-16 some had put away their Jewish wives so as to marry pagans.

b. In the New Testament

In comparing the words of Jesus in Mt. 5:32; 19:3-12; Mk. 10:2-12; Lk. 16:18, we find that he brands divorce and remarriage as adultery, but does not say that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together. In both passages in Matthew fornication (rsv ‘unchastity’) is given as the sole ground on which a man may put away his wife, whereas there is no such qualification in Mark and Luke. Fornication is commonly taken as here being equivalent to adultery; similarly, the conduct of the nation as Yahweh’s wife is branded both as adultery (Je. 3:8; Ezk. 23:45) and as fornication (Je. 3:2-3; Ezk. 23:43); in Ecclus. 23:23 an unfaithful wife is said to have committed adultery in fornication (cf. also 1 Cor. 7:2 where ‘immorality’ is Gk. ‘fornication’).

The reason for the omission of the exceptive clause in Mark and Luke could be that no Jew, Roman or Greek ever doubted that adultery constituted grounds for divorce, and the Evangelists took it for granted. Similarly, Paul in Rom. 7:1-3, referring to Jewish and Rom. law, ignores the possibility of divorce for adultery which both these laws provided.

Other theories have been held about the meaning of Christ’s words. Some refer fornication to pre-marital unfaithfulness, which the husband discovers after marriage. Others have suggested that the parties discover that they have married within the prohibited degrees of relationship, a thing which must have happened too rarely for it to be the subject of a special exception in Christ’s words. Roman Catholics hold that the words sanction separation, but not remarriage. It is difficult to exclude permission to remarry from Mt. 19:9; and among the Jews there was no such custom as separation without permission to remarry.

Some have doubted the authenticity of Mk. 10:12, since a Jewish wife could not normally divorce her husband. But a wife could appeal to the court against her husband’s treatment of her, and the court could compel the husband to divorce her. Moreover, Christ may have had Gk. and Rom. law in mind, and here the wife could divorce her husband, as Herodias had divorced her first husband.

There is a strong body of opinion both among Protestants and Roman Catholics that 1 Cor. 7:10-16 gives another ground for divorce. Here Paul repeats the teaching that the Lord had given when on earth, and then, under the guidance of the Spirit, gives teaching beyond what the Lord had given, since a new situation had arisen. When one party in a pagan marriage is converted to Christ he or she must not desert the other. But if the other insists on leaving the Christian ‘a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases’. This latter clause cannot simply mean that they are free to be deserted, but must mean that they are free to be remarried. This further ground, which on the face of it is of limited application, is known as the ‘Pauline Privilege’.

In the present modern tangle of marriage, divorce and remarriage the Christian church, in dealing with converts and repentant members, is often compelled to accept the situation as it is. A convert who previously has been divorced, on sufficient or insufficient grounds, and who has remarried, cannot return to the original partner, and the present marriage cannot be branded as adulterous (1 Cor. 6:9, 11).

Bibliography. W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 1903; E. A. Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, 3 vols., 1922; H. Granquist, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village, 2 Vols., 1931, 1935; M. Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage, 1938; E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws, 1944; D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage, 1953; J. Murray, Divorce, 1953; D. S. Bailey, The Man-Woman Relation in Christian Thought, 1959; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1961; E. Stauffer, TDNT 1, pp. 648-657; W. Günther et al., NIDNTT 2, pp. 575-590; M. J. Harris, C. Brown, NIDNTT 3, pp. 534-543. j.s.w. j.t.

DIVORCE.

Ex. 21:7-11

Deut. 21:10-14

Deut. 24:1-4

Ezra 10:1-16

Neh. 13:23-30

Jer. 3:1

Mic. 2:9

Mal. 2:14-16

Matt. 5:31,32

Matt. 19:3-12 Mark 10:2.

Luke 16:18

1 Cor. 7:10-17Disobedience of the wife to the husband, a sufficient cause for, in the Persian empire, Esth. 1:10-22.See Marriage.

Figurative: Isa. 50:1; 54:4; Jer. 3:8.