MARRIAGE
The union for life of one man and one woman, is an ordinance of the Creator for the perpetuity and happiness of the human race; instituted in Paradise, Gen 1:27-28 2:18-24, and the foundation of no small part of all that is valuable to human society. By promoting parental love and the sense of responsibility, marriage most effectually promotes the health and happiness of children, and their careful education to virtue, industry, and honor, to right habits and ends, and to all that is included in the idea of home. God made originally but one man and one woman. The first polygamists were Lamech and those degenerate “sons of God,” or worshippers of Jehovah, who “took them wives of all that they chose,” Gen 4:17 6:2. On the other hand, Noah and his three sons had each but one wife; and the same appears to be true of all his direct ancestors’ back to Adam. So also was it with Job, Nahor, Lot, and at first with Abraham. See CONCUBINE. In after-times a plurality of wives became more common among the Hebrews, and the Scriptures afford numerous illustrations of its evil results, Gen 16:16 Jdg 8:30 2Sa 3:3-5 1Ki 11:18 2Ch 11:18-21 13:21. In the time of Christ there is no mention of polygamy as prevalent among the Jews.The Israelites were forbidden to marry within certain specified degrees, Lev 18:1-30,1 -27 De 27:1-26. Marriage with Canaanites and idolaters was strictly forbidden, Exo 34:16 ; and afterwards with any of the heathen nations around them, especially such as were uncircumcised, Neh 13:1-31 . By the Levirate law, as it is termed, if a Jew died without children, his nearest brother or kinsman was bound to marry the widow, that her firstborn son after this marriage might be reckoned the son and heir of the first husband, Gen 38:1-30 Deu 25:5-10 Mat 22:23-26 . The Savior set his seal to marriage as a divine and permanent institution, aside from all the civil laws which guard and regulate, or seek to alter or annul it; forbidding divorce except for one cause, Mat 5:32 19:3-6,9; and denouncing all breaches of marriage vows, even in thought, Mat 5:28 . Compare Heb 13:4 Jer 21:8 .Jewish parents were wont to arrange with other parents as to the marriage of their children, sometimes according to the previous choice of the son, and not without some regard to the consent of the daughter, Gen 21:21 24:1-67 34:4-6 Jdg 14:2-3 . The parties were often betrothed to each other long before the marriage took place. See BETROTHING. A dowry was given by the suitor to the parents and brethren of the bride, Exo 22:13 Deu 22:29 2Sa 13:11 . The nuptials were often celebrated with great pomp and ceremony, and with protracted feasting and rejoicing. It was customary for the bridegroom to appoint a Paranymphus, or groomsman, called by our Savior “the friend of the bridegroom,” John 3.29. A number of other young men also kept him company during the days of the wedding, to do him honor; as also young women kept company with the bride all this time. The companions of the bridegrooms are expressly mentioned in the history of Samson, Jdg 14:11,20 Son 5:1 8:13 Mt 9:14; also the companions of the bride, Psa 45:9,14 Son 1:5 2:7 3:5 8:4. The office of the groomsman was to direct in the ceremonies of he wedding. The friends and companions of the bride sang the epithalamium, or wedding song, at the door of the bride the evening before the wedding. The festivities of the wedding were conducted with great decorum, the young people of each sex being in distinct apartments and at different tables. The young men at Samson’s wedding diverted themselves in proposing riddles, and the bridegroom appointed the prize to those should could explain them, Jdg 14:14 .The Jews affirm, that before Jerusalem was laid in ruins, the bridegroom and bride wore crowns at their marriage. Compare Isa 61:10 Son 3:11, “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother, crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.” The modern Jews, in some places, throw handfuls of wheat on the newly married couple, particularly on the bride, saying “Increase and multiply.” In other places they mingle pieces of money with the wheat, which are gathered up by the poor. The actual ceremony of marriage was very simple, consisting of little more than the reading of the marriage contract, Pro 2:17 Mal 2:14, and the nuptial blessing invoked by the friends, Gen 24:60 Rth 4:11,12 .The wedding festivities commonly lasted seven days for a maid, and three days for a widow. So Laban says to Jacob, respecting Leah, “Fulfill her week,” Gen 29:27 . The ceremonies of Samson’s wedding continued seven whole days, Jdg 14:17,18 . These seven days of rejoicing were commonly spent in the house of the woman’s father, after which they conducted the bride to her husband’s home.The procession accompanying the bride from the house of her father to that of the bridegroom, was generally one of more or less pomp, according to the circumstances of the married couple; and for this they often chose the night, as is tell the custom in Syria. Hence the parable of the ten virgins that went at midnight to meet the bride and bridegroom, Mat 25:1-46 . “At a Hindoo marriage, the procession of which I saw some years ago,” says Mr. Ward, “the bridegroom came from a distance, and the bride lived at Serampre, to which place the bridegroom was to come by water. After waiting two or three hours, at length, near midnight, it was announced, as if in the very words of Scripture, ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.’ All the persons employed now lighted their lamps, and ran with them in their hands to fill up their stations in the procession; some of them had lost their lights, and were unprepared; but it was then too late to seek them, and the cavalcade moved forward to the house of the bride, at which place the company entered a large and splendidly illuminated area, before the house, covered with an awning, where a great multitude of friends, dressed in their best apparel, were seated upon mats. The bridegroom was carried in the arms of a friend, and placed in a superb seat in the midst of the company, where he sat a short time, and them went into the house, the door of which was immediately shut, and guarded by sepoys. Others and I expostulated with the doorkeepers, but in vain. Never was I so struck with our Lord’s beautiful parable as at this moment; ‘and the door was shut.'”Christianity invests the family institution with peculiar sacredness; makes true love its basis, and mutual preference of each others’ happiness its rule; and even likens it to the ineffable union between Christ and his church, Zep 5:22-33 . Nowhere in the world is woman so honored, happy, and useful as in a Christian land and a Christian home. Believers are directed to marry “in the Lord,” 1Co 7:39 . No doubt the restrictions laid upon the ancient people of God contain a lesson for all periods, and the recorded ill results of forbidden marriages among the Jews, if heeded, would prevent the serious evils which often result form union between a Christian and a worldling. As to the mutual duties of husband and wife, see Zep 5:22-23 1Ti 2:11,12 1Pe 3:1-7 .The Romish church puts dishonor on what the Holy Spirit describes as “honorable in all.” It not only extols celibacy and virginity in the laity, but also strictly refuses marriage to all its priests, bishops, etc., and in thus “forbidding to marry,” fixes upon itself the name of anti-Christ, 1Ti 4:3 . See BETROTHING, CONCUBINE, DIVORCE, GARMENTS, etc.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Marriage
1. Christian conception of marriage.-During the Apostolic Age the Church was both Jewish and Gentile, and its ideas on marriage had a double background in those of the OT and the heathen. The gravest danger was that the laxity of heathenism with regard to marriage should remain among the Gentile converts. In the heathen world, though the marriage ceremony was in some sort a sacred act, the marriage itself was looked on as an easily-broken contract which either party might dissolve at will. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the earliest questions which the Corinthians put to St. Paul should be on the subject of marriage (1Co 7:1). The Apostle, writing as he does to Gentiles, dwells on the fact that marriage is a remedy against sin (1Co 7:2; cf. also 1Th 4:3 f., whether with most modern commentators we interpret in that passage of a mans wife, or, with G. Milligan, of the human body, for the context implies marriage), and gives many warnings against heathen impurities (Rom 1:24; Rom 1:28 [idolatry and impurity inseparable] Rom 6:12 f., Rom 13:14, 1Co 5:1; 1Co 5:9-11; 1Co 6:13-20, 2Co 12:21, Gal 5:16-24, Eph 2:2 f., Eph 4:17-19 [as the Gentiles also walk] Eph 5:3, Col 3:5-8, 2Ti 2:22). Other NT writers give like warnings (1Pe 1:14; 1Pe 2:11; 1Pe 4:2 f., 2Pe 2:18, Jud 1:16; Jud 1:18).
The Jews had a much higher conception of marriage than the heathen. Almost all of them were married, as is the case at the present day with practically the whole of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim populations of the Near East-the exceptions are very few. They looked on the saying Be ye fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28) as a universal command. Marriage was a sacred duty and was considered most holy. The pious fasted before it, confessing their sins. It was regarded almost as a Sacrament. Entrance into the married state was thought to carry the forgiveness of sins (Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Edersheim).] 9 i. 352f.). Yet the Jews had not escaped from heathen contamination; not only was divorce extremely common (below, 7), but, as frequent passages in the OT show, impurities of all kinds had to be strongly repressed. In Eph 2:2 f. St. Paul does not acquit his own nation in this respect, contrasting the pronouns ye (Gentiles) and we also (Jews).
Our Lord greatly raised the conception of marriage, even as compared with that of the Jews of the time. It was a Divine institution, which made man and one wife to become one flesh, for God had joined them together (Mar 10:6-9, Mat 19:4-6, quoting Gen 2:24). The primeval marriage, the idea of which was obscured by the hardness of mans heart, was revived, and the teaching about divorce (below, 7) was revolutionized. Nevertheless, marriage was intended only for this life, for there are no marriages in heaven (Mat 22:30, Mar 12:25, Luk 20:35 -these passages, it is needless to say, do not teach that loved ones will be parted hereafter). Jesus chose a marriage feast for His first miracle (Joh 2:1 ff.). Following the Masters teaching, St. Paul insists on the holiness of marriage in Eph 5:22-33 (cf. Heb 13:4); the quotation from Genesis is repeated (Eph 5:31), and marriage is said to symbolize the union between Christ and His Church (Eph 5:23-28)-a metaphor drawn out in the ancient homily known as 2 Clement ( 14: the male is Christ, and the female is the Church). Hence St. Paul dwells on the love that ought to exist between husband and wife, even as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25; Eph 5:28; Eph 5:33; cf. Col 3:19). St. Peter in a corresponding passage (1Pe 3:7) dwells rather on the honour due by the husband to his wife; and both apostles, speaking of the duty of wives to husbands in these passages, rather dwell on their subjection to their consorts [see Family, 2 (a)], though in Tit 2:4 f. the love of the wife to the husband is mentioned as well as her subjection. In 1Co 7:3 ff. St. Paul reminds married persons that they no longer are mere individuals, but belong to one another, and must not refuse cohabitation with one another except by consent for a season.
2. Christian conception of celibacy.-We must remember that celibacy was extremely uncommon both among the Jews and among the heathen in the first ages of the Church. It was not part of the Nazirites vow (Num 6:3-5), though no doubt many Nazirites, like John Baptist (if indeed he was one of them), were celibates. And there were some, but not all, of the Essenes who preached the duty of abstinence from marriage, and admitted members to their body only after a probation of three years to test their continency (Josephus, Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) II. viii. 2, 7). In them we see the germ of Gnostic dualism, which taught the inherent evil of matter (Lightfoot, Colossians, ed. 1900, p. 85; see also his essay on this sect, p. 375 ff.). In this respect the Essenes were in direct antagonism with the Pharisees, who strongly supported marriage; but they had some influence in promoting Christian celibacy in the post-Apostolic Age. Among the heathen celibacy can hardly be said to have existed.
Our Lord, while teaching, as we have seen, the holiness of marriage, nevertheless commended celibacy for those to whom it is given and who are able to receive it; for so we must interpret the phrase which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavens sake (Mat 19:11 f.). As St. Paul says (1Co 7:7), each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. Nowhere in the NT is marriage referred to as a state inferior to that of celibacy, however much the latter may be commended under certain circumstances to certain persons. And so, probably, we are to interpret our Lords words about leaving house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of Gods sake (Luk 18:29; in || Mat 19:29, Mar 10:29 the best Manuscripts omit or wife). He could not have counselled a man to desert his wife or children if he had them. J. Wordsworth suggests (Ministry of Grace, London, 1901, p. 207) that the words may also include leaving an unbelieving and unfaithful wife, or a temporary separation by agreement, when the husband has to go to a part of the world where he cannot take a family (1Co 7:5 is somewhat analogous).
In the teaching of St. Paul we notice a certain change of view between the earlier and later Epistles. (a) In the earlier Epistles the Apostle plainly expected that the Parousia was imminent (cf. 1Th 4:17 : we that are alive, that are left; 1Co 16:22 and perhaps 1Co 15:51). If that were the case, the increase of the race would not be of primary importance; and therefore, while marriage was entirely lawful (1Co 7:28), and indeed imperative for those who had not the gift of continency (1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:9), celibacy was encouraged. It is good for a man not to touch a woman; I would that all men were even as I myself; it is good for them if they abide even as I (1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:7 f.); it is good for a man to be as he is-whether married or single (1Co 7:26). Yet St. Paul does not say that celibacy is a higher state, but only that it is expedient by reason of the present distress (1Co 7:26), because the time is shortened (1Co 7:25), and he would have Christians free from cares (1Co 7:32). The lawfulness of marriage is further emphasized by the assertion of the right to marry by St. Paul himself, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas (1Co 9:5). The meaning of these words is not quite plain; Cephas certainly was married (Mat 8:14, Luk 4:38), but were all the other apostles and all our Lords four brethren in like case? If so, why is Cephas mentioned separately? To the last question there is no clear answer, but the whole verse seems to show, especially in view of Jewish customs (see above), that at least a majority of the apostles and of our Lords brethren were married, and that the married state was not inconsistent with the work of a travelling missionary. As a comment on this we have the fact that Aquila, a great Christian worker, travelled about with his wife Prisca (Act 18:2; Act 18:26, Rom 16:3, 1Co 16:19, 2Ti 4:19). (b) In the Epistles of the Captivity marriage is mentioned as the normal state, and nothing is said in favour of celibacy (Eph 5:31 ff., Col 3:18 f.; cf. 1Pe 3:1-7), while we notice also that in these Epistles little is said of the nearness of Christs coming (Php 4:5 stands alone). (c) In the Pastoral Epistles marriage is recommended, or as some think required, for the local clergy (1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:4 f., Tit 1:5; see Home), and is also advised for young women (1Ti 5:14 Authorized Version , Revised Version margin) or for young widows (Revised Version ). Whatever may be the force of the phrase husband of one wife ( ) as excluding certain persons from the ministry (see below, 5), the whole context would appear to show that St. Paul desired his local officials, the presbyters (bishops) and deacons, to be, at least as a rule, married men, just as the Orthodox Eastern Church demands at the present day that her parish priests should be married, and that their wives should be alive. This does not depend on the untenable exegesis which makes the indefinite article (husband of a wife), but on the word husband and the context. There might perhaps be exceptions, of which the Apostle does not stop to speak. We must always bear in mind has it is a mistake to interpret a biblical passage with reference to the bearing that it has on later Christian practice; a disciplinary rule, by its nature, is not intended to be for all time, however suitable it may have been for the First Age. Another passage in these Epistles may also be noticed. St. Paul denounces as a heresy the prohibition of marriage (1Ti 4:3); though this does not involve any change of view as compared with the earlier Epistles. In what has been here said, the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles is assumed; if this be not allowed, the alteration of the Christian view as to the expediency of celibacy between the earlier and the later periods still holds good. But no argument against the Pauline authorship must be deduced from it, for a change of view is very natural in the course of a decade or more, during which a longer experience showed that the early expectation of Jesus immediate return was founded on a too hasty assumption; and, moreover, the Epistles of the Captivity serve as a bridge between the earlier and the later views.
In the apostolic period we read of a few persons who led the celibate life. St. Paul himself was unmarried (1Co 7:7 f., 1Co 9:5); so were the four daughters of Philip the Evangelist who prophesied (Act 21:9); St. John Evangelist was frequently known in the early Church as , as in the 3rd cent. Gnostic work Pistis Sophia; Tertullian had already called him a celibate (spado) of Christ (de Monogam. 17). It is not quite easy to say who are meant by the virgins (masc.) of Rev 14:4. The word is interpreted by Tertullian (de Res. Carn. 27, referring to Mat 19:12) of celibates; but Swete (Com. in loc.) gives good reasons for thinking that it must apply to married as well as unmarried chastity, and be taken metaphorically, as the symbolical character of the Book suggests. No exclusion of the married from the highest blessings of the Christian life finds a place in the NT.
In interpreting the NT it is of some importance to note the comments of those writers who immediately followed the apostles. Ignatius idea of celibacy (Polyc. 5) does not go further than our Lords teaching. My sisters (he says) are to love the Lord and be content with their spouses () in flesh and spirit; my brothers are to love their spouses as the Lord loved the Church (cf. Eph 5:29). If anyone can abide in purity (, i.e. virginity) to the honour of the flesh of the Lord (cf. 1Co 6:15), let him abide without boasting. If he boast, he is lost; and if it be known beyond the bishop ( : not if he be more famous than the bishop), he is corrupted. All who marry should do so with the consent of the bishop, that the marriage may be after the Lord (cf. 1Co 7:39). Thus, in Ignatius opinion, the bishop is to be taken into the confidence both of those who marry and of those who wish to remain celibates; in the latter case the intention must not be noised abroad. Similarly Clement of Rome (ad Cor. i. 38) says: He that is pure () in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestows his continence () upon him. We note that both Ignatius and Clement use or of celibacy, though they do not say that celibacy is the higher state. Hermas, on the other hand, in his Shepherd (Mand. iv. 4), describes the chastity both of the married and of the unmarried as . The phrase of Ignatius, virgins who are called widows (Smyrn. 13), has been much discussed. It can hardly mean unmarried women included in the order of widows, for Ignatius in that case would have omitted in his salutation all those who were literally widows, and such a custom is treated as unheard of by Tertullian (Virg. Vel. 9); and virgins is therefore probably to be interpreted symbolically as in Rev 14:4 (above), of women who are pure in heart (see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers2, pt. ii.: S. Ignatius and S. Polycarp, London, 1889, ii. 323f.).
3. Marriage ceremonies.-The betrothal preceded the actual marriage by several months, but not by more than a year (Edersheim, op. cit. i. 354). It is referred to in 2Co 11:2, where St. Paul says that he betrothed (, here only in the NT) the Corinthians to Christ; cf. Deu 28:30, Pro 19:14. In arranging for the betrothal, the intended bridegroom took no part, and matters were settled, as they still are in the East, by the respective parents, or, if they were not alive, by the brother or nearest relative. In the parable the father is said to make a marriage, or a marriage feast ( ), for his son (Mat 22:2); so in the OT, Gen 24:3 (Abraham and his steward for Isaac) Gen 34:4; Gen 34:8 (Hamor for Shechem) Gen 38:6 (Judah for Er), Jdg 14:2-10 (Manoah for Samson). When the father was not available, the mother sometimes acted, as when Hagar acted for Ishmael (Gen 21:21) or the mother for her son (2Es 9:47). It is instructive to see how marriage customs, as well as others, persistently survive in the East from biblical times, and we find that among the Oriental Christians of to-day the same practice obtains (Maclean-Browne, Catholicos of the East, p. 144); courtship in the Western sense of the term is little known, and the courting is done by the parents. The betrothal, having been accomplished by crowning with garlands and with some ceremony (Edersheim, loc. cit.), was, and is, absolutely binding, and a breach of it is treated as adultery in Deu 22:23 f. (ct. [Note: contrast.] Deu 22:28, Lev 19:20); this is illustrated by the position of Joseph as a betrothed husband in Mat 1:19. It is suggested by Plummer (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) i. 326) that the woman taken in adultery (Joh 8:4) was betrothed, not married, as she was to be stoned, not strangled. This may be so, since stoning is mentioned in Deu 22:24, but not in Lev 20:10, which gives the death-penalty for the adultery of married persons. Yet in Eze 16:38-40 married adulteresses seem to be meant, and there stoning is mentioned. Strangling was a later form of execution.
The night procession is perhaps the principal feature of the marriage. The bridegroom goes to fetch the bride at night, as in the parable of the Ten Virgins, and brings her to his house at midnight (Mat 25:6), with lamps-not, according to Edersheim (ii. 455) and Trench (Parables, 248), with torches, as the Roman custom was. These lamps were placed in a hollow cup, affixed to a long pole. A relic of this custom is seen in the present day among the East Syrians (Nestorians), who have the procession in the daytime, but carry two unlighted candles before the bride (Catholicos of the East, p. 153); in their case the bridegroom does not fetch his bride himself, but sends his father or friends, whence the usual expression for to marry a son is to bring a bride for him (ib.). A reference to these lamps has been seen in 2 Ezr 10:2, but this seems to refer to the lights in the guest-room. Before the bridegroom comes, the bride makes herself ready (Rev 19:7) with the bath; this was the custom, and seems to be referred to in Eph 5:25-27. The herald going before the bridegroom and crying, Behold the bridegroom, come ye forth to meet him (Mat 25:6), is a common feature of Eastern life, in which an expected magnate is usually preceded by such an announcement. But in the parable was the bridegroom returning with his bride to his own house, or going to fetch her? The latter view is taken by Edersheim (ii. 454 ff.), who thinks that the bridegroom was coming from a distance to the wedding in the brides house; but the other view, held by most commentators, is much more probable. Normally the wedding is in the bridegrooms house, and in the absence of any requirement of the parable to the contrary the usual custom must be assumed. And there is an early interpretation of the meaning; the words and the bride are added to Mat 25:1 by DX, Syr-sin, Syr-psh, Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] , Arm., some Fathers, and some cursives. There is no doubt that these words are an interpolation, but their addition shows that the authorities named understood the bridegroom to be returning with his bride. It is true that in the best text she is not mentioned; but that is because she is not needed for the purpose of the parable. In a village it would be natural for some of the virgin friends of either party to await the couple outside the place of marriage; and, indeed, our own custom, by which the bridesmaids go to the door of the church to await the bride, is exactly parallel.
No benediction of the marriage is mentioned in the NT, though it will be remembered that the feast itself was a religious act, as was the Agape (Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics i. 166, 173f.). According to Edersheim (i. 355) it was customary among the Jews for the benediction to take place immediately before the supper; a blessing was said over a cup, and presumably the bride and bridegroom drank of it. A benediction seems to be implied in Ignatius, Polyc. 5, where the consent of the bishop is required (above, 2); and it, with a nuptial Eucharist, is expressly mentioned in Tertullian, ad Uxor. ii. 8. For the present custom among Eastern Christians see Catholicos of the East, p. 151. The benediction, which is much overshadowed by the marriage feast, should take place among the E. Syrians in church, but in practice is usually in the house; a little consecrated earth from the martyrs tombs and the ring are put into a cup of wine and water, and both parties drink of it. They are crowned with threads of red, blue, and white, and many prayers are said.
The marriage supper follows the benediction, when the bridegroom has returned with his bride; and properly mean this (Mat 22:8 f.), and then come to mean marriage in general, as in Heb 13:4. The feast is given by the bridegrooms father (Mat 22:2) or by himself; Samson provided it, though he came from a distance, and this is said to have been the custom of the time (Jdg 14:10). The supper was prolonged till late in the night (Luk 12:36; Luk 12:38). The parable of the marriage of the kings son (Mat 22:2-14, apparently quite a different incident from that of Luk 14:16-24) gives an account of it. To refuse an invitation to it without good cause was counted a great insult (Mat 22:7), for to be bidden at all was an honour: the bidding to the marriage of the Lamb conveys a blessing (Rev 19:9; cf. Luk 14:15). Before the supper a servant goes to summon the invited guests (Mat 22:3 f.; cf. Est 6:14); and this continues to this day in the East, where the absence of clocks makes the custom necessary. At the feast the guests are arranged in order according to their rank (Luk 14:7 ff.). Not only is the bride arrayed in fine linen, bright and pure (Rev 19:8), but each guest wears a wedding garment ( , Mat 22:11); the lack of it is an insult, whether or not we are to suppose a reference to the custom of giving garments as presents by kings and great men in the East (so Edersheim, Trench)-and refusing a gift is ever a sign of contempt (cf. the story of Esau and Jacobs presents, Genesis 33); in the parable no excuse is offered. The feast lasts for seven or fourteen days (Gen 29:27, Jdg 14:12, Tob 8:19), and during this time all fasting is superseded (Mar 2:19; cf. Edersheim, i. 663). The bride and bridegroom are treated as king and queen, and are crowned (cf. above), and the bride veiled (Gen 29:23; Gen 29:25 : this is why Jacob did not discover Labans fraud).
The friend of the bridegroom ( , Joh 3:29) is the same as the or (Aristophanes, Av. 1740) of ancient Greece; he accompanied the bridegroom to fetch the bride-in Palestine, no doubt, then as now, on horseback, but formerly among the Greeks in a chariot, for means one who sits beside another in a chariot (). The corresponding feminine is , the bridesmaid (in Latin paranymphus is a bridesman, while paranympha is a bridesmaid). The friend of the bridegroom, then, was the best man; according to Edersheim (i. 148, 354 f.) his office was well known in Judaea , but did not exist in Galilee, and therefore he is not mentioned in John 2. But who, then, was the ruler of the feast () in Joh 2:9 f.? Souter (Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 540) supposes that he was a steward or head waiter; but his language to the bridegroom is too familiar for this. More probably he was one of the guests (so apparently also in Sir 32:1), who was entrusted with the management of the feast, but did not in any way provide it himself; he compliments the bridegroom on doing this so successfully.
The sons of the bridechamber (Mat 9:15, Mar 2:19, Luk 5:34) are the bridegrooms companions (cf. Jdg 14:11 -Samson had thirty of them), or probably (Edersheim) all the guests. They may even include the bridesmaids (cf. Psa 45:14 and the Ten Virgins of Matthew 25).
After the marriage the bridegroom was excused military service for a year (Deu 24:5; cf. Luk 14:20), and also between the betrothal and the marriage (Deu 20:7). For bride and bridegroom see also Family.
4. Monogamy, polygamy, and bigamy.-The two last are not directly forbidden in the NT, but their unlawfulness for Christians is assumed. Among the Jews polygamy had greatly decreased since the time of the patriarchs, and at the commencement of the Christian era was little practised. This was perhaps largely in consequence of Roman influence. Josephus says, indeed, that it was sometimes found among the later Jews (Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) I. xxiv. 2, Ant. XVII. i. 2f.). He is speaking of Herod and his sons, who were not pure Jews; yet their polygamy was not condemned by public opinion. In both passages it is implied that, though an old Jewish custom, it was uncommon. In Josephus account of the laws of Moses (Ant. IV. viii. 23) two wives (at a time) are mentioned; but this throws no light on the custom of the later Jews. Polygamy among Jews in the 2nd cent. a.d. is, however, mentioned by Justin Martyr (Dial. 134). For Christians it was inconsistent with Jesus elevated teaching about marriage, which assumes monogamy. W. P. Paterson points out (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iii. 265a) that in the OT itself the polygamy of the patriarchs is spoken of apologetically. Noah was monogamous (Gen 7:7); and monogamy was held to be symbolical of Gods union with Israel (Hos 2:19 ff.), while polygamy was symbolical of idolatry. We may also notice that spiritual monogamy is emphasized by St. Paul in 2Co 11:2, where to one husband is emphatic; he is speaking of Gods union with His Church. It should be remembered that in most or all countries where polygamy is allowed, it is not in practice very common, because only the rich can afford more than one wife. Thus at the present day the great majority of Muslims are monogamous, though their law allows them four wives and an unlimited number of concubines.* [Note: In the 3rd and 4th cents. the Church had some difficulty with regard to the reception of heathens who had concubines. The Church Orders do not allow Christians to keep concubines; if a man has one and desires to become a Christian he must marry her or leave her (Egyptian Church Order, 41, Ap. Const. viii. 32 [ed. Funk], Testament of our Lord, ii. 2); and this is evidently the meaning of Can. of Hippolytus, xvi. [ed. Achelis, 80], which says that a Christian who has lived with a single (speciali) concubine, who has borne him a son, must not cast her off, i.e. he must marry her. The clause common to these books apparently comes from their lost original, which may not improbably be assigned to Hippolytus, and be dated soon after a.d. 200. But some of these Orders say that under some circumstances a concubine of a heathen may herself be received.]
5. Digamy.-The re-marriage of widows and widowers stands on an entirely different basis from polygamy, and, though it was disliked by many Christians in the early ages of the Church, it was regarded by all, or almost all, as permissible. St. Paul allows it to widows (Rom 7:2 f., 1Co 7:39), and no reproach attaches to those who practise it, though the Apostle thinks that widowhood will give greater happiness than re-marriage (1Co 7:40; see above, 2). If with Revised Version we render in 1Ti 5:14 younger widows (Authorized Version and Revised Version margin younger women), he encourages or commands digamy in some cases. I desire that they marry, bear children, rule the household. But it seems probable that he did not approve of digamy for his local clergy, or the widows who are on the Church roll, supported by the Church (1Ti 5:9; 1Ti 5:16). These widows must be over threescore years old, having been the wife of one man (v. 9). This phrase, at least, is unambiguous (the participle applies both to this and to the preceding clause); it excludes bigamy, digamy, and marriage after divorce alike. The meaning of the qualification of the bishop or presbyter, that he must be the husband of one wife (1Ti 3:2, so Tit 1:6), a qualification repeated in the case of deacons in 1Ti 3:12, is on the negative side less clear; for the qualification on the positive side, see above, 2. It has been variously interpreted as forbidding, in the case of the Christian minister, polygamy, digamy, or marriage entered upon after a divorce-which for simplicity, and so as not to complicate the issue, we may suppose to have taken place in the clergymans heathen days-or after a separation such as that contemplated in 1Co 7:15 (see below, 6 (b)). In favour of the phrase referring to polygamy, it has been said that as the Jews sometimes practised it in the apostolic period (above, 4), probably some Christians followed their example. But there is no evidence of Christian polygamy; and the very fact that the apostles did not find it necessary to forbid it explicitly prevents us from thinking that St. Paul merely meant that a bishop or deacon must not be a polygamist. If this were the meaning, the prohibition of polygamy to the clergy would imply that it was not uncommon among the laity. We may therefore safely dismiss this view. No Christian would be allowed to be a polygamist. The other two interpretations may well be joined together, and that they give the true meaning of the phrase* [Note: The Church Orders, if they deal with the matter at all, interpret the injunction of digamy, and some of them extend the prohibition to the minor orders (Maclean, Ancient Church Orders, Cambridge, 1910, p. 92). The Orthodox Eastern Church (see above, 2) does not allow her parish priests to marry again after the death of their wives. In that case they must leave their parishes, and they usually enter a monastery. Marriage after ordination is not treated of in the NT.] is confirmed by the injunction about widows (1Ti 5:10). This clearly forbids the reception on the roll of a widow who at any time of her life has had, by divorce, or death, or otherwise, more than one husband. It is true that a widow, and a fortiori a widower, may lawfully marry again (above) after the death of their spouses; but a higher standard is required in the case of the clergy. It is necessary here again to remark that a disciplinary regulation, even of St. Paul, is not intended to be a cast-iron law for all time. But that it was a desirable regulation in the Apostolic Age we can well understand, for there was a considerable prejudice against digamy; and, however unreasonable the prejudice might be, it was well not to give unnecessary offence to public opinion. This prejudice may be seen, for example, in Josephus, Ant. XVII. xiii. 4, where Glaphyra is reprimanded for re-marriage, in a vision, by her first husband; this was also a case of forbidden degrees, for her first and third husbands were brothers. Perseverance in widowhood was commended not only in the NT (Luk 2:37, 1Co 7:40), but by the heathen Romans (Josephus, Ant. XVIII. vi. 6: Antonia, widow of Drusus). In the 2nd cent. Hermas says (Mand. iv. 4) that digamy is not a sin, but, that a widow [or widower] who remains single is commended. So Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 12), commenting on St. Paul, says that one who re-marries does not sin, but that he does not follow the most perfect course.
Digamy in a man was much less disliked than in a woman. The Epiphanian view of the Brethren of our Lord, that they were Josephs children by a former marriage, would hardly have been possible in the 4th cent. if there had been a very strong prejudice against a widower marrying again. Third and fourth marriages were strongly reprobated in the early Church (see Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics iii. 493).
6. Prohibited marriages.-We may in this section discuss certain prohibitions against marriage, leaving aside for the moment the question of marriage after divorce (see 7).
(a) Forbidden degrees.-Whatever were the forbidden degrees in the OT, they appear to have remained unaltered in NT times. There are a few passages which deal with the subject. In 1Co 5:1-5; 1Co 5:13 St. Paul deals with the case of a Corinthian who took his fathers wife, evidently his stepmother, not his own mother. It is not quite clear if the father was alive; if 2Co 7:12 refers to the same incident, as appears to the present writer the more probable supposition, he was alive; but if so, it is not clear whether he had divorced his wife and the son had married her. In any case, the inference is that even if it were only a case of marriage between a son and a stepmother it would be repugnant to the Apostle, as it would be even to the better heathen. Otherwise a heathen would have got over the difficulty by the father divorcing his wife and the son then marrying her; but the marriage or adultery of persons so closely related by affinity had shocked both Christians and heathens alike. Another case is that of Herod Antipas and Herodias his brother Philips wife (Mar 6:17 f.). Here again it is immaterial whether Philip was alive or dead, or whether Herodias had been divorced; the connexion would be prohibited in any event (Lev 18:16): it is not lawful for thee to have thy brothers wife (she was also niece of both her husbands). Ramsay thinks (St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, p. 43) that the prohibited degrees are probably referred to in the Apostolic Letter (Act 15:20; Act 15:29; Act 21:25), and he understands fornication there to mean marriage within these degrees. Others deny this, and say that Gentile Christians had to be reminded that fidelity to the marriage bond was not a matter of indifference, and that fornication and idolatry went hand in hand. But it is not quite easy to see why this sin alone of all others is mentioned in the Letter, coupled as it is with such ceremonial injunctions as not eating things strangled or with the blood; and Ramsays view appears to deserve greater support than it has generally received. The Letter, which is somewhat of the nature of a compromise, indicates what part of the Mosaic Law the Gentile Christians, to avoid scandal, ought to keep. The existence of prohibited degrees may be partly due in their origin to the general feeling that those of the same household, where several families (in the Western sense) lived in one house (see Family), should not intermarry; and it is a striking fact that the East Syrian Christians, who have preserved the custom of several families living under one roof, have considerably extended the Table of Forbidden Degrees (Catholicos of the East, p. 146f.).
The custom of the levirate does not affect this question. It was a special provision of the OT to prevent the dying out of a family (see Adoption). It was perhaps still practised in NT times, as it is referred to by the Sadducees, almost as if still existing, in Mat 22:25 ff., Mar 12:20 ff., Luk 20:29 ff. (note , Mt.). But at least it was obsolescent.
(b) Mixed marriages.-The Israelites in the OT had frequently been urged not to intermarry with the heathen nations, especially with the Canaanites (Deu 7:3; cf. Num 25:6 f., etc.); and mixed marriages were one of the great troubles of Ezra and Nehemiah in restoring the captivity of the people (Ezr 9:1 ff., Neh 13:23 ff., etc.). The strict Jew would, like St. Peter, think it unlawful to join himself or come unto one of another nation (Act 10:28). Yet there were, both in OT and in NT times, many cases of mixed marriages, of which that of Timothys parents is a later example (Act 16:1; there seems to be a reference to it in Gal 2:3, where St. Paul says that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised-he was doubtless thinking of Timothys circumcision, Act 16:3). For OT mixed marriages in practice see Rth 1:4, 1Ki 7:14, 2Ch 24:26, etc., besides the alliances of the kings. In dealing with Christian marriage, St. Paul tolerates the union of Christians with heathen (or Jews?) only when it has been entered into before conversion; in such a case the parties should continue to live together if the unbelieving partner is willing (1Co 7:12-16; see below, 7); the reason given is not only the well-being of the non-Christian spouse, but also that of the children (1Co 7:14)-now are they holy, words which perhaps refer to the probability that the children of one Christian parent, if not separated from the other spouse, will be brought up in the faith. Marriage between one already a Christian and an unbeliever is forbidden: Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers (2Co 6:14 -though these words have a wider application than marriage). If a widow re-marries, it must be in the Lord, i.e. the second husband must be a Christian (1Co 7:39). St. Peters reference to mixed marriages (1Pe 3:1) probably deals with a marriage before conversion and is parallel with 1Co 7:12 ff. The prohibition of mixed marriages among the Jews extended to those of free men and women with slaves (Josephus, Ant. IV. viii. 23). There is nothing on this head in the NT.
7. Divorce.-Whatever view we take of some controverted texts, there can be no doubt that our Lord completely revolutionized mens ideas on this subject. With the heathen divorce was the easiest possible thing; it was open to a husband or to a wife to terminate the marriage at will. The Roman satirist scoffs at the woman who had eight husbands in five autumns (Juvenal, Sat. vi. 224 ff.). Things were not much better with the Jews, though there was a difference of opinion among the Rabbis. Some held that a man could put away his wife for every cause, interpreting the unseemly thing of Deu 24:1 as anything for which he may dislike her. The great Hillel is said to have held this view, and Josephus so understood the matter (Ant. IV. viii. 23); this is probably what our Lord refers to in speaking of the bill of divorcement (Mat 5:31 f.). Others held that the husband could give his wife a bill of divorcement only if she were guilty of adultery, interpreting the unseemly thing in this stricter sense (Edersheim, ii. 332 ff.).
Divorce was forbidden by our Lord, with at most one exception (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:6; Mat 19:9, Mar 10:9; Mar 10:11 f., Luk 16:18): what God hath joined together let not man put asunder. St. Paul gives charge (yet not I, but the Lord-it is a Divine ordinance, not his private opinion) that a wife is not to depart from her husband; but that if she depart, she is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife (1Co 7:10 f.). And, later, he repeats that a wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth (1Co 7:39).
Postponing for the moment the exceptive clauses of Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9, and therefore the signification of , let us consider in detail our Lords teaching about divorce. One who puts away his wife makes her an adulteress (Mat 5:32) and becomes an adulterer if he marries again (Mat 19:9, Mar 10:11, Luk 16:18); and a woman who puts away her husband and marries again commits adultery (Mk.); the second husband of a divorced wife commits adultery (Mt. twice, Lk.). All this is clear except the first saying. How does a wife, presumably innocent, become an adulteress because her husband divorces her? One reply (W. C. Allen, International Critical Commentary , St. Matthew, Edinburgh, 1907, p. 52; so Bengel, Alford) is that she is placed in a position in which she is likely to marry again, and a second marriage would be adultery. Lyttelton, however, suggests (Sermon on the Mount, p. 178) that adulteress here means that the woman is placed in a different position in the eye of the law from that which she holds in the sight of God. According to the one she is a freed woman, not a wife; according to the other she is still a wife, still bound to her husband.
We may now take the exceptive clauses found in both the Matthaean passages, but not in Mk., Lk., or 1 Cor., or indeed anywhere else in the NT. In Mat 5:32 the Evangelist adds, saving for the cause of fornication ( ), and in Mat 19:9 except for fornication ( ), though in some Manuscripts the text of Mat 19:9 is brought nearer to Mat 5:32. In the first place, are these words an authentic utterance of our Lord? Are they really part of the First Gospel? (these are two quite distinct questions). The view that they are not authentic is upheld by Votaw in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) v. p. 27b; for the view that they are an integral part of Mt. see Plummer, St. Matthew, London, 1909, pp. 81, 259, and J. R. Willis in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels i. 31. Votaw upholds his view by the arguments that the account in Mt. is secondary, that there is a divergence between Mt. and the other Synoptists and St. Paul, that the exceptive clauses are of a statutory nature while Jesus enunciates principles rather than legislative enactments, and that in our Lords general teaching adultery is not enough in itself for divorce-the Gospel urges mercy rather than justice, and leaves time for repentance (cf. the story of the woman taken in adultery, Joh 8:3 ff.). Of these arguments the divergence between the Evangelists seems to the present writer to be the only important one; there is no real reason for saying that the exceptive clauses do not enunciate a principle just as much as the general teaching about divorce; and with regard to the last statement, it is to be noticed that the exceptive clauses do not state that adultery in itself dissolves marriage, but that it is a legitimate cause for dissolving it. On the other hand, every known authority for the Matthaean text attests these clauses-the assimilating of the two passages in some Manuscripts is a very natural thing for a scribe to do and does not show that the archetype of any of our Manuscripts lacked the clauses; and the tendency found in some writers to reject words on purely a priori grounds, against all Manuscripts and VSS [Note: SS Versions.] , is one which is justly deprecated by scholars in this country. The evidence, then, is enough to bring us to the conclusion that the words were written by the First Evangelist. But were they uttered by our Lord? It seems to be a tenable view that they are a gloss by the Evangelist, or by his authority-that Jesus gave the general principle of non-divorce without explicitly naming any exceptions; and that the first disciples understood adultery to be such an exception, and therefore the exceptive words were added as a true interpretation. If so, it does not follow that the Church in later times could add other exceptions for which the Evangelist gives no warrant. On the other hand, it is a tenable, and perhaps more probable view, that our Lord gave the exception Himself, on some other occasion than that described in Mat 19:3 and || Mk. St. Luke (Luk 16:18) gives the injunction as to divorce as an isolated fragment, without the context of the Pharisees question. The fact that the First Evangelist gives the injunction twice leads us to suppose that in an authority other than Mk. he found the record of a second occasion on which our Lord taught about divorce, for otherwise why should he repeat the words? It may well be that he found there an exceptive clause. Thus the silence of the other authorities (always a doubtful argument) does not prohibit the supposition that Jesus spoke the exceptive words Himself (so Edersheim).
What then does mean in the two Matthaean passages? It is distinguished from in Mat 15:19, Mar 7:21 f., and in inferior Manuscripts of Gal 5:19; cf. 1Co 6:9 and Heb 13:4 ( and ). Lyttelton (op. cit. p. 174 ff.) makes the sin of the flesh, and the breaking of the marriage bond by or otherwise. According to some, denotes pre-nuptial sin, and the meaning is that a man who finds himself deceived in the woman he marries may repudiate her. But as Swete points out (St. Mark 2, London, 1902, p. 218), while and , when named in the same context, are to be distinguished, in the exceptive clauses can hardly have the meaning assigned; in Hos 2:5, Amo 7:17 Septuagint , is used of post-nuptial sin (see also Gore, Sermon on the Mount, p. 73). The fact that in Mat 5:28 our Lord teaches that can be committed by intention somewhat militates against Lytteltons view, and shows that there is not always a very sharp distinction in the NT between the two words. We may, then, probably take in the exceptive clauses to signify adultery of any kind.
If these clauses are authentic, or are true glosses, do they allow re-marriage to either party, and if so to both husband and wife? Here it is instructive to note two 2nd cent. interpretations of our Lords words. (a) Hermas (Mand. iv. 1) says that a husband must put away an adulterous wife if she continue in sin; he must divorce her, but he may not himself marry again-for, if he does, he commits adultery himself; he must receive her back if she repent, and the forbidding of re-marriage is expressly said to be for this reason. So a wife should not live with an adulterous husband who does not repent; yet she may not marry again. (b) Justin Martyr in his Second Apology ( 2) tells of a woman who after becoming a Christian divorced her heathen, intemperate, and unchaste husband; but he implies that she did not, and could not, marry again.
Light is thrown on the matter by the further question whether a wife could divorce her husband or only a husband his wife. Greeks and Romans allowed divorce by a wife (see Swete on Mar 10:12); but this was not in accord with Jewish custom (so expressly Josephus, Ant. XV. vii. 10, speaking of Salome, wife of Costobarus, to whom she sent a bill of divorce and dissolved her marriage with him). Among the Parthians the custom obtained (Ant. XVIII. ix. 6, where Mithridates wife threatens to divorce him). In the NT apparently a difference was made between the marriage of two non-Christians one of whom was afterwards converted, and that of two Christians. In the former case St. Paul recognizes the legal right of a Christian woman to leave an unbelieving husband, though he urges her not to do so if he be content to keep her (1Co 7:13; see above, 6 (b)). And in that case the wife may re-marry; the same applies to the parallel case of a Christian husband and an unbelieving wife-the brother or the sister [see Family] is not under bondage in such cases (1Co 7:15). But the general rule for married Christians is that the wife is not to depart from her husband or re-marry (1Co 7:10). In Mar 10:12 there is a clause, not found in the parallels, which forbids a wife to put away her husband and marry another. Here the scribe of Codex Bezae (D), scandalized at the very idea of the possibility of a woman divorcing her husband, alters the phrase to if a woman leave ( ), etc.
On the whole question of re-marriage after divorce, and the interpretation of the NT teaching, there has long been a divergence of opinion between the more logical West and the less logical East. The former considers the question from the point of view of the possibility of adultery dissolving marriage; the latter from that of punishing an offence. While, then, for many centuries the West did not allow re-marriage in any case (other than in that of nullity of marriage), the East has always allowed the re-marriage of the innocent party. Here we note that the Jewish law absolutely forbade the marriage of the adulterer with the adulteress (Edersheim, ii. 335); this was with a view to punishing the guilty, rather than for any theoretical cause. And the Christian East follows the same line of reasoning. Again, there is a great difference between blessing a marriage, and so giving the Churchs sanction to an act which she perhaps disapproves, and recognizing the existence of a valid marriage. For the Churchs benediction, according to the once universal view-modified by the Council of Trent for those who receive its decrees-is not of the essence of marriage, as the consent of the parties is, but is only a solemn and edifying addition. The Church may therefore, if it sees fit, refuse to solemnize a marriage without thereby asserting that the marriage is non-existent.
Where two views are possible, the Church will do well to allow for both. This does not mean that she must necessarily allow divorce for adultery and recognize re-marriage by pronouncing her benediction on it; but only that she should keep an open mind on the subject, and that different parts of the Church may legitimately agree to differ in the regulations they make with regard to it.
Literature.-A. Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Edersheim).] 9, 2 vols., London, 1897; R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of our Lord13, do., 1877, chs. xii., xiii.; articles Marriage, Divorce, Bride, Bridegroom, etc., in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Hastings Single-vol. Dictionary of the Bible , Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , and in Encyclopaedia Biblica ; articles Chastity (Christian) and Celibacy (Christian) in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics . For Christian marriage in the East at the present day as illustrating NT customs see A. J. Maclean and W. H. Browne, The Catholicos of the East and his People, London, 1892. For marriage generally see H. M. Luckock, History of Marriage, do., 1894; O. D. Watkins, Holy Matrimony, do., 1895; W.J. Knox-Little, Holy Matrimony, in Oxford Library of Practical Theology, do., 1901. For divorce see E. Lyttelton, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, London, 1905; E. Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] II. ii. [Edinburgh, 1885] 123; Edersheim (as above); S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy 3, London, 1902; C. Gore, The Sermon on the Mount, do., 1897; C. W. Votaw, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) v., article Sermon on the Mount.
A. J. Maclean.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
MARRIAGE
A convenant between a man and a woman, in which they mutually promise cohabitation, and a continual care to promote the comfort and happiness of each other. By Grove thus: “A society formed between two persons of different sexes, chiefly for the procreation and education of children.” this union is very near and strict, and indeed indissoluble but by death, excepting in one case; unfaithfulness in the one or the other by adultery or fornication, Rom 7:2. Mat 5:32. It is to be entered into with deliberation at a proper age, and with mutual consent, as well as with the consent of parents and guardians, under whose care single persons may be. It is a very honourable state, Heb 13:4. being an institution of God, and that in Paradise, Gen 2:1-25 : Christ honoured marriage by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle, Joh 2:1-25 : Moreover, it is honourable, as families are formed and built up, the world peopled with inhabitants; it prevents incontinence and fornication, and, where the various duties of it are attended to, renders life a blessing. The laws of revelation, as well as most civilized countries, have made several exceptions of persons marrying who are nearly related by blood. The marriage of parents and children appears, at first view, contrary to nature, not merely on account of the disparity of age, but of the confusion which it introduces into natural relations, and its obliging to inconsistent duties; such as reverence to a son, and the daughter to be equal with the father.
Nor can the son or daughter acquit themselves of such inconsistent duties as would arise from this unnatural union. The marriage of brothers and sisters, and of some other near relations, is likewise disapproved by reason on various accounts. It frustrates one design of marriage, which is to enlarge benevolence and friendship, by cementing various families in a close alliance. And, farther, were it allowed, young persons instead of entering into marriage upon mature consideration, with a settled esteem and friendship, and a proper concern and provision for the support and education of children, would be in danger (through the intimacy and affection produced by their near relation, and being bred together) of sliding in their inconsiderate years into those criminal familiarities which are most destructive of the great ends of marriage. Most nations have agreed to brand such marriages as highly criminal, who cannot be supposed to have derived their judgment from Moses and the Israelites. It is probable God expressly prohibited these marriages in the beginning of mankind, and from the first heads of families the prohibition might be transmitted as a most sacred law to their descendants.
See INCEST. Some have supposed from those passages, 1Ti 3:2. Tit 1:6. that bishops or pastors ought never to marry a second wife.
But such a prohibition would be contrary to natural right, and the design of the law itself; neither of which was ever intended to be set aside by the Gospel dispensation. It is more probably designed to guard against polygamy, and against divorce on frivolous occasions; both of which were frequent among the Jews, but condemned by our Lord, Mat 19:3-9. The duties of this state are on the part of the husband, love, superior to any shown to any other person; a love of complacency and delight, Pro 5:18-19. Chaste and single. Provision for the temporal good of the wife and family, 1Ti 5:3. Protection from abuse and injuries, Rth 3:9. 1 Sam 35: 5, 18. Doing every thing that may contribute to the pleasure, peace, and comfort of the wife, 1Co 7:33.
Seeking her spiritual welfare, and every thing that shall promote her edification and felicity. the duties on the part of the wife are, reverence, subjection, obedience, assistance, sympathy, assuming no authority, and continuance with him, Eph 5:32-33. Tit 2:5. 1Ti 5:11-12. Rth 1:16.
See articles DIVORCE, PARENT. Grove’s Mor. Phil. vol. 2: p. 470; Paley’s Mor. Phil. ch. 8: vol. 1: p. 339; Bean’s Christian Minister’s Advice to a New-married Couple; Guide to Domestic Happiness; Advantages and Disadvantages of the Marriage State; Stennett on Domestic Duties; Jay’s Essay on Marriage; Doddridge’s Lect. 225, 234, 265, . vol. 1: oct. ed.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Marriage
This relation is in a general way represented by several Hebrew words, the most distinctive of which are several forms of , chathan’, to give in marriage; Gr. , a wedding. It is very remarkable, however, as well as significant, that there is no single word in the whole Hebrew Scriptures for the estate of marriage, or to express the abstract idea of wedlock, matrimony, as the German Ehe does. It is only in the post-exilian period, when the laws of marriage had gradually developed themselves, that we meet with the abstract and (Jebanoth, 6:5; Kiddushin, 1:2); the former denoting the legal, and the latter the natural side of matrimony. But even then no such definition of marriage is to be found in the Hebrew writings as we find in the Roman law, Nuptiue sunt conjunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vite, divini et humani juris communicatio (Dig. lib. xxiii, Titus 2, De ritu nupt.). In the present article, which treats of marriage as found amongo the Hebrew race, we cover the entire field of matrimonial relations and ceremonies, both ancient and modern. SEE WEDLOCK.
I. Origin, Primitive Relations, and General View of the Married State.
1. The institution of marriage is founded on the requirements of man’s nature, and dates from the time of his original creation. It may be said to have been ordained by God, in as far as man’s nature was ordained by him; but its formal appointment was the work of man, and it has ever been in its essence. a natural and civil institution, though admitting of the infusion of a religious element into it. This view of marriage is exhibited in the historical account of its origin in the book of Genesis; the peculiar formation of man’s nature is assigned to the Creator, who, seeing it not good for man to be alone, determined to form an help meet for him (Gen 2:18), and accordingly completed the work by the addition of the female to the male (Gen 1:27). The necessity for this step appears from the words used in the declaration of the divine counsel. Man, as an intellectual and spiritual being, would not have been a worthy representative of the Deity on earth, so long as he lived in solitude, or in communion only with beings either high above him in the scale of creation, as angels, or far beneath him, as the beasts of the field. It was absolutely necessary, not only for his comfort and happiness, but still more for the perfection of the divine work, that he should have a help meet for him, or, as the words more properly mean, the exact counterpart of himself’ ( , Septuag. ; Vulg. adjutorium simile sibi, a help meet for him) a being capable of receiving and reflecting his thoughts and affections. No sooner was the formation of woman effected, than Adam recognized in that act the will of the Creator as to man’s social condition, and immediately enunciated the important statement, to which his posterity might refer as the charter of marriage in all succeeding ages, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh (Gen 2:24). From these words, coupled with the circumstances attendant on the formation of the first woman, we may evolve the following principles:
(1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man, and as expressed in the words one flesh;
(2) the indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on the strongest grounds (compare Mat 19:9);
(3) monogamy, as the original law of marriage, resulting from there having been but one original couple, as is forcibly expressed in the subsequent reference to this passage by our Lord (they twain, Mat 19:5) and St. Paul (two shall be one flesh, 1Co 6:16);
(4) the social equality of man and wife, as implied in the terms ish and ishshah, the one being the exact correlative of the other, as well as in the words help meet for him;
(5) the subordination of the wife to the husband, consequent upon her subsequent formation (1Co 11:8-9; 1Ti 2:13); and
(6) the respective duties of man and wife, as implied in the words help meet for him.
2. The introduction of sin into the world modified to a certain extent the mutual relations of man and wife. As the blame of seduction to sin lay on the latter, the condition of subordination was turned into subjection, and it was said to her of her husband, he shall rule over thee (Gen 3:16)- a sentence which, regarded as a prediction, has been strikingly fulfilled in the position assigned to women in Oriental countries; but which, regarded as a rule of life, is fully sustained by the voice of nature and by the teaching of Christianity (1Co 14:34; Eph 5:22-23; Timothy 2:12). The evil effects of the fall were soon apparent in the corrupt usages of marriage: the unity of the bond was impaired by polygamy, which appears to have originated among the Cainites (Gen 4:19); and its purity was deteriorated by the promiscuous intermarriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men, i.e. of the Sethites With the Cainites, in the days preceding the flood (Gen 6:2).
3. For the history of marriage in the later ages. see below. One question may properly be considered here, i.e. celibacy. Shortly before the Christian sera an important change took place in the views entertained on the question of marriage as affecting the spiritual and intellectual parts of man’s nature. Throughout the Old Testament period marriage was regarded as the indispensable duty of every man, nor was it surmised that there existed in it any drawback to the attainment of the highest degree of holiness. In the interval that elapsed between the Old and New Testament periods, a spirit of asceticism had been evolved, probably in antagonism to the foreign notions with which the Jews were brought into close and painful contact. The Essenes were the first to propound any doubts as to the propriety of marriage; some of them avoided it altogether, others availed themselves of it under restrictions (Josephus, War, 2:8, 2, 13). Similar views were adopted by the Therapeutae, and at a later period by the Gnostics (Burton’s Lectures, 1:214); thence they passed into the Christian Church, forming one of the distinctive tenets of the Encratites (Burton, 2:161), and finally developing into the system of Monachism. The philosophical tenets on which the prohibition of marriage was based are generally condemned in Col 2:16-23, and specifically in 1Ti 4:3. The general propriety of marriage is enforced on numerous occasions, and abstinence from it is commended only in cases where it was rendered expedient by the calls of duty (Mat 19:12; 1Co 7:8; 1Co 7:26). With regard to remarriage after the death of one of the parties, the Jews, in common with other nations, regarded abstinence from it, particularly in the case of a widow, laudable, and a sign of holiness (Luk 2:36; Luk 2:7; Josephus, Ant. 17:13, 4; 18:6, 6); but it is clear, from the example of Josephus (Vit. 76), that there was no prohibition even in the case of a priest. In the Apostolic Church remarriage was regarded as occasionally undesirable (1Co 7:40), and as an absolute disqualification for holy functions, whether in a man or woman (1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12; 1Ti 5:9); at the same time it is recommended in the case of young widows (1Ti 5:14).
II. Mode of selecting a Bride, Betrothal, and Marriage price.
1. Imitating the example of the Father of the Universe, who provided the man he made with a wife, fathers from the beginning considered it both their duty and prerogative to find or select wives for their sons (Gen 24:3; Gen 38:6). In the absence of the father, the selection devolved upon the mother (Gen 21:21). Even in cases where the wishes of the son were consulted, the proposals were made by the father (Gen 34:4; Gen 34:8); and the violation of this parental prerogative on the part of the son was a grief of mind to the father (Gen 26:35). The proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, except when there was a difference of rank; in such a case the negotiations proceeded from the father of the maiden (Exo 2:21), and when accepted by the parents on both sides, sometimes also consulting the opinion of the adult brothers of the maiden (Gen 24:51; Gen 34:11), the matter was considered as settled without requiring the consent of the bride. The case of Rebekah (Gen 24:58) forms no exception to this general practice, inasmuch as the alliance had already been concluded between Eleazar and Laban, and the question put to her afterwards was to consult her opinion, not about it, but about the time of her departure. Before, however, the marriage contract was finally concluded, a price () was stipulated for, which the young man had to pay to the father of the maiden (Gen 31:15; Gen 34:12), besides giving presents () to her relations (Gen 24:53; Gen 34:12). This marriage-price was regarded as a compensation due to the parents for the loss of service which they sustained by the departure of their daughter, as well as for the trouble and expense which they incurred in her education. Hence, if the proffered young man had not the requisite compensation, he was obliged to make it up in service (Gen 29:20; Exo 2:21; Exo 3:1). Some, indeed, deny that a price had to be paid down to the father for parting with his daughter, and appeal for support to Gen 31:15, where, according to them, the daughters of Laban make it a matter of complaint, that their father bargained for the services of Jacob in exchange for their hands, just as if they were strangers; thus showing that the sale of daughters was regarded as an unjust act and a matter of complaint (Saalschutz, Das Mosaische Recht. p. 733). But, on a closer inspection of the passage in question, it will be seen that Rachel and Leah do not at all complain of any indignity heaped on them by being sold just as if they were strangers, but, on the contrary, mention the sale to corroborate their statement that they are no longer their father’s property, have no more any portion in his possession, and are now regarded by him as strangers, since, according to the usual custom, they have been duly sold to their husband, and hence agree with the latter that it is time for them to depart. Besides, the marriage-price is distinctly mentioned in other passages of Scripture (Exo 22:15-16; 1Sa 18:23; 1Sa 18:25; Rth 4:10; Hos 3:2), and was commonly demanded by the nations of antiquity; as the Babylonians (Herod. 1:196); Assyrians (Elian, V. H. 4:1; Strabo, 16:745); the ancient Greeks (Odyss. 8:318 sq.; Arist. Polit. 2:8; Pausan. 3:12, 2); the Germans (Tacitus, Germ. 18), and still obtains in the East to the present day. In fact, it could not be otherwise where polygamy was practiced. As the number of maidens was under such circumstances less than that of wooers, it called forth competition, and it was but natural that he who offered the highest marriage-price obtained the damsel. There was therefore no fixed marriage-price; it varied according to circumstances. We meet with no dowry given with the bride by her father during the patriarchal age, except a maid-servant (Gen 24:61; Gen 29:24; Gen 29:29).
2. The Mosaic enactments introduced no changes into these usages. The father’s power over the child in matters of marriage continued paramount, and he could give his children to any one he pleased without asking their consent. Thus Caleb offers his daughter Achsah (Jos 15:16-17) as wife to any one who will conquer Kirjath-sepher (Jdg 1:12). Saul promises his daughter to him who shall kill the Philistine, and barters his daughter Michal for the prepuces of a hundred slain Philistines (1Sa 17:26-27; 1Sa 18:25-27); and Ibzan takes thirty wives for his thirty sons (Jdg 12:9). The imaginary case of women soliciting husbands (Isa 4:1) was designed to convey to the mind a picture of the ravages of war, by which the greater part of the males had fallen. A judicial marriage-price ( ) was now introduced, which was fixed at fifty silver shekels (Exo 12:16, with Deu 22:29), being the highest rate of a servant (Lev 27:3), so that one had to pay as much for a wife as for a bondwoman. When the father of the maiden was rich and did not want the marriage-price ( ), he expected some service by way of compensation for giving away his daughter (1Sa 18:25). As soon as the bargain was concluded, and the marriage- price paid, or the required service rendered, the maiden was regarded as betrothed to her wooer, and as sacredly belonging to him. In fact, she was legally treated as a married wontan ( ); she could not be separated from her intended husband without a bill of divorce, and the same law was applicable to her as to married people. If she was persuaded to criminal conduct between the espousals and the bringing her home to her husband’s house, both she and her seducer were publicly stoned to death; and if she was violated, the culprit suffered capital punishment (Deu 22:23-27, with Deu 22:22; and Lev 20:10). With such sacredness was betrothal regarded, that even if a bondmaid who was bought with the intention of ultimately becoming a secondary wife (Exo 21:7-11), was guilty of unchastity prior to her entering into that state, both she and her seducer were scourged, while the latter was also obliged to bring a sin-offering, and. the priest had to pray for the forgiveness of his sin (Lev 19:20-22). Every betrothed man was by the Mosaic law exempt from military service (Deu 20:7).
3. In the post-exilian period, as long as the children were minors-which in the case of a son was up to thirteen, and a daughter to twelve years of age- the parents could betroth them to any one they chose; but when they became of age their consent was required (Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3:11, 12). Occasionally the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend, and hence the case might arise which is supposed by the Talmudists (Yebam. 2, 6, 7), that a man might not be aware to which of two sisters he was betrothed. So in Egypt at the present day the choice of a wife is sometimes entrusted to a professional woman styled a khat’beh; and it is seldom that the bridegroom sees the features of his bride before the marriage has taken place (Lane, 1:209-211). It not unfrequently happened, however, that the selection of partners for life was made by the young people themselves. For this, the ceremonies connected with the celebration of the festivals in the Temple afforded an excellent opportunity, as may be gathered from the following remark in the Mishna: R. Simeon ben-Gamaliel says. There were never more joyous festivals in Israel than the 15th of Ab and the Day of Atonement. On these the maidens of Jerusalem used to come out dressed in white garments, which they borrowed, in order not to shame those who had none of their own, and which they had immersed [for fear of being polluted]. Thus arrayed, these maidens of Jerusalem went out and danced in the vineyards, singing, Young man, lift up thine eyes, and see whom thou art about to choose; fix not thine eye upon beauty, but look rather to a pious family; for gracefulness is deceit, and beauty is vanity, but the woman that fears the Lord, she is worthy of praise (Megilla, 4:8). Having made his choice, the young man or his father informed the maiden’s father of it, whereupon the young people were legally betrothed. The betrothal was celebrated by a feast made in the house of the bride (Jebamnoth, 43 a; Taanith, 26 b; Pessachil, 49 a; Kiddushin, 45 b), and is called , made sacred, for by it the bride was made sacred to her bridegroom, and was not to be touched by any one else. It is also called , which may be from , to betroth. For a betrothal to be legal, it has to be effected in one of the following three modes:
(1.) By money, or money’s worth, which, according to the school of Shammai, must be a denar () = 90 grains of pure gold, or, according to the school of Hillel, a perutah () = half a grain of pure silver, and which is to be given to the maiden, or, if she is a minor, to her father, as betrothal price ( );
(2.) By letter or contract ( ), which the young man, either in person or through a proxy, has to give to the maiden, or to her father when she is a minor; or,
(3.) By cohabitations (, usus), when the young man and maiden, having pronounced the betrothal formula in the presence of two witnesses, retire into a separate room. This. however, is considered immodest, and the man is scourged (Kiddushin, 12 b). The legal formula to be pronounced is, Behold, thou art betrothed or sanctified to me ( ), according to the law of Moses and Israel (Kiddushin, 1:1; 4:9; Tosiftha Kethuboth, 4; Kethuboth, 4:8; Maimonides, Hilchoth Ishuth, 3; Eben in Ezer, 32). Though betrothment, as we have seen before, was the beginning of marriage itself, and, like it, could only be broken off by a regular bill of divorcement (), yet twelve months were generally allowed to intervene between it and actual marriage () in the case of a maiden, to prepare her outfit, and thirty days in the case of a widow (Kethuboth, 57 a). The intercourse of the betrothed during this period was regulated by the customs of the different towns (Mishna, Kethuboth, v. 2). When this more solemn betrothment () was afterwards united with the marriage ceremony (), engagements () more in our sense of the word took its place. Its nature and obligation will best be understood by perusing the contents of the contract () which is made and signed by the parties, and which is as follows: May he who declares the end from the beginning give stability to the words of this contract, and to the covenant made between these two parties: namely, between A, bachelor, with the consent of his father B, and C, who is proxy for his daughter D, spinster. The said A, bachelor, engages, under happy auspices, to take the afore-mentioned D, spinster, by marriage and betrothal ( ), according to the law of Moses and Israel. These henceforth are not to conceal anything from each other appertaining to money or goods, but to have equal power over their property.
Moreover, B, the said father of the bridegroom, is to dress his son in goodly apparel before the marriage, and to give the sum of… . in cash; whilst C, father of the said bride, is to give his daughter before the marriage a dowry in cash to the amount of… as well as jewelery to the amount of . . to dress her in goodly apparel corresponding to the dowry, to give her an outfit, and the bridegroom the Talith (), i.e. the fringed wrapper used at prayer, SEE FRINGE, and Kittel (), i e. the white burial garment, in harmony with his position and in proportion to the dowry. The marriage is to be (D.V.) on the… in the place… at the expense of the said C, the bride’s father, and, if agreed to by both parties, may take place within the specified period. Now the two parties have pledged themselves to all this, and have taken upon themselves by an oath to abide by it, oil the penalty of the great anathema, and at the peril of forfeiting half the dowry; but the forfeit is not to absolve from the anathema, nor is the anathema to absolve from the forfeit. The said father of the bride also undertakes to board at his table the newly-married couple for the space of… and furnish them with lodgings for the space of… The surety on the part of the bridegroom is E, sol of F; and on the part of the bride, G, sol of H. The two bridal parties, however, guarantee that these sureties shall not suffer thereby. Further, C, the said father of the bride, is to give his daughter an assurance letter, that, in the event of his death, she is to get half the inheritance of a son ( ); whilst the bridegroom pledges himself to get his brothers, in the event of his dying without issue, to give her a Chalizuh document [for which see below], without any compensation. But if there should be dispute or delay on the subject, which God forbid, the decision is to be left to the Jewish congregation. We have taken all this in possession from the party and sureties, for the benefit of the other parties, so that everything aforementioned may be observed, with the usual witness which qualified us to take care of it. Done this day… Everything must be observed and kept. (Signed)… (Comp. Nachlas Shiva, 9 b). This contract, which is written in Rabbinic Hebrew, is used by all orthodox Jews to the present day.
III. Marriage Ceremonies.
1. In the pre-Mosaic period, when the proposals were accepted, and the marriage-price (), as well as the sundry other gifts (), were duly distributed, the bridegroom () could at once remove the bride () from her father’s house to his own house, and this removal of the maiden, under the benedictions of her family, but without any definite religious ceremony whatever, and cohabitation, consummated and expressed marriage ( ). Thus we are told that Isaac, when meeting Eleazar and Rebekah in the field, as soon as he was informed bv the former of what had transpired, took Rebekah to the tent of his departed mother, and this without further ceremony constituted the marriage, and she thereby became his wife ( , Gen 24:63-67). Under more ordinary circumstances, however, when the bride had not at once to quit her parental roof under the protection of a friend, as in the case just mentioned, but where the marriage took place in the house of the bride’s parents, it was celebrated by a feast, to which all the friends and neighbors were invited, and which lasted seven days (Gen 29:22; Gen 29:27). On the day of the marriage, the bride was conducted to her future husband veiled, or, more properly, in an outdoor wrapper or shawl (), which nearly enveloped her whole form, so that it was impossible to recognize the person, thus accounting for the deception practiced on Jacob (Gen 24:65; Gen 29:23) and on Judah (Gen 38:14).
2. With regard to age, no restriction is pronounced in the Bible. Early marriage is spoken of with approval in several passages: (Pro 2:17; Pro 5:18; Isa 62:5), and in reducing this general statement to the more definite one of years, we must take into account the very early age at which persons arrive at puberty in Oriental countries. In modern Egypt marriage takes place in general before the bride has attained the age of sixteen frequently when she is twelve or thirteen, and occasionally when she is only ten (Lane, 1:208). The Mosaic law prescribes no civil or religious forms for the celebration of marriage. The contract or promise made at the payment of the marriage-price, or when the service which was required in its stead was rendered, constituted the solemn bond which henceforth united the espoused parties, as is evident from the fact pointed out in the preceding sections, that a betrothed maiden was both called a married woman, and was legally treated as such. There can, however, be no doubt that the ancient custom of celebrating the consummation of the marriage by a feast, which lasted seven days (Gen 29:22; Gen 29:27), must have becbme pretty general by this time. Thus we are told that when Samson went to Timnath to take his wife, he made there a feast, which continued for seven days, according to the usage of young men on such occasions ( ), that the parents of the bride invited thirty young men ( , Mat 9:15) to honor his nuptials, and that to relieve their entertainment, Samson, in harmony with the prevailing custom among the nations of antiquity, proposed enigmas (Jdg 14:10-18). We afterwards find that the bridal pair were adorned with nuptial crowns (Son 3:11; Isa 61:10) made of various materials gold, silver, myrtle, or olive varying in costliness according to the circumstances of the parties (Mishna, Sota, 9:14; Gesmara, 49 a and b; Selden, Ux. Ebr. 2:15), and that the bride especially wore gorgeous apparel, and a peculiar girdle (Psa 45:13-14; Isa 49:18; Jer 2:12), whence in fact she derived her name Kallah (), which signifies the ornamented, the adorned. Thus attired, the bridegroom and bride were led in joyous procession through the streets, accompanied by bands of singers and musicians (Jer 7:34; Jer 25:10; Jer 33:11), and saluted by the greetings of the maidens of the place, who manifested the liveliest interest in the nuptial train (Son 3:11), to the house of the bridegroom or that of his father. Here the feast was prepared, to which all the friends and the neighbors were invited, and at which most probably that sacred covenant was concluded which came into vogue during the post-Mosaic period (Pro 2:17; Eze 16:8; Mal 2:14). The bride, thickly veiled, was then conducted to the () bridal chamber (Gen 29:23; Jdg 15:11; Joe 2:6), where a nuptial couch () was prepared (Psa 19:5; Joe 2:16) in such a manner as to afford facility for ascertaining the following morning whether she had preserved her maiden purity; for in the absence of the signa virginitafis she was stoned to death before her father’s house (Deu 22:13-21).
3. In the period after the exile the proper age for marriage is fixed in the Mishna at eighteen (Aboth, v. 31), and though, for the sake of preserving morality, puberty was regarded as the desirable age, yet men generally married when they were seventeen (Jebaumoth, 62; Kiddushin, 29). The Talmudists forbade marriage in the case of a man under thirteen years and a day, and in the case of a woman under twelve years and a day (Buxtorf, Syznagog. cap. 7, p. 143). The day originally fixed for marriage was Wednesday for maidens and Friday for widows (Mishna, Kethuboth, 1:1). But the Talmud already partially discarded this arrangement (Gemara, ibid. 3 a), and in the Middle Ages it became quite obsolete (Eben Ha-Ezar, lxv). The primitive practice of the sages, however, has been resumed among the orthodox Jews in Russia, Poland, etc. The wedding-feast was celebrated in the house of the bridegroom (Kethuboth, 8 a, 10 a), and in the evening, for the bridal pair fasted all day, since on it, as on the day of atonement, they confessed their sins, and their transgressions were forgiven. On the day of the wedding, the bride, with her hair flowing, and a myrtle wreath on her head (if she was a maiden, Mishna, Kethuboth, 2:1), was conducted, with music, singing, and dancing, to the house of the bridegroom by her relations and friends, who were adorned with chaplets of myrtle, and carried palm branches in their hands (Kethuboth, 16,17; Sabbath, 110 a; Sota, 49 b).
The streets through which the nuptial procession passed were lined with the daughters of Israel, who greeted the joyous train, and scattered before them cakes and roasted ears of wheat, while fountains freely poured forth wine (Kethuboth, 15 b; Berachoth, 50 b). Having reached the house, the bridegroom, accompanied by the groomsmen, met the bride, took her by the hand, and led her to the threshold. The Kethubah () donatio propter or ante nuptias, or the marriage-settlement, alluded to in the book of Tobit (Tob 7:15), was then written, which in the case of a maiden always promises 200, and in the case of a widow 100 denar (each denar being equal to 90 grains of pure gold), whether the parties are rich or poor (Mishna, Kethuboth, Tob 1:2), though it may be enlarged by a special covenant ( ). The dowry could not be claimed until the termination of the marriage by the death of the husband or by divorce (ibid. v. 1), though advances might be made to the wife previously (9:8). Subsequently to betrothal a woman lost all power over her property, and it became vested in the husband, unless he had previously to marriage renounced his right to it (Tob 8:1; Tob 9:1). The marriage must not be celebrated before this settlement is written (Balbs Kama, 89). The wording of this instrument has undergone various changes in the course of time (Kethuboth, 82 b).
The form in which it is given in the Talmud, by Maimonides, etc., is as follows: Upon the fourth day of the week, on the… of the month, in the year… of the creation of the world, according to the computation adopted in this place, A, son of B, said to C, spinster, daughter of E, Be thou my wife according to the law of Moses and Israel, and I will work for thee, honor thee, maintain thee, and provide for thee according to the custom of Jewish husbands, who work for their wives, honor them, maintain them, and provide for them honestly; I also give thee the dowry of thy virginity, 200 silver Sus, which belong to thee by the law, as well as thy food, thy apparel, and whatsoever is required for thy maintenance, and I will go in to thee according to the custom of the whole earth.’ And C, the spinster, consented. and became his wife. The dowry which she brought him from the house of her father, in silver, gold, and ornaments, as well as in apparel, domestic utensils, and bedding, amounts to… pure silver, and A, the bridegroom, has consented to add to it from his own property the same sum; and the bridegroom said thus: I undertake for myself and my heirs after me the security for this Kethiubah, this dowry and this addition, so that the same shall be paid from the best and most choice of my possessions which I have under the whole heaven, which I have acquired or shall acquire in real or personal property. All this property is to be mortgaged and pledged, yea, even the coat which I have on is to go in order to pay this Kethubah, this down and this addition, from this day to all eternity.’ And the surety of this Kethubah, this dowry and this addition, A, the bridegroom, has undertaken in the strictness of all the Kethubahs and supplement instruments usual among the daughters of Israel, and which are written according to the order of our sages of blessed memory, not after the manner of a mere visionary promise or empty formula. We have taken possession of it from A, the bridegroom, and given it to C, spinster, daughter of E, according to all that is written and explained above, by means of such a garment as is legal in the taking of possession. All this yea and amen. (Signed) . . .Comp. Maimonides, Jud Ha-Chazaka Hilchoth Jebum Ve-Cheliza, 4:33. Among the more modern Jews it is the custom in some parts for the bridegroom to place a ring on the bride’s finger (Picart, 1:239)-a custom which also prevailed among the Romans (Smith, Dict. of Ant. p. 604). Some writers have endeavored to prove that the rings noticed in the O.T. (Exo 35:22; Isa 3:21) were nuptial rings, but there is not the slightest evidence of this. The ring was nevertheless regarded among the Hebrews as a token of fidelity (Gen 41:42), and of adoption into a family (Luk 15:22). According to Selden it was originally given as an equivalent for dowry- money (Uxor Ebraic. 2:14). After the document was handed over to the bride, crowns, varying in expense according to the circumstances of the parties, were placed upon the heads of the bridal pair (Sota, 49 a, b), and they, with their relations and friends, sat down to a sumptuous repast; the marriage-feast was enlivened by the guests, who sang various songs and asked each other amusing riddles (Berachoth, 31 a; Nedarinim, 51 a), parched corn was distributed among the guests if the bride was a virgin (Keth. ii), and when the meal was concluded with customary prayer of thanksgiving, the bridegroom supplemented it with pronouncing over a cup of wine the seven nuptial benedictions ( ) in the presence of at least ten persons (Kethuboth, 7 b), which gave the last religious consecration to the marriage-covenant, and which are as follows:
1. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast created everything for thy glory.
2. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast created man.
3. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast created man in thine image, in the image of the likeness of thy own form, and hast prepared for him, in himself, a building for the perpetuity of the species. Blessed art thou, O Lord, the creator of man.
4. The barren woman shall rejoice exceedingly, and shout for joy when her children are gathered around her in delight. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rejoicest Zion in her children.
5. Make this loving pair to rejoice exceedingly, as thou hast made thy creature rejoice in the Garden of Eden in the beginning. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who rejoicest the bridegroom and the bride.
6. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe. who hast ordained joy and gladness, bride and bridegroom, delight and song, pleasure and intimacy, love and friendship, peace and concord; speedily, O Lord our God, let there be heard in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of jubilant bridegrooms under their canopies, and of the young men at the nuptial feast playing music. Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, who makest the bridegroom rejoice with his bride.
7. Remove all suffering and anger; then will the dumlb be heard in song; lead us in the paths of righteousness, listen to the benedictions of the children of Jeshurun! With the permission of our seniors and rabbins, and my masters, let us bless our God in whose dwelling is joy, and of whose bounties we have partaken! to which the guests respond, Blessed be our God, in whose dwelling is joy, of whose bounties we have partaken, and by whose goodness we live; and he then answers, Then let us bless our God, in whose dwelling is joy, of whose bounties we have partaken, and by whose goodness we live (Kethuboth, 7 b, 8). The married couple were then conducted to an elaborately-ornamented nuptial chamber (, where the bridal couch (thalamus) was carefully prepared; and at the production of the linteum vilrinitatis the following morning (Deu 22:13-21), which was anxiously awaited, the following benediction was pronounced by the bridegroom: Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast placed a nut in paradise, the rose of the valleys-a stranger must not rule over this sealed fountain; this is why the hind of love has preserved the holy seed in purity, and has not broken the compact. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast chosen Abraham and his seed after him! (see Halachoth Gedoloth, ed. Vienna, 51 [comp. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 15:24], where an explanation will be found of the use of nut, in this connection). Festivities continued for seven days (Kethuboth, 7 a).
As important religious questions had to be put to the bridal pair which required a learned man to do (Gitrit, 6; Kiddushin, 6, 13), it was afterwards resolved that the marriage-ceremony should be performed by a rabbi, and it is celebrated in the following manner: A beautifully- embroidered silk or velvet canopy, about three or four yards square, supported by four long poles, is held by four men out of doors on the day of the wedding. Under this chupash (), which represents the ancient bridal chamber, the bridegroom is led by his male friends, preceded by a band of music, and welcomed by the joyous spectators with the exclamation, Blessed is he who is now come! (); the bride, with her face veiled (nuptiae), is then brought to him by her female friends and led three times round the bridegroom, in accordance, as they say, with the remark of Jeremiah, The woman shall compass the man (Jer 31:22), when he takes her round once amid the congratulations of the bystanders, and then places her at his right hand (Psa 45:10), both standing with their faces to the south and their backs to the north. The rabbi then covers the bridal pair with the Talith, or fringed wrapper, which the bridegroom has on (comp. Ruth 3:19; Eze 16:8), joins their hands together, and pronounces over a cup of wine the benediction of affiance ( ), which is as follows: Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast created the fruit of the vine.
Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast sanctified us with thy commandments, and hast forbidden to us consanguinity, and hast prohibited us the betrothed, but hast permitted us those whom we take by marriage and betrothal. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hast sanctified thy people Israel by betrothal and marriage (Kethuboth, 7 a). Whereupon the bridegroom and bride taste of the cup of blessing, and the former produces a plain gold ring, and, in the presence of all the party, puts it on the bride’s finger, saying, Behold, thou art consecrated unto me with this ring according to the rites of Moses and Israel! The rabbi then reads aloud, in the presence of appointed witnesses, the Kethubah, or the marriage-settlement, which is written in Syro- Chaldaic, and concludes by pronouncing over another cup of wine the seven benedictions ( ), which the bridegroom in ancient times, before the ceremony of marriage became a public act and was delegated to the spiritual head, used to pronounce himself at the end of the meal. The bridegroom and bride taste again of this cup of blessing, and when the glass is emptied it is put oln the ground, and the bridegroom breaks it with his foot, as a symbol to remind them in the midst of their joys that just as this glass is destroyed, so Jerusalem is destroyed and trodden down under the foot of the Gentiles. With this the ceremony is concluded, amid the shouts, May you be happy! ( ). SEE WEDDING.
IV. Polygamy and Concubinage. Though the history of the protoplasts in which we are told that God in the beginning created a single pair, one of each sex seems to exhibit a standard for monogamy, yet the Scriptures record that from the remotest periods men had simultaneously several wives, occupying either coordinate or subordinate positions. Against the opinion that Lamech, sixth in descent from Adam through Cain, introduced polygamy-based on the circumstance that he is the first who is recorded as having married two wives (Gen 4:19) is to be urged that (1.) Lamech is the first whose marriage or taking of a wife is recorded, and consequently it is impossible to say how many wives his five progenitors had;
(2.) The mention of Lamech’s two wives is incidental, and is entirely owing to the fact that the sacred historian had to notice the useful inventions made by their respective sons Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, as well as to give the oldest piece of rhythmical composition which was addressed to the wives, celebrating one of these inventions; and
(3.) If polygamy had been for the first time introduced by Lamech, the sacred writer would have as distinctly mentioned it as he mentions the things which were first introduced by Lamech’s sons. The manner in which Sarah urges Abraham to take her servant Hagar, and the fact that Sarah herself gives the maiden to her own husband () to be his wife, the readiness with which the patriarch accepts the proposal (Gen 16:1-4), unquestionably show that it was a common custom to have one or more secondary wives. In fact, it is distinctly mentioned that Nahor, Abraham’s own brother, who had eight sons by Milcah, his principal wife, and consequently did not require another wife for the purpose of securing progeny, had nevertheless a secondary wife (), by whom he had four sons (Gen 22:21-24). Besides, it is now pretty generally admitted that Gen 25:1 describes Abraham himself to have taken another or secondary wife in the lifetime of Sarah, in addition to Hagar, who was given to him by his principal wife, as is evident from Gen 25:6; 1Ch 1:32, and that he could not have taken her for the sake of obtaining an heir. If any more proof be wanted for the prevalence of polygamy in the patriarchal age, we refer to Esau, who, to please his father, married his cousin Mahalath in addition to the several wives whom he had (Gen 28:8-9); and to Jacob, who had not the slightest scruple to marry two sisters, and take two half-wives at the same time (Gen 29:23-30; Gen 30:4; Gen 30:9), which would be unaccountable on the supposition that polygamy was something strange. Though sacred history is silent about the number of wives of the twelve patriarchs, yet there can be little doubt that the large number of children and grandchildren which Benjamin had at so early an age (Gen 46:21; Num 26:38-41; 1Ch 7:6-12; 1Ch 8:1), must have been the result of polygamy; and that Simeon, at all events, had more than one wife (Exo 6:15). The extraordinary rate at which the Jews increased in Egypt implies that they practiced polygamy during their bondage. This is, moreover, corroborated by the incidental notice that Asher, Judah’s grandson, had two wives (1Ch 4:5 with 2:24); that Caleb, Judah’s great-grandson, had three principal and two subordinate wives (1Ch 2:9; 1Ch 2:18; 1Ch 2:42; 1Ch 2:46; 1Ch 2:48); that Aharaim, probably Benjamin’s great-grandson, had three wives (1Ch 8:8-11); and that Moses had two wives (Exo 2:21; Num 12:1); as well as by the fact that the Mosaic legislation assumes the existence of polygamy (Lev 13:14; Deu 25:5). Still, the theory of monogamy seems to be exhibited in the case of Noah and his three sons (Gen 6:18; Gen 7:7; Gen 7:13; Gen 8:16), of Aaron, and of Eleazar.
In judging of this period we must take into regard the following considerations:
(1.) The principle of monogamy was retained, even in the practice of polygamy, by the distinction made between the chief or original wife and the secondary wives, or, as the A.V. terms them, concubines-a term which is objectionable, inasmuch as it conveys to us the notion of an illicit and unrecognised position, whereas the secondary wife was regarded by the Hebrews as a wife, and her rights were secured by law. The position of the Hebrew concubine may be compared with that of the concubine of the early Christian Church, the sole distinction between her and the wife consisting in this, that the marriage was not in accordance with the civil law: in the eye of the Church the marriage was perfectly valid (Bingham, Ant. 11:5, 11). It is worthy of notice that the term pillegesh (; A.V. concubine) nowhere occurs in the Mosaic law. The terms used are either wife (Deu 21:15) or maid-servant (Exo 21:7); the latter applying to a purchased wife.
(2.) The motive which led to polygamy was that absorbing desire of progeny which is prevalent throughout Eastern countries, and was especially powerful among the Hebrews.
(3.) The power of a parent over his child, and of a master over his slave (the postestas patsiea and domestica of the Romans), was paramount even in matters of marriage, and led in many cases to phases of polygamy that are otherwise quite unintelligible, as, for instance, to the cases where it was adopted by the husband at the request of his wife, under the idea that children born to a slave were in the eye of the law the children of the mistress (Gen 16:3; Gen 30:4; Gen 30:9); or, again, to cases where it was adopted at the instance of the father (Gen 29:23; Gen 29:28; Exo 21:9-10). It must be allowed that polygamy, thus legalized and systematized, justified to a certain extent by the motive, and entered into, not only without offense to, but actually at the suggestion of those who, according to our notions, would feel most deeply injured by it, is a very different thing from what polygamy would be in our own state of society.
2. In the case of polygamy, as in that of other national customs, the Mosaic law adheres to the established usage. Hence there is not only no express statute to prohibit polygamy, which was previously held lawful, but the Mosaic law presupposes its existence and practice, bases its legislation thereupon, and thus authorizes it, as is evident from the following enactments:
1. It is ordained that a king shall not multiply wives unto himself’ (Deu 17:17), which, as bishop Patrick rightly remarks, is not a prohibition to take more wives than one, but not to have an excessive number, after the manner of Eastern kings, whom Solomon seems to have imitated; thus, in fact, legalizing a moderate number. The Mishna (Sanhedrin, 2:4), the Talmud (Babylon Sanhedrin, 21 a), Rashi (on Deu 17:17), etc., in harmony with ancient tradition, regard eighteen wives, including half’ wives, as a moderate number, and as not violating the injunction contained in the expression multiply.
2. The law enacts that a man is not to marry his wife’s sister to vex her while she lives (Lev 18:18), which, as the same prelate justly urges, manifestly means that though two wives at a time, or more, were permitted in those days, no man should take two sisters (as Jacob had formerly done) begotten of the same father or born of the same mother; or, in other words, a man is at liberty to take another wife besides the first, and during her lifetime, provided only they are not sisters.
3. The law of primogeniture (Deu 21:15-17) actually presupposes the case of a man having two wives, one beloved and the other not, as it was with Jacob and his two wives, and ordains that if the one less beloved is the mother of his first-born, the husband is not to transfer the right of primogeniture to the son of his favorite wife, but is to acknowledge him as first-born who is actually Song of Solomon
4. Exo 21:9-10, permits a father who had given his son a bondwoman for a wife, to give him a second wife of freer birth, and prescribes how the first is then to be treated that she is to have alimony, clothes, and the conjugal duty; and
5. Deu 25:5 expressly enjoins that a man though having a wife already, is to marry his deceased brother’s widow.
Having existed before the Mosaic law, and being acknowledged and made the basis of legislation by it, polygamy continued in full force during the whole of this period. Thus, during the government of the judges, we find Gideon, the celebrated judge of Israel, had many wives, and three score and ten sons (Jdg 8:30); Jair the Gileadite, also a judge of Israel, had thirty grown-up sons (Jdg 10:4) and a proportionate number of daughters. Ibzan, another judge of Israel, had thirty full-grown sons and thirty full-grown daughters (Jdg 12:9); and Abdon, also a judge of Israel, had forty adult sons and thirty adult daughters-which was utterly impossible without polygamy; the pious Elkanah, father of Samuel the illustrious judge and prophet, had two wives (1Sa 1:2). During the monarchy, we find Saul, the first king of Israel, had many wives and half wives (2Sa 3:7; 2Sa 12:8); David, the royal singer of Israel, their best king, as bishop Patrick remarks in his comment on Lev 18:18, who read God’s law day and night, and could not but understand it, took many wives without any reproof; nay, God gave him more than he had before, by delivering his master’s wives to him (2Sa 12:8); Solomon, the wise monarch, had no less than a thousand wives and half wives (1Ki 11:3); Rehoboam, his son and successor, had eighteen wives and three score half wives (2Ch 11:21); Abijah, his son and successor to the throne of Judah, married fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 14:21); and Joash. the tenth king, including David, who reigned from B.C. 378 to 338, had two wives given to him by the godly high-priest Jehoiada, who restored both the throne of David and the worship of the true God according to the law of Moses (2Ch 24:3). A very remarkable illustration of the prevalence of polygamy in private lifqis given in 1Ch 7:4, where we are told that not only did the five fathers, all of them chief men of the tribe of Issachar, live in polygamy, but that their descendants, numbering 36,000 men, had many wives. De Wette, indeed, affirms that the Hebrew moral teachers speak decidedly for monogamy, as is evident from their always speaking of one wife, and from the high notion which they have of a good wedded wife A virtuous woman is the diadem of her husband, but a bad wife is like rottenness in the bones’ (Pro 12:4); Whoso findeth a wife findeth happiness’ (Pro 18:22); A house and wealth are an inheritance from parents, but a discreet wife is from the Lord’ (Pro 19:14). Pro 31:10-31 describes an industrious and managing wife in such a manner as one only could be it (Christl. Sittenlehre, vol. 3, sec. 472). Similarly Ewald: Wherever a prophet alludes to matrimonial matters, he always assumes faithful and sacred monogamy contracted for the whole life as the legal one (Die Alterthumer Israels, p. 177 sq.). But we have exactly analogous passages where parental felicity is described: A wise son is happiness to the father, but a foolish son is the grief of his mother (Pro 10:1; Pro 15:20); A wise son heareth his father’s instruction (Pro 13:1); and upon the same parity of reasoning it might be said that the theory of having only one son is assumed by the sacred moralist, because, when speaking of happiness or misery, which parents derive from their offspring, only one son is alluded to. Besides, the facts which we have enumerated cannot be set aside by arguments.
3. As nothing is said in the post-exilian portions of the Bible to discourage polygamy, this ancient practice also continued among the Jews during this period. During the second Temple, we find that Herod the Great had nine wives (Josephus, Ant. 17:1, 3); his two sons, Archelaus the Ethnarch, and Antipas the Tetrarch of Galilee, had each two wives (Josephus, Ant. 17:13, 2; 18:5, 1); and John the Baptist and other Jews, who censured the one for violating the Mosaic law by the marriage of his deceased brother’s wife who had children (Josephus, Ant. 18:13, 2), and the other for marrying Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Herod-Philip (Mat 14:3-4; Mar 6:17-18; Luk 3:19), raised no cry against their practicing polygamy; because, as Josephus tells us, the Jews of those days adhered to their ancient practice to have many wives at the same time (Josephus, Ant. 17:1; 2). In harmony with this ancestral custom, the post-exilian legislation enacted various statutes to regulate polygamy and protect the rights and settlement of each wife (Mishna, Jebamoth, 4:11; Kethuboth, 10:1-6; Kiddushin, 2:7).
As a striking illustration of the prevalence and legality of polygamy during this period may be mentioned the following circumstance which is recorded in the Talmud: Twelve widows appealed to their brother-in-law to perform the duty of Levir, which he refused to do, because he saw no prospect how to maintain such an additional number of wives and possibly a large increase of children. The case was then brought before Jehudah the Holy, who promised that if the man would do the duty enjoined on him by the Mosaic law, he himself would maintain the family and their children, in case there should be any, every sabbatical year, when no produce was to be got from the land which was at rest. The offer was accepted by the Levir, and he accordingly married his twelve sisters-in-law; and after three years these twelve wives appeared with thirty-six children before Jehudah the Holy to claim the promised alimony, as it was then the sabbatical year, and they actually obtained it (Jerusalem Jebamoth, 4:12). Rabba ben-Joseph, founder and president of the college at Machuza (A.D. 338-352), taught that a man may take as many wives as he pleases, provided only that he can maintain them all (Jebamoth, 65 a). From the remark in the Mishna, that a Levir may marry his deceased brother’s fur widows (Jebamoth, 4:11), the Babylonian Gemara concluded that it recommends a man to have no more than this number (Babyl. Jebamoth, 44 a); and from this most probably Mohammed’s injunction is derived (Koran, 4:3). It was Rabanu Gershom ben-Jehudah of France (born cir. 960, died 1028), who, in the 11th century, prohibited polygamy under pains of excommunication, saving in exceptional cases (Graitz, Geschichte der Juden, v. 405-507).
His motive for doing so is a matter of dispute; the older Occidental rabbins say that the prohibition originated in a desire to preserve the peace of the family, while the Oriental rabbins will have it that it was dictated by the governments of Christian countries. His interdict, however, made but slow progress, even in Germany and France, for which it was chiefly designed. Thus Simon ben-Abraham of Sens, one of the most celebrated French Tossaphists, tells us (cir. 1200): The institution of R. Gershom has made no progress either in our neighborhood or in the provinces of France. On the contrary, it happens that pious and learned men and many other people marry a second wife in the lifetime of the first (B. Joseph, Eben Ha-Ezar, 1). The practice of marrying a second wife in the event of the first having no issue within ten years also obtained in Italy till about the 15th century-the pope giving a special dispensation for it. The Spanish Jews never recognized R. Gershom’s interdict; bigamy was practiced in Castile till the 14th century, while the Christian government of Navarre declared polygamy among the Jews legal, and the law of king Theobald allowed them to marry as many wives as they could maintain and govern, but they were not permitted to divorce ally one of them without sending all away (Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Spanien, 1:71). Nor was the said interdict acknowledged by the Jews in the East; and monogamy is there practiced simply because the bride makes a special agreement, and has a clause inserted in the Kethubah (), or marriage-settlement, that her husband is not to marry another as long as she lives. An exception, however, is made in case there is no issue. As to the opinion of the Karaites on monogamy and polygamy, the celebrated Jehudah ben-Elia Hadassi. (flourished 1149) remarks, in his famous work against rabbinic Judaism, The Pentateuch prohibits one to marry two wives with a view to vex one of them ( , Lev 18:18); but he may take them provided he loves them and does not grieve either of them, and treats them both affectionately. If he does not diminish their food, raiment, and conjugal rights (Exo 21:11), he is allowed to take two wives or more, just as Elkanah married Hannah and Peninnah, and as David, peace be upon him, and other kings and judges did (Eshkol Hacopher, ed. Eupatoria, 1836, p. 129). From this it is evident that polygamy was not prohibited by the Jewish law, nor was it regarded as a sin, and that the monogamy of the Jews in the present day is simply in obedience to the laws of the countries in which they live. There were, however, always some rabbins who discouraged polygamy (A both, 2:7; Jebamoth, 65 a, al.); and the elevated notion which they had of monogamy is seen in the statutes which they enacted that the high-priest is to be the husband of one wife and to keep to her (Jebamoth, 58 a; Maimonides, Hilchoth Issure Bia, 18:13; Josephus, Ant. 3:12, 2); and which the apostle Paul also urges on Christian bishops (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:16).
V. Proscribed Degrees and Laws of Intermarriage.
1. There were no prescribed degrees within which a man was forbidden to marry in the pre-Mosaic period. On the contrary, the fact that Adam married bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, and that his sons married their own sisters, rather engendered an aversion to marry out of one’s own kindred. Hence we find that Abraham married his half-sister (Gen 20:12); Nahor, Abraham’s brother, married the daughter of his brother Haran, or his niece (Gen 11:29); Jacob married two sisters at the same time, who were the daughters of his mother’s brother (Gen 28:2; Gen 29:26); Esau married his cousin Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael (Gen 28:8-9); Amram married his aunt Jochebed, his father’s sister (Exo 6:20); and Judah married his daughter-in-law, Tamar, the widow of his own son (Gen 38:26-30). This aversion to intermarriage with strangers and other tribes, which made Abraham pledge his faithful steward by the most sacred oath not to take for his son a wife from the daughters of the Canaanites (Gen 24:2-4); which occasioned such a grief of mind to Isaac, because his son Esau married Hittite women (Gen 26:34-35); and which was the cause of great dissatisfaction in the family of Moses when he married a Midianitish woman (Exo 2:21); was afterwards greatly increased on the ground of difference of creed. The same feeling of aversion against intermarriage () with foreigners prevailed among other nations of antiquity, and may also have been the cause why marriages with the nearest of kin were practiced among them. Thus the Athenians were allowed to marry half-sisters by the fatmer’s side (Corn. Nepos, Praef: Cimon, i; Plutarch, Cimon, iv; Themistocl. xxxii); the Spartans married half-sisters by the same mother (Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779); and the Assyrians and Egyptians full sisters (Lucian, Sacrif: 5; Died. 1:27; Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779; Selden, De jure naturali et gentium, v. 11). In later times, when the desire to preserve purity of blood, which was the primary cause for not intermarrying with alien tribes, was superseded by religious motives, the patriarchal instances of epigamy recorded without censure during this period became very inconvenient. Hence means were adopted to explain them away. Thus the marriage of Judah with a heathen woman, the daughter of Shuah, a Canaanite (Gen 38:2). is made orthodox by the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Midrash (Bereshith Rabba. c. lxxxv), the Talmud (Pesachim, 50 a), Rashi (ad loc.), etc., by explaining to mean , merchant, as in Job 40:30; Pro 31:24; and the Jerusalem Targum finds it necessary to add that Judah converted her to Judaism (). The marriage of Simeon with a Canaanitess (Gen 46:10) is explained away in a similar manner (comp. Bereshith Rabba, c. 80; Rashi on Gen 46:10).
2. The regulations next introduced in this respect are of a twofold nature:
a. The most important change in the Biblical gamology is the Mosaic law about the prohibited degrees among the Israelites themselves. While in the pre-Mosaic period no prohibition whatever existed against marrying one’s nearest and dearest relatives, the Mosaic law (Lev 18:7-17; Lev 20:11, etc.) proscribes no less than fifteen marriages within specified degrees of both consanguinity and affinity. In neither consanguinity nor affinity, however, does the law extend beyond two degrees, viz. the mother, her daughter, aunt, father’s wife, father’s sister, sister on the father’s side. wife of the father’s brother, brother’s wife (excepting in the case of a Levirate marriage), daughter-in-law, granddaughter, either from a son or daughter, a woman and her daughter, or her granddaughter either from a son or daughter, and two sisters together. The preceding table exhibits these degrees. We must only remark that the squares stand for males, the circles for females, the triangles within the squares for deceased, the numbers refer to the order in which they are enumerated in Lev 18:17, and that the husband and wife, who form the starting-point, are represented by a double square and double circle.
It will be seen from the foregoing table that, while some kindred are proscribed, others are allowed, e.g. a father’s sister is forbidden while a brother’s daughter is not. This has occasioned great difficulty in tracing the principle which underlies these prohibitions. Philippson is of opinion that it may be deduced from the remarks which accompany the respective vetoes. The stepmother is proscribed because it is thy father’s nakedness (Lev 18:8); the son’s or daughter’s daughter because it is thine own nakedness (Lev 18:10); the father’s or mother’s sister because she is the father’s or mother’s flesh (vers. 12, 13); and the brother’s wife because it is the nakedness of thy brother (Lev 18:16). From this it is evident, this erudite rabbi submits, that, on the one side, son, daughter, and grandchild are identified with the father, while, on the other side, brothers and sisters are identified with each other, because they have one and the same source of life. Accordingly, we obtain the following data. All members proceeding from a common father or mother constitute one issue, because they possess together the same source of life; while the ascendants and the descendants in a straight line form one line, because they have one aifer the other and from each other the same source of life; and hence the law
(1.) Two members of the same issue, or two members of the same line, are not to intermarry, because they have the same source of life. But inasmuch as the ascending is the primary to each descending issue, and the descending the derived to every ascending, an ascending issue may press forward out of the straight line, or step down into the following, i.e. the primary into the one derived from it; while the succeeding cannot go backwards into the foregoing, i.e. the derived into the primary. Now, as the man is the moving cause in carnal intercourse, hence the law
(2.) A male member of the succeeding issue must not marry a female member of the preceding issue, while, on the contrary, a male member of the preceding may marry a female of the succeeding issue, provided they are not both of a direct line. Half-blood and step-relations make no difference in this respect, since they are identified, both in the issue and in the line, because husband and wife become identified. It is for this reason, also, that the relationship, which the wife always assumes in marriage with regard to her husband, is such as a blood relation bears to her; hence it is, for instance, that a brother’s wife is proscribed, while the wife’s sister is allowed. Thus the principle of the Mosaic proscriptions is a profound one, and is fully borne out by nature. Connubial intercourse has for its object to produce a third by the connection of two opposites; but that which proceeds from the same source of life is merely of the same kind. Hence, when two, originally of the same kind, unite, it is contrary to the true design of copulation, and can only proceed from an overpowering and excess of rude and animal passions. It is a desecration of the nature and morality of man. and the highest defilement (Israelitische Bibel, 1:588 sq.; 3d. ed. Leipz. 1863).
Different penalties are attached to the infringement of these prohibitions. The punishment of death is to be inflicted for marrying a father’s wife (Lev 18:8; Lev 20:11), or a daughter-in-law (Lev 18:15; Lev 20:12); of death by fire for marrying a woman and her daughter at the same time (Lev 18:17; Lev 20:14); of being cut off or excommunicated for marrying a sister on the father’s side or on the mother’s side (Lev 18:9; Lev 20:17); of not being pardoned for marrying a father’s or mother’s sister (Lev 18:12-13; Lev 20:19); of not being pardoned and childlessness for marrying a father’s brother’s wife (Lev 18:14; Lev 20:20); and of childlessness alone for marrying a brother’s wife (Lev 18:16; Lev 20:21), excepting the case of a Levirate marriage (Deu 25:5-10). No penalty is mentioned for marrying one’s mother (Lev 18:7), granddaughter (Lev 18:10), or two sisters together (Lev 18:18). From this enumeration it will be seen that it only specifies three instances in which capital punishment is to be inflicted.
The grounds on which these prohibitions were enacted are reducible to the following three heads:
(1) moral ropriety;
(2) the practices of heathen nations; and
(3) social convenience.
The first of these grounds comes prominently forward in the expressions by which the various offenses are characterized, as well as in the general prohibition against approaching the flesh of his flesh. The use of such expressions undoubtedly contains an appeal to the horror naturalis, or that repugnance with which man instinctively shrinks from matrimonial union with one with whom he is connected by the closest ties both of blood and of family affection. On this subject we need say no more than that there is a difference in kind between the affection that binds the members of a family together, and that which lies at the bottom of the matrimonial bond, and that the amalgamation of these affections cannot take place without a serious shock to one or the other of the two; hence the desirableness of drawing a distinct line between the provinces of each, by stating definitely where the matrimonial affection may legitimately take root. The second motive to laying down these prohibitions was that the Hebrews might be preserved as a peculiar people, with institutions distinct from those of the Egyptians and Canaanites (Lev 18:3), as well as of other heathen nations with whom they might come in contact. Marriages within the proscribed degrees prevailed in many civilized countries in historical times, and were not unusual among the Hebrews themselves in the pre-Mosaic age. For instance, marriages with half-sisters by the same father were allowed at Athens (Plutarch, Cim. 4; Themistocl. 32), with half-sisters by the same mother at Sparta (Philo, De spec. leg. p. 779), and with full sisters in Egypt (Diod. 1:27) and Persia, as illustrated in the well-known instances of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the former (Paus. 1:7, 1), and Cambyses in the latter country (Herod. 3:31). It was even believed that in some nations marriages between a son and his mother were not unusual (Ovid, het. 10:331; Eurip. Androm. 174). Among the Hebrews we have instances of marriage with a half-sister in the case of Abraham (Gen 20:12), with an aunt in the case of Amran (Exo 6:20), and with two sisters at the same time in the case of Jacob (Gen 29:26). Such cases were justifiable previous to the enactments of Moses: subsequently to them we have no case in the O.T. of actual marriage within the degrees, though the language of Tamar towards her half-brother Amnon (2Sa 13:13) implies the possibility of their union with the consent of their father. The Herods committed some violent breaches of the marriage law. Herod the Great married his halfsister (Ant. 17:1, 3); Archelaus his brother’s widow, who had children (17:13,1); Herod Antipas his brother’s wife (18:5, 1; Mat 14:3). In the Christian Church we have an instance of marriage with a father’s wife (1Co 5:1), which St. Paul characterizes as fornication (), and visits with the severest condemnation. The third ground of the prohibitions, social convenience, comes forward solely in the case of marriage with two sisters simultaneously, the effect of which would be to vex or irritate the first wife, and produce domestic wars.
Besides the proscribed degrees, the Mosaic law also forbids the following intermarriages: 1. No Israelite is to marry the progeny of incestuous and unlawful copulations, or a manner ( , Deu 23:2). In the absence of any Biblical definition of this much-disputed expression, we must accept the ancient traditional explanation contained in the Mishna, which is as follows: When there is betrothal without transgression of the law about forbidden marriages e.g. if the daughters of priests, Levites, or Israelites are married to priests, Levites, or Israelites the chill goes after the father; where there is betrothal, and this law has been transgressed e.g. if a widow is married to a high-priest, a divorced woman or one who performed the ceremony of chralitsah to an ordinary priest, or a bastardess or a female nethin to an Israelite; or, vice versa, if a Jewess is married to a bastard or nethin the child goes after the inferior party; where the woman cannot be betrothed to the man, but might legally be betrothed to another person e.g.,
1. if a man married within any one of the degrees proscribed by the law the child is a bastard or manner (Kiddushin, 3:12).
2. Any person who is , cujus testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus eorum, or ), cujus membruns virile precissum est, as the Mishna (Jebanoth, 8:2) explains it, is not allowed to marry (Deu 23:1).
3. A man is not to remarry a woman whom he had divorced, and who, after marrying another husband, had become a widow, or been divorced again (Deu 24:2-4).
4. Heiresses are not allowed to intermarry with persons of another tribe (Num 36:5-9).
5. A high-priest is forbidden to marry a widow, a divorced woman, a profane woman, or a harlot, and restricted to a pure Jewish maiden (Lev 21:13-14).
6. Ordinary priests are prohibited from marrying prostitutes and divorced women (Lev 21:7).
b. The proscription of epigamy with non-Israelites is absolute with regard to some nations, and conditional with regard to others. The Mosaic law absolutely forbids intermarriage with the seven Canaanitish nations, on the ground that it would lead the Israelites into idolatry (Exo 34:15-16; Deu 7:3-4); and with the Ammonites and Moabites, on account of national antipathy (Deu 23:4-8); while the prohibition against marriage with the Egyptians and Edomites only extends to the third generation (Deu 23:7-8). The Talmud, which rightly expounds the prohibition to enter into the congregation of the Lord as necessarily extending to epigamy (comp. 1Ki 11:2; Kiddushin, 4:3), takes the third generation to mean of those who becamse proselytes, i.e. the grandchildren of an Ammonite or Moabite who professes Judaism (Mishna, Jebamoth, 8:3; Maimonides, lad Ha-Chazaka, Issure Biah, 12:19, 20). This view is confirmed by the fact that the Bible only mentions three intermarriages with Egyptians, and records at least two out of the three to show the evil effects of it. One occurred after the Exodus and in the wilderness, and we are told that the son of this intermarriage, while quarreling with a brother Jew, blasphemed the name of God, and suffered capital punishment (Lev 24:10-14); the second occurred towards the end of the rulership of the judges, and tradition endeavors to show that Ishmael, the murderer of Gedaliah (Jer 41:1-2), was a descendant of Jarha, the Egyptian son-in-law of Sheshan (1Ch 2:34-35; and, Rashi, ad loc.); and the third is the intermarriage of Solomon, which, however, is excepted from the censure in the book of Kings (1Ki 3:1 sq.; 1Ki 11:1-2). Of intermarriages with Edomites not a single instance is; recorded in the O.T.; the Jewish antipathy against: them was transmitted down to a very late period, as we find in the declaration of Jesus, son of Sirach, that his soul hates the inhabitants of Seir (Sir 4:25-26), and in the fact that Judas Maccabaeus carried on a dead.ly war with them (1Ma 5:3; 2 Maccabees 20:15-23).
An exception is made in the case of female captives of war (Deu 21:10-14), which is evidently designed to obviate as far as possible the outrages committed after the evil passions have been stirred up in the conflict. The law, however, most humanely ordains that the captor, before making her his wife, should first allow her to indulge herself for a full month in mourning for her parents, from whom she is snatched away, and to practice the following customary rites expressive of grief:
1. Cut off the hair of her head, which was the usual sign of mourning both among the Jews and other nations of antiquity (Ezr 9:3; Job 1:20; Isa 15:2;. Jer 7:29; Jer 16:6; Eze 7:18; Eze 27:31; Amo 8:10; Mic 1:16);
2. Cut off her nails, which were stained to form a part of personal adornment; and,
3. Put off the raiment in which she was taken captive, since the women who followed their fathers and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat (Ovid, Remied. Amor. 343; Rosenmller, as alte u. neue Morgenland, 2:308).
The first complaint of epigamy with aliens is, strange to say, made against Moses, the lawgiver himself (Num 12:1). In the days of the Judges the law against intermarriage was commonly transgressed (Jdg 3:6), and from the earlier portions of the book of Proverbs, which ring with repeated denunciations of foreign women (Pro 2:16-17; Pro 5:8-11; Pro 15:17), as well as from the warnings of Isa 2:6, it is evident that intermarriages with foreign women were generally practiced in private life in after times. Of the twenty kings of Israel who reigned from the division of the kingdom to the Babylonian captivity, Ahab is the only one mentioned who married a foreign wife (1Ki 16:31); while of the nineteen kings of Judah after the division none intermarried with aliens. Marriages between Israelitish women and proselyted foreigners were at all times of rare occurrence, and are noticed in the Bible as if they were of an exceptional nature, such as that of an Egyptian and an Israelitish woman (Lev 24:10); of Abigail and Jether, the Ishmaelite, contracted probably when Jesse’s family was sojourning in Moab (1Ch 2:17); of Sheshan’s daughter and an Egyptian, who was staying in his house (1Ch 2:35); and of a Naphthalite woman and a Tyrian, living in adjacent districts (1Ki 7:14). In the reverse case, viz. the marriage of Israelites with foreign women, it is, of course, highly probable that the wives became proselytes after their marriage, as instanced in the case of Rth 1:16, and probably in that of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (Psa 40:10); but this was by no means invariably the case. On the contrary, we find that the Canaanitish wives of Solomon (1Ki 11:4), and the Phoenician wife of Ahab (1Ki 16:31), retained their idolatrous practices, and introduced them into their adopted countries. Proselytism does not, therefore, appear to have been a sine qua non in the case of a wife, though it was so in the case of a husband: the total silence of the law as to any such condition in regard to a captive, whom an Israelite might wish to marry, must be regarded as evidence of the reverse (Deu 21:10-14), nor have the refinements of rabbinical writers on that passage succeeded in establishing the necessity of proselytism. The opposition of Samson’s parents to his marriage with a Philistine woman (Jdg 14:3) leads to the same conclusion.
3. In the post-exilian period, besides the fifteen proscribed degrees enumerated in Lev 18:7-17; Lev 20:11, etc., the Sopherlim, or scribes (B.C. 322-221), prohibited marriage with other relations (Mishna, Jebcamoth, 2:4), . and those prohibitions were afterwards extended still further by R.Chija ben-Abba the Babylonian (A.D. 163-193), and friend of Jehudah I the Holy (Jebamoth, 22. a). The prohibited degrees of the scribes are denominated , i.e. the second or subordinate in rank with respect to those forbidden in the Bible, and may be seen in the following list given by Maimonides:
1. The mother’s mother, and this is infinite, for the mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’, and so upwards. are proscribed.
2. The mother of his father’s mother, and no further.
3. His father’s mother, and this is infinite, for even the father’s mother’s mother’s mother, and so upwards, are proscribed.
4. The mother of his father’s father only.
5. The wife of his father’s father, and this is infinite, for even if she were the wife of our father Jacob, she is forbidden to every one of us.
6. The wife of his mother’s father only.
7. The wife of his father’s brother by the mother.
8. The wife of his mother’s brother, whether by the mother or by the father.
9. His son’s daughter-in-law, i.e. his son’s son’s wife, and this is infinite, for even if she were the son’s son’s son’s son’s wife, descending to the end of the world, she is forbidden, so that, as long as the wife of one of us lives, she is secondary or forbidden to our father Jacob
10. His daughter’s daughter-in-law, i.e. her son’s wifl only.
11. The daughter of his son’s daughter only.
12. The daughter of his son’s son only.
13. The daughter of his daughter’s daughter only.
14. The daughter of his daughter’s son only.
15. The daughter of his wife’s son only.
16. The daughter of his wife’s daughter’s daughter only.
17. The mother of his wife’s father’s mother only.
18. The mother of his wife’s mother’s father only.
19. The mother of his wife’s mother’s mother only.
20. The mother of his wife’s father’s father only.
Thus, of these secondary prohibitions, there are four which are infinite:
a, the mother’s mother and all upwards;
b, the father’s mother and all upwards;
c, the grandfather’s wife and all upwards; and,
d, the son’s son’s wife and all downwards (Hilchoth Ishuth, 1:6).
The principle by which the scribes were guided was to extend the prohibition to the whole line wherever the Mosaic law refers to lineal ascendants or descendants, as well as to those who might easily be mistaken by having a common appellation. Thus mother’s mother’s mother’s mother, ad infinitum, is forbidden, because the Mosaic law proscribes the mother, so also the wife of the grandfather, because the wife’s father is forbidden in the Mosaic law; while the mother of the father is proscribed, because the appellation grandmother is used without distinction for both the mother’s and father’s mother. From Maimonides’s list, however, it will be seen that he, like Alfasi, restricts prohibition 2 to the mother of the grandfather, and prohibitions 12-16, 20, to the son’s grandchildren, great-grandmother, and great-grandchildren, but does not extend it to any further ascendants or descendants. The whole subject is extensively discussed in the Talmud (Jebamoth, 21, 22; Jerusalem Jebamoth, 2:4), and by Maimonides (Istel Ha-Chazaka, Hilchoth Ishuth, 1:6, etc.), to which we must refer. It must, however, be remarked that Philo’s list of proscribed degrees is much shorter. After explaining why Moses prohibited marriage with one’s own mother or sister, he says, For this reason he has also forbidden other matrimonial connections, inasmuch as he ordained that a man shall not marry his granddaughter ( , ), nor his aunt on the father’s or mother’s side, nor the wife of an uncle, son, or brother; nor a step-daughter while in the lifetime of her mother or after her death, because a stepfather takes the place of a father, and a step-daughter is to be looked upon as his own daughter. Neither does he allow the same man to marry two sisters, either at the same time or at different times, even in case one of them had been married to another and is divorced; for he did not consider it pious that one sister should succeed to the place of her unfortunate sister, whether the latter is still cohabiting with him, or is divorced and has no husband. or is married to another husband (De special. legibus, 780). Still shorter is the list of Josephus, who says, The law prohibits it as a heavy sin and an abomination to have carnal intercourse with one’s mother, step-mother, father’s or mother’s sister, one’s own sister, or a son’s wife (Ant. 3:12, 1). Marriage with a wife’s step-mother is allowed by the Babylonian and forbidden by the Jerusalem Talmud; the Spanish Jews follow the former, while the Germano-French communities adopt the latter. Intermarriages between cousins, uncle and niece, entire step-brother and step-sister, are quite legitimate. Indeed, for an uncle to marry a niece, which the English law forbids, has been considered by the Jews from time immemorial as something specially meritorious. The Talmud says that the promise given in Isaiah, Then shalt thou call and the Lord shall answer (58:9), refers to that man especially who loves his neighbors, befriends his relations, marries his brother’s daughter, and lends money to the poor in the hour of need (Jebamoth, 62 b. 63 a).
As to the ethical cause of the proscribed marriages, or the cases specified, including parallels by affinity. the ancient Jews, to whom the oracles of God were committed, and who had to explain and administer the law in practical life, knew nothing about it. The Palestinian doctors regarded the proscribed degrees as a positive law, the cause of which cannot be divined by human reason (Sifra Kedoshim, 9:12; Talmud, Sabbath, 130 a; Joma, 75 a). The only attempt to rationalize on the subject is on the apparent inconsistency of the Mosaic law in prohibiting marriage with the wife of the father’s brother, in case she is divorced or left a widow, and not forbidding the wife of the mother’s brother. Upon this the Talmud remarks that a man visits his father’s relations more than his mother’s (Jebamoth, 21 a; and Rashi on this passage); and it is submitted, and we believe with perfect reason, and based on Num 1:2, that it is the father’s relations who constitute the family, and not the mother’s. We thus see that up to the time of the Ptolemies, when the Greek loose barriers of consanguinity threatened to fall among the Jewish families, the ancient Hebrews were bound only by the specific proscriptions in the Mosaic law, and that even after the prohibitions were extended by the scribes, the proscription of a male relative by blood did not imply the wife’s relatives of the like degree, because of the strong distinction made by them between consanguinity and affinity by marriage; the former being permanent and sacred, and the latter uncertain and vague, as a man might any moment divorce his wife, or take as many as he pleased, and because the husband’s family were regarded as the relations, while the wife’s were not esteemed beyond those who are especially mentioned.
The proscribed degrees were sacredly avoided by the Jews during this period, and no dispensation could be obtained by any one, no matter how high his position, as Judaism never invested any spiritual functionary with power to absolve, even in extraordinary cases, from the obligations of the law. Hence the outcry against Herod the Great, who married his half-sister (Josephus, Ant. 17:1, 3); against Archelaus, who took his deceased brother’s widow when she was the mother of children (ibid. 17:13, 1); and against Herod Antipas, for which John the Baptist had to atone with his life (Josephus, Ant. 18:5, 1; Mat 14:3). So long as foreign epigamy was of merely occasional occurrence no veto was placed upon it by public authority; but when, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the Jews contracted marriages with the heathen inhabitants of Palestine in so wholesale a manner as to endanger their national existence, the practice was severely condemned (Ezr 9:2; Ezr 10:2), and the law of positive prohibition, originally pronounced only against the Canaanites, was extended to the Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines (Neh 13:23-25). Public feeling was thenceforth strongly opposed to foreign marriages, and the union of Manasseh with a Cuthaean led to such animosity as to produce the great national schism, which had its focus in the temple on Mount Gerizim (Josephus, Ant. 11:8, 2) A no less signal instance of the same feeling is exhibited in the cases of Joseph (Ant. 12:4, 6) and Anilaets (Ant. 18:9, 5), and is noticed by Tacitus (Hist. v. 5) as one of the characteristics of the Jewish nation in his day. In the N.T. no special directions are given on this head. but the general precepts of separation between believers and unbelievers (2Co 6:14; 2Co 6:17) would apply with special force to the case of marriage; and the permission to dissolve mixed marriages, contracted previously to the conversion of one party, at the instance of the unconverted one, cannot but be regarded as implying the impropriety of such unions subsequently to conversion (1Co 7:12).
Besides the proscribed degrees, the rabbinic law also enacted
1. A man must not marry a divorced woman with whom he has committed adultery prior to her divorcement (Sotet, 27), or even if he is only suspected of it (Jebamoth, 24; Maimonides, Sofa, i 12).
2. A man who attested the death of the husband is not allowed to marry the widow, nor is the bearer of a divorce permitted to marry the divorced woman, to avoid suspicion (Jebamoth, 2:9, 10).
3. If a man’s wife dies, he must not marry again till three festivals after his wife’s death (Moed Katon, 23).
4. A man is not to marry a woman who has lost two husbands (Jebamoth, 64).
5. A father is not to give a young daughter in marriage to an old man, nor is a young man to marry an old woman (Jebamoth, 101; Maimonides, Isure Bia, 21:26).
6. A man is not to marry within thirty days of the death of a near relation (Voed Katon, 23).
7. Widows are not to marry within ninety days of the loss of their husbands. nor are divorced women to marry within ninety days of their being divorced, in order that the paternity of the newly-born child might be distinguished (Jebamoth, 41 a). 8. If a widow or a divorced woman is nursing an infant, she must not marry within twenty-four months of the birth of the baby (Jebamoth, 41; Kethuboth, 60; and Tossafoth, on these passages).
VI. Sanctity of Marriage, and Mutual Rights of Husband and Wife.
1. Though at the creation the wife occupied an equal position with the husband, being a part of him, yet, as she became the cause of his sin, God ordained it as part of her punishment that the wife should be in subjection to the will of her husband, and that he should be her master, and rule over her (Gen 3:16). This dependence of the wife on her husband is henceforth declared by the very Hebrew appellation () for husband (Exo 21:3; Exo 21:22), which literally denotes lord, master, owner, and is seen in the conduct of Sarah, who speaks of her husband Abraham as () my lord (Gen 18:12), which is commended by Peter as illustrating the proper position of a wife (1Pe 3:6). From this mastery of the husband over the wife arose the different standard of virtue which obtained in married life. The wife, as subject to her husband, her lord and master, was not allowed to practice polyandry; she was obliged to regard the sanctity of marriage as absolute, and any unchastity on her part was visited with capital punishment; while the husband could take any unmarried woman he liked and violate the laws of chastity, as we should view it, with impunity (Gen 38:24). This absolute sanctity of marriage on the part of the wife was also acknowledged by other nations of antiquity, as is gathered from the narratives of the patriarchs. Thus Abraham knew that Pharaoh would not take Sarah from her husband, and we are told that as soon as the Egyptian monarch discovered that she was a married woman, he immediately restored her to her husband (Gen 12:15-19); and this is confirmed by Egyptology, which, based on ancient writers and monuments, shows that he who seduced a married woman received a thousand rods, and that the woman had her nose cut off (Uhlemann, AEgypt. Alterthumsk. 11, sec. 25, 65). The same sanctity was attached to a married woman in Philistia (Gen 20:1-18; Gen 26:9-11).
2. Recognizing the previously-existing inequality of husband and wife, and basing its laws upon the then prevailing notion that the husband is lord over his wife, that he can take as many wives as he likes, and send them away whenever he dislikes them, the Mosaic gamology, as a matter of course, could neither impose the same obligation of nuptial fidelity nor confer the same rights on both. This is evident from the following facts: 1. The husband had a right to expect from his wife connubial chastity, and in case of infidelity could demand her death as well as that of her seducer (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:20-22; Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5).
2. If he became jealous and suspicious of her, even when she had not been unfaithful, he could bring her before the priest and have administered to her the water of jealousy (Num 5:12-31). But if the husband was suspected, or was actually guilty of carnal intercourse with an unmarried woman, no statute was enacted to enable the wife or wives to arraign him for a breach of marriage or infringement of her or their rights. Even when he was discovered with another man’s wife, it was the injured husband that had the power to demand the death of the seducer, but not the wife of the criminal.
3. If the wife vowed anything to the Lord, or imposed upon herself voluntary obligations to the Deity, her husband could nullify it (Num 30:6-8).
4. He could send her away or divorce her when she displeased him (Deu 24:14).
The woman, again, is protected by the following laws:
1. When a Hebrew maiden is sold by her father to a man, with the understanding that she is to be his half-wife ( =, Exo 21:7; Jdg 9:18 with Jdg 8:31), the law enacts that, in case her master and intended husband is displeased with her, and he refuses to redeem his promise
i, he is not to keep her till the sabbatic year, and then give her her liberty like ordinary servants;
ii, he is not to sell her to any one else as a wife;
iii, he may give her to his son as a wife, and in that case must treat her as a daughter-in-law;
iv, if he gives his son an additional wife, she is to retain a, her food, b, raiment, and, c, conjugal right as heretofore; and,
v, if these three last-mentioned points are refused to her, she is forthwith to be set at liberty (Exo 21:7-11).
2. If he maliciously impugns her chastity, he is to be scourged, and loses his right over her to divorce her (Deu 22:13-19)
3. If she has children, they must render equal obedience to her as to the father (Exo 20:12; Deu 27:16).
4. The husband must not vex her by marrying two sisters simultaneously (Lev 18:18).
5. He is not allowed to annoy his less-beloved wife by transferring the primogeniture from her son to the child of his favorite wife (Deu 21:15-17).
6. If her husband dislikes her, he is not arbitrarily to dismiss her, but give her a bill of divorcement (Deu 24:1), which requires the interposition of legal advisers.
7. When a woman is divorced, or her husband dies, she is free, and at liberty to marry any one she likes, as is evident from the enactments in Lev 21:7-8; Lev 21:13; Deu 24:2-4; Deu 25:5, which are based upon this fact.
3. The notions about sanctity of marriage were loftier during the post- exilian period than in the preceding epochs, as may be judged from the fact that unfaithfulness to a wife is denounced by the prophet Malachi as violating a sacred covenant, to the transaction of which God himself was a witness (Mal 2:14). And though it may be questioned whether the prophet’s appeal to God as having been witness to the marriage-contract refers to the above-named seven benedictions ( ) which the bridegroom had to pronounce at the marriage-feast, and in which he invoked God’s presence and blessing to the compact, as Abrabanel will have it. yet there can be no doubt that marriage is here for the first time expressly described as a covenant () made in the presence of God. With such a view of the sanctity of marriage, the notion that a wife is a plaything for a leisure hour rapidly disappeared, and the sages who had to expound the law to the people in the time of Christ taught that the declaration Peace shall be in thy house (Job 5:24) will be realized by him who loves his wife as himself, and honors her more than himself, and trains his sons and daughters up in the way of righteousness (Jebamoth, 62 b). Moreover, marriage was regarded as illegal if the man had not given to his wife the instrument (), in which he promises his wife, I will work for thee, honor thee. maintain thee, and provide for thee, according to the custom of Jewish husbands. The rabbinic laws both define this promise and insist upon its being fulfilled, as may be seen from the following enactments:
1. A wife is to be kept in proportion to the circumstances of her husband, and have her meals with him at the table; if he ill-treats her and she removes from him, he is obliged to send her maintenance (Jebamoth, 64 b).
2. If the husband goes on a three months’ journey without making provision for his wife, the legal authorities of the place are to maintain her from his property (Kethuboth, 48 a, 107).
3. He is obliged to perform the duties of a husband within a stated period (Mishna, Kethuboth, v. 6).
4. If her husband dies, she is to be maintained from his property, or by the children, in the same manner as she was in his lifetime, till she is betrothed to another man, and her rights must be attended to before the claims of any one else (Kethuboth, 43, 51, 52, 68,103; Jerusalem Kethuboth, 4:14).
5. If a woman marries a man of higher rank than herself, she rises with him; but if he is inferior to her. she does not descend to him ( [Kethuboth, 48 a, 61 a]). For other rights which the wife possesses we must refer to the Kethubah, or the marriage- instrument given in section 2 of this period. The husband, on the other hand, has a right to expect from his wife chastity which is beyond the reach of suspicion, unreserved obedience, and to do the work of a housewife. Other rights are given in the following section on divorce.
VII. Divorce.
1. The arbitrary power of the husband over his wife in the patriarchal age is also seen in the fact that he could divorce her at his pleasure. There is but one instance of it recorded, but it is a very significant one. Abraham, though he has a child by Hagar, sends away his half-wife, not requiring any legal or religious intervention (Gen 21:14), but, as in the case of marriage, effecting it by a mere verbal declaration. Wherever marriages are effected by the violent, exercise of the patria. potestas, or without any bon of f affection between the parties concerned, ill-assorted matches must be of frequent occurrence; and without the remedy of divorce, in such a state of society, we can understand the truth of the apostles’ remark that it is not good to marry (Mat 19:10). Hence divorce prevails to a great extent in all countries where marriage is the result of arbitrary appointment or of purchase: we may instance the Arabians (Burckhardt’s Notes, 1:111; Layard, Nineveh, 1:357) and the Egyptians (Lane, 1:235 sq.).
2. It must be remarked that the Mosaic law does not institute divorce, but, as in other matters, recognizes and most humanely regulates the prevailing patriarchal practice (Deu 24:1-4). The ground on which the law allows a divorce is termed , any shameful thing. What the precise meaning of this ambiguous phrase is, and what, according to the Mosaic gamology, gives a husband the right to divorce his wife, has been greatly disputed in the schools of Shammai and Hillel, which were founded before the advent of Christ, and these discussions are given below. It is, however, certain that the phrase does not denote fornication or adultery, for in that case the woman was not divorced, but stoned (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:20-22; Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5). Moreover, the phrase , with which this statute begins, when used of opposite sexes, as in the case before us, generally denotes favorable i impression which one produces on the other, by graceful manners, or beautiful appearance (Gen 39:4; Rth 2:2; Rth 2:10; Rth 2:13; Eze 5:2 with 8). That it has this sense here seems to be warranted by Eze 5:3, where it is supposed that, the divorced woman marries again, and her second husband also divorces her, and that not on account of immorality, but because he does not like her. The humane regulations which the Mosaic gamology introduced in order to render a divorce legal were as follows:
1. If a man dislikes his wife, or finds that he cannot live happily with her, he is not summarily to send her away by word of mouth as heretofore, but is to give her a formal and judicial bill of divorcement ( ), which required the intervention of a legal adviser, and caused delay, thus affording time for reflection, and preventing many a divorce resolved on under the influence of passion.
2. Allowing the parties, even after the dissolution of the marriage, to renew the connection if they wished it, provided the divorced wife had not in the meantime married another husband, and become a widow, or been again divorced. Not only are bishop Patrick (on Deu 24:4), Michaelis (Law’s of Moses, 2:137, English translation), and many other Christian expositors, of this opinion, but it has been so understood and acted upon by those who were charged with the administration of the law from time immemorial. The only exception which the sages made was when a man divorced his wife because of an evil report which he maliciously circulated about her; then he was not allowed to remarry her (Mishna, Gittin, 4:7).
3. If the divorced woman marries again, and the second husband either dies or divorces her, she is not allowed to remarry her first husband: this was to preclude the possibility of procuring the death of, or a divorce from, the second husband, in case the parties wished to be reunited.
4. If a man seduces a maiden, and on this account is legally obliged to marry her, he may not put her away all his life (Deu 22:28-29). Or,
5. If he groundlessly impugns her chastity, he also loses the power of ever divorcing her (Deu 22:13-19). This, as well as the preceding benign law, was evidently designed to make men care for those women whom they had either virtually or actually deprived of their moral character, and who, if these men were allowed to desert them, might never be able to get husbands. Thus these laws, while checking seduction, inasmuch as the man knew that he would have all his lifetime to be wedded to and care for the injured woman, also prevented those females who had momentarily fallen from being branded for life, and compelled to give themselves up to prostitution.
6. Though the Mosaic law has no express statute that the wife, under certain circumstances, may demand a divorce from her husband, yet it is undoubtedly implied in the enactment contained in Exo 21:10. For if a bondwoman who became the wife of her master could quit him if he did not fulfill the conditions of a husband, it, is but natural to conclude that a free wife would, under similar circumstances, be able to claim the protection of the same law. A few instances of the violation of the divorce law, between the period of its enactment and the Babylonian captivity, are incidentally recorded without any censure whatever. Thus we are told that Saul took away Michal, his daughter, David’s wife, without David’s formally divorcing her, and gave her to Phalti (1Sa 25:44), and that David took back again Michal, who had been united to another husband (2Sa 3:14-16). Still the laws of divorce and of prohibiting reunion after the divorced woman had been married to another husband are alluded to by Jeremiah as well known and commonly observed (Jer 3:1-8).
3. The rather uncertain grounds on which the Mosaic law permits divorce (Deu 24:1-4) were minutely defined during the period after the exile. Though the school of Shammai restricts the phrase to unchastity, and the Sadducees too insisted that divorce is not to be tolerated except when the woman is guilty of adultery (Eschol Ba-Copher, Alphab. xcix; Ben-Chonanja, 4:276), yet the Jews as a nation, as well as most Christian expositors, agree with the school of Hillel, (Mishna, Gittin, 9:10) that it denotes faults or deforimities, as the context plainly shows. Now, in stating the grounds on which the Jewish expositors of the law, in the time of Christ and after, regarded dissolution of marriage as justifiable, we must distinguish the cases in which the legal authorities themselves took up the matter, from those in which the married parties asked for divorce.
a. Dissolution of marriage occasioned by the lawful authorities took place
1. When the woman is guilty of adultery.
2. When the woman carries on secret intercourse with a man after her husband has warned her against it (Sota, 27; Jebamoth, 24).
3. Where, though betrothal had taken place, yet a matrimonial law (matrimonium injustum) is violated, either referring to the proscribed degrees or to other matters enacted by the rabbins.
4. When the husband is infected with leprosy (Kethuboth, 77).
b. It was granted on the demand of the married parties. Thus the husband could effect a dissolution of marriage
1. When his wife, by violating the Mosaic law, caused him, without knowing it, to be guilty of transgression (Mishna, Kethuboth, 7:6).
2. If the wife violates the bounds of modesty e.g. by going into the street with uncovered hair, flirting with young men, etc. (ibid.). 3. If the wife is suspected of adultery.
4. If the woman curses her father-in-law in the presence of her husband (Kethuboth, 72).
5. If the wife will not follow her husband to another place (Kethuboth. 110).
6. If the wife refuses her husband the conjugal rights for twelve months.
The wife can demand a divorce
1. If after marriage the husband contracts a loathsome disease (Mishna, Kethuboth, 7:9, 10).
2. If after marriage he betakes himself to a disgusting business (ibid. the Gemara thereon, 75).
3. If he treats her cruelly (Eben Ha-Ezar, 154).
4. If her husband changes his religion (ibid.).
5. If the husband commits an offense which makes him flee from his country (Eben Ha-Ezar, 9).
6. If he leads a dissolute and immoral life (Eben Ha-Ezar, Gloss on Sects, 11).
7. If he wastes his property and neglects to maintain her (Mishna, Kethuboth, 7:1).
8. If he refuses her connubial rights (Mishna, Kethuboth, v. 6).
There are other grounds on which divorce can be obtained, but for these we must refer to the Mishna, Gittin, as they are too numerous to be detailed. The bill of divorcement must be handed over, either by the husband or a messenger, to the wife or one deputed by her, with the words, This is thy divorce; thou art henceforth divorced from me, and canst marry whomsoever thou likest (Mishna, Gittin, 9). It must, however, be remarked that divorce was greatly discouraged by the Talmudists, and it is declared that The who divorces his wife is hated of God. The altar sheds tears over him who divorces the wife and companion of his youth (Gittin, 90 a). During the post-exilian period the abuse of divorce continued unabated (Josephus, Life, 76); and under the Asmonaean dynasty the right was assumed by the wife as against her husband, an innovation which is attributed to Salome by Josephus (Ant. 15:7, 10), but which appears to have been prevalent in the apostolic age, if we may judge from passages where the language implies that the act emanated from the wife (Mar 10:12; 1Co 7:11), as well as from some of the comments of the early writers on 1Ti 5:9. Our Lord and his apostles re- established the integrity and sanctity of the marriage-bond by the following measures:
(1) by the confirmation of the;original charter of marriage as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Mat 19:4-5);
(2) by the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Rom 7:3; 1Co 7:10-11); and
(3) by the enforcement of moral purity generally (Heb 13:4, etc.), and especially by the formal condemnation of fornication, which appears to have been classed among acts morally indifferent () by a certain party in the Church (Act 15:20).
VIII. Levirate Law.
1. The only power which a woman had over the man during the pre- Mosaic period, in matrimonial matters, was when her husband died without issue. The widow could then claim his next brother to marry her; if the second also died without progeny, she could ask the third, and so on. The object of this Levirate marriage, as it is called, from the Latin, levir, brother-in-law (Hebrew, ; Greek, ), is to raise up seed to the departed brother, which should preserve his name upon his inheritance, and prevent it from being erased from among his brethren, and from the gate of his town (Gen 38:8; Deu 25:6; Rth 4:10); since the Hebrews regarded childlessness as a great evil (Gen 16:4; Gen 19:31), and entire excision as a most dire calamity and awful punishment from God (Deu 9:14; Psa 9:7; Psa 109:15). To remove this reproach from the departed, it was regarded as the sacred duty of the eldest surviving brother to marry the widow, and the first-born son resulting from such an alliance was to all intents and purposes considered as the representative and heir of the deceased.
Thus we are told that when Er, Judah’s eldest son, who was married to Tamar, died without issue, the second son was called upon to marry his deceased brother’s widow, and that when he again died, leaving no children, Tamar, the widow, had still a claim upon the only surviving son, for whom she had to wait, as he was not as yet marriageable (Gen 38:6-12; Gen 38:14; Gen 38:26). Ultimately Judah himself had to marry his daughter-in-law, for she inveigled him into it as a punishment for neglecting to give her his third son (Gen 38:26-30); and Pharez, the issue of this Levirate marriage, not only became the founder of a numerous and illustrious family, but was the direct line from which the royal family of David descended, and the channel through which the Messiah was born (Gen 38:29, with Mat 1:3). This Levirate marriage was not peculiar to the Hebrews. It also obtained among the Moabites (Rth 1:11-13), Persians (Kleuker, Zendavesta, 3:226), Indians (Asiatic Researches, 3:35), and still exists in Arabia (Burckhardt, Notes, 1:112; Niebuhr, Voyage, p. 61), among the tribes of the Caucasus (Hanthausen, Trans-caucasia, p. 403), and other nations (comp. Leyser, in Herzog, Real-Encyklop. 8:358, s.v. Leviratsehe).
2. This law, which, as we have seen, existed from time immemorial both among the patriarchs and other nations of antiquity, was at length formally enacted as part of the Biblical gamology. In adopting this law, however, as in the case of other primitive practices incorporated in the Mosaic code, the sacred legislator both prescribes for it definite limits, and most humanely deprives it of the irksome and odious features which it possessed in ancient times. This is evident from the enactment itself, which is as follows: If brothers dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family a stranger; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her. and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law. Her first-born shall then succeed in the name of the deceased brother, so that his name be not blotted out of Israel (Deu 25:5-6). Accordingly
1. This law is restricted to brothers who dwell together, i.e. in contiguous properties, as the rabbinical law explains it according to the meaning of the phrase in Gen 13:6; Gen 36:7, and elsewhere. If the brothers lived far away, or if the deceased had no brothers at all, it was an understood thing that it devolved upon the nearest of kin to marry the widow, or care for her if she was too old, when, of course, it passed over from the domain of Leviration into that of Goel or redeemer (Rth 2:20; Rth 3:9; Rth 4:15-16).
2. To cases where no issue whatever is left, as is here used in its general sense of offspring and not specifically for son. This is not only confirmed by the Sept. (), Matthew ( , 22:5), Mark (Mar 12:19). Luke (, 20:28), Josephus (Ant. 4:8, 23), and the Talmud (Jebamoth, 22 b), but is evident from the law of inheritance (Num 27:8-11), in which it is declared that if a man dies without leaving a son, his daughter is to inherit the property. For if his widow could claim the surviving brother to marry her in order to raise up a son to the deceased, the daughter who legally came to the inheritance would either have to lose her possessions, or the son born of the Levirate marriage would have to be without patrimony.
In fulfilling the duty of the Levir in the patriarchal age the surviving brother had to make great sacrifices. He had not only to renounce the perpetuating of his own name through the first-born son (Gen 38:9), and mar his own inheritance (Rth 4:6), but, what was most galling, he was obliged to take the widow whether he had an inclination for any such marriage or not, as the Levir in the patriarchal age had no alternative. Now the Mosaic law removed this hardship by opening to the man a door of escape: But if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate of the elders and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the Levirate duty. And the elders of the city shall call him, and speak unto him. But if he still persist and say, I like not to take her then shall his brother’s wife come in to him in the presence of the elders. and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house; and his house shall be called in Israel the house of the barefoot (Deu 25:7-10). Thus the Mosaic gamology does not impose it as an inexorable law, but simply enjoins it as a duty of love, which the Levir might escape by submitting to censure and reproach. Of this he could hot complain, for he not only neglected to perform towards his deceased brother the most sacred offices of love, but, by refusing to do so, he openly declared his dislike to the widow, and thus publicly insulted her. The symbolic manner in which she took away in the public court his right to her and his deceased brother’s possession, has its origin in the fact that the possession of property was claimed by planting the foot on it. Hence, when the transfer of property was effected by an amicable transaction, the original owner signified the renunciation of his rights by taking off his shoe and giving it to the new possessor (Rth 4:7-8). A similar custom obtained among the Indians (Benary, de Hebraeorum Leviratu, Berol. 1835, p. 14) and the ancient Germans (Grimm, Deutsche Rechtsalterthmer, p. 156). In the case before us, however, where the privilege of possession was not renounced by a mutual understanding, but involved insult both to the deceased brother and the surviving widow, the outraged sister-in-law snatched the right from him by pulling off his shoe.
3. That this patriarchal law-which, as we have seen, was incorporated in the Mosaic gamology continued in its full force after the Captivity, is evident from Mat 22:25-27, Mar 12:19-23, and Luk 20:28-33. From the question put to our Savior in these passages, it will be seen that it was incumbent upon each surviving brother in succession to perform the duty of the Levir. There were, however, cases where this duty could not be performed, about which the Mosaic law gives no directions whatever e.g. when the deceased brother’s widow was a near relation of the Levir and came within the proscribed degrees, of which the Mishna (Jebaemoth, 1:1) gives fifteen cases; or when the latter was a child when his brother died and left a widow without issue (2:3); and if he were on this or any other account exempt from the obligation to marry one of the widows, he was also from the obligation to marry any of them (1:1); it is also implied that it was only necessary for one brother to marry one of the widows in cases where there were several widows left. The marriage was not to take place within three months of the husband’s death (4:10). The eldest brother ought to perform the duty of marriage; but, on his declining it, a younger brother might do it (2:8; 4:5). The chalitstah was regarded as involving future relationship, so that a man who had received it could not marry the widow’s relations within the prohibited degrees (4:7). Special rules are laid down for cases where a woman married under a false impression as to her husband’s death (10:1), or where a mistake took place as to whether her son or her husband died first (10:3), for in the latter case the Levirate law would not apply; and, again, as to the evidence of the husband’s death to be produced in certain cases (cap. 15, 16).
There can, therefore, be no question that the administrators of the law in the time of the prophets and at the advent of our Savior had to define and supplement the Levirate law. As the space of this article does not permit us to enumerate these important definitions and enactments. we must refer to the Mishna, Tract Jebamoth, which derives its name () from the fact that it embodies these laws. These descend into trivial distinctions e.g. that the shoe was to be of leather, or a sandal furnished with a heel-strap; a felt shoe, or a sandal without a strap, would not do (Yebam. 12:1, 2). The chalitsah was not valid when the person performing it was deaf and dumb (12:4), as he could not learn the precise formula which accompanied the act. The custom is retained by the modern Jews, and is minutely described by Picart (Ceremonuies Religieuses, 1:243). It receives illustration from the expression used by the modern Arabs in speaking of a repudiated wife: She was my slipper. I have cast her off (Burckhardt, Notes, 1:113). It only remains to be remarked that the fear lest the performance of the duty of Levir should come into collision with the law of consanguinity, made the ancient rabbins declare that ( ) the ceremony of taking off the shoe is preferable to marrying the widow, and thus virtually set aside Levirate marriages. As this ceremony, which is called Chalitsah ( from , to draw out, to pull of), supersedes the ancient law, the rabbins gave very minute orders about the manner in which it is to be performed. The ceremony is performed in the syllagogue after morning prayer, in the presence of three rabbis and two witnesses, attended by others of the congregation as auditors and spectators. The Levir and widow are called forward, and after being questioned by the principal rabbi, and avowing his determination not to marry her, the man puts on a shoe of a peculiar form and made for this purpose, and the woman repeats, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. To which the Levir replies, I like not to take her. Upon this declaration the widow unties the shoe with her right hand, takes it off, throws it on the ground, and spits before him, saying in Hebrew, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house: and his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed; when the persons present exclaim three times, His shoe is loosed! This concludes the ceremony, and the rabbi tells the widow that she is now at liberty to marry whom she pleases.
IX. In considering the social and domestic conditions of married life among the Hebrews, we must, in the first place, take into account the position assigned to women generally in their social scale. The seclusion of the harem, and the habits consequent upon it, were utterly unknown in early times, and the condition of the Oriental woman, as pictured to us in the Bible, contrasts most favorably with that of her modern representative. There is abundant evidence that women, whether married or unmarried, went about with their faces unveiled (Gen 12:14; Gen 24:16; Gen 24:65; Gen 29:11; 1Sa 1:13). An unmarried woman might meet and converse with men, even strangers, in a public place (Gen 24:24; Gen 29:9-12; 1Sa 9:2); she might be found alone in the country without any reflection on her character (Deu 22:25-27); or she might appear in a court of justice (Num 27:2). Women not unfrequently held important offices: some were prophetesses, as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, and Anna; of others advice was sought in emergencies (2Sa 14:2; 2Sa 20:16-22). They took their part in matters of public interest (Exo 15:20; 1Sa 18:6-7); in short., they enjoyed as much freedom in ordinary life as the women of our own country.
If such was her general position, it is certain that the wife must have exercised an important influence in her own home. She appears to have taken her part in family affairs, and even to have enjoyed a considerable amount of independence. For instance, she entertains guests at her own desire (2Ki 4:8) in the absence of her husband (Jdg 4:18), and sometimes even in defiance of his wishes (1Sa 25:14, etc.); she disposes of her child by a vow without any reference to her husband (1Sa 1:24); she consults with him as to the marriage of her children (Gen 27:46); her suggestions as to any domestic arrangements meet with due attention (2Ki 4:9); and occasionally she criticizes the conduct of her husband in terms of great severity (1Sa 25:25; 2Sa 6:20).
The relations of husband and wife appear to have been characterized by affection and tenderness. He is occasionally described as the friend of his wife (Jer 3:20; Hos 3:1), and his love for her is frequently noticed (Gen 24:67; Gen 29:18). On the other hand, the wife was the consolation of the husband in time of trouble (Gen 24:67), and her grief at his loss presented a picture of the most abject woe (Joe 1:8). No stronger testimony, however, can be afforded as to the ardent affection of husband and wife than that which we derive from the general tenor of the book of Canticles. At the same time we cannot but think that the exceptions to this state of affairs were more numerous than is consistent with our ideas of matrimonial happiness. One of the evils inseparable from polygamy is the discomfort arising from the jealousies and quarrels of the several wives, as instanced in the households of Abraham and Elkanaah (Gen 21:11; 1Sa 1:6). The purchase of wives, and the small amount of liberty allowed to daughters in the choice of husbands, must inevitably have led to unhappy unions. The allusions to the misery of a contentious and brawling wife in the Proverbs (Pro 19:13; Pro 21:9; Pro 21:19; Pro 27:15) convey the impression that the infliction was of frequent occurrence in Hebrew households, and in the Mishna (Ketub. 7:6) the fact of a woman being noisy is laid down as an adequate ground for divorce. In the N.T. the mutual relations of husband and wife are a subject of frequent exhortation (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:4-5; 1Pe 3:1-7): it is certainly a noticeable coincidence that these exhortations should be found exclusively in the epistles addressed to Asiatics, nor is it improbable that they were more particularly needed for them than for Europeans.
The duties of the wife in the Hebrew household were multifarious. In addition to the general superintendence of the domestic arrangements, such as cooking, from which even women of rank were not exempted (Gen 18:6; 2Sa 13:8), and the distribution of food at meal- times (Pro 31:15), the manufacture of the clothing and the various textures required in an Eastern establishment devolved upon her (Pro 31:13; Pro 31:21-22); and if she were a model of activity and skill, she produced a surplus of fine linen shirts and girdles, which she sold, and so, like a well-freighted merchant-ship, brought in wealth to her husband from afar (Pro 31:14; Pro 31:24). The poetical description of a good housewife drawn in the last chapter of the Proverbs is both filled up and in some measure illustrated by the following minute description of a wife’s duties towards her husband, as laid down in the Mishna: She must grind corn, and bake, and wash, and cook, and suckle his child, make his bed, and work in wool. If she brought her husband one bondwoman, she need not grind, bake, or wash; if two, she need not cook nor suckle his child; if three, she need not make his bed nor work in wool; if four, she may sit in her chair of state (Ketub. v. 5). Whatever money she earned by her labor belonged to her husband (6:1). The qualification not only of working, but of working at home (Tit 2:5, where is preferable to ), was insisted on in the wife, and to spin in the street was regarded as a violation of Jewish customs (Ketub. 7:6).
The legal rights of the wife are noticed in Exo 21:10, under the three heads of food, raiment, and duty of marriage or conjugal right. These were defined with great precision by the Jewish doctors, for thus only could one of the most cruel effects of polygamy be averted, viz. the sacrifice of the rights of the many in favor of the one whom the lord of the modern harem selects for his special attention. The regulations of the Talmudists, founded on Exo 21:10, may be found in the Mishna (Ketub. av. 6-9).
X. The allegorical and typical allusions to marriage have exclusive reference to one subject, viz. to exhibit the spiritual relationship between God and his people. The earliest form, in which the image is implied, is in the expressions to go a whoring, and whoredom, as descriptive of the rupture of that relationship by acts of idolatry. These expressions have by some writers been taken in their primary and literal sense, as pointing to the licentious practices of idolaters. But this destroys the whole point of the comparison, and is opposed to the plain language of Scripture: for
(1) Israel is described as the false wife playing the harlot (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:1; Jer 3:6; Jer 3:8);
(2) Jehovah is the injured husband, who therefore divorces her (Psa 73:27; Jer 2:20; Hos 4:12; Hos 9:1); and
(3) the other party in the adultery is specified, sometimes generally, as idols or false gods (Deu 31:16; Jdg 2:17; 1Ch 5:25; Eze 20:30; Eze 23:30), and sometimes particularly, as in the case of the worship of goats (A.V. devils, Lev 17:7), Molech (Lev 20:5), wizards (Lev 20:6), an ephod (Jdg 8:27), Baalim (Jdg 8:33), and even the heart and eyes (Num 15:39)-the last of these objects being such as wholly to exclude the idea of actual adultery. The image is drawn out more at length by Ezekiel (chap. 23), who compares the kingdoms of Samaria and Judah to the harlots Aholah and Aholibah; and again by Hosea (chap. 1, 3), whose marriage with an adulterous wife, his separation from her, and subsequent reunion with her, were designed to be a visible lesson to the Israelites of their dealings with Jehovah.
The direct comparison with marriage is confined in the O.T. to the prophetic writings, including the Canticles as an allegorical work. SEE CANTICLES. The actual relation between Jehovah and his people is generally the point of comparison (Isa 54:5; Isa 62:4; Jer 3:14; Hos 2:19; Mal 2:11); but sometimes the graces consequent thereon are described under the image of bridal attire (Isa 49:18; Isa 61:10), and the joy of Jehovah in his Church under that of the joy of a bridegroom (Isa 62:5).
In the N.T. the image of the bridegroom is transferred from Jehovah to Christ (Mat 9:15; Joh 3:29), and that of the bride to the Church (2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9; Rev 22:17), and the comparison thus established is converted by St. Paul into an illustration of the position and mutual duties of man and wife (Eph 5:23-32). The suddenness of the Messiah’s appearing, particularly at the last day, and the necessity of watchfulness, are inculcated in the parable of the Ten Virgins, the imagery of which is borrowed from the customs of the marriage-ceremony (Mat 25:1-13). The Father prepares the marriage-feast for his Son, the joys that result from the union being thus represented (Mat 22:1-14; Mat 25:10; Rev 19:9; comp. Mat 8:11), while the qualifications requisite for admission into that union are prefigured by the marriage-garment (Mat 22:11). The breach of the union is, as before, described as fornication or whoredom in reference to the mystical Babylon (Rev 17:1-2; Rev 17:5).
XI. Literature. The most important ancient literature on all the marriage questions is contained in the third order () of the Mishna, five tractates of which treat respectively
1. On the Levirate law;
2. On the marriage-instrument;
3. On suspicion of having violated the marriage-bond;
4. On divorce; and,
5. On betrothal.
To these must be added the Gemaras or Talmuds on these tractates. Maimonides devotes six tractates of the second volume of his Jad Ha- Chazaka to Biblical and Talmudic gamology, giving an abridgment of the traditional enactments. Jacob ben-Asher occupies the entire third volume of his Tur, called Eben Ha-Ezar, with marriage in its various ramifications, and gives a lucid epitome of the ancient code. Of modern writers are to be mentioned Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Mioses, 1:450 sq.; 2:1 sq.; Saalschtz, Das Mosaiische Recht, 2:735 sq.; by the same author, Archaologie der tlebrder, 2:173 sq.; Ewald, Die Alterthmer der Volkes Israel, p. 218 sq.; Geiger, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrjft (Frankfort-on-the- Main), 4:36 sq., 345 sq.; Jiidische Zeitschrift (Breslau, 1862), 1:19 sq., 253 sq.; Stein and Susskind’s Israelitischer Volkslehrer, 1:192; 4:282, 301, 315; v. 323; vi,’74; 7:264; 8:73; 9:171; Frankel, Grundlinien des Mosaisch-talmudischen Eherechts (Breslau, 1860); Leopold Law, Ben Chananja, vol. iii-vi. Among the writers on special points we may notice Benary, De Hebr. Leviratu (Berlin, 1835); Redslob’s Leiiratsehe (Leipz. 1836); and Kurtz’s Ehe des Hosea (Dorpat, 1859). SEE WOMAN.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Marriage
was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen. 4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record.
It See ms to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen. 24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17; 1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic law made no change.
In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride’s parents, to which all friends were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband’s home.
Our Lord corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt. 22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be “honourable” (Heb. 13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate times (1 Tim. 4:3).
The marriage relation is used to represent the union between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the “Bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Rev. 19:7-9).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Marriage
(See ADAM) The charter of marriage is Gen 2:24, reproduced by our Lord with greater distinctness in Mat 19:4-5; “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain, shall be one flesh.” The Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch reads “twain” or “two” in Gen 2:24; compare as to this joining in one flesh of husband and wife, the archetype of which is the eternally designed union of Christ and the church, Eph 5:31; Mar 10:5-9; 1Co 6:16; 1Co 7:2. In marriage husband and wife combine to form one perfect human being; the one is the complement of the other. So Christ makes the church a necessary adjunct to Himself. He is the Archetype from whom, as the pattern, the church is formed (Rom 6:5). He is her Head, as the husband is of the wife (1Co 11:3; 1Co 15:45). Death severs bridegroom and bride, but cannot separate Christ and His bride (Mat 19:6; Joh 10:28-29; Joh 13:1; Rom 8:35-39).
In Eph 5:32 translated “this mystery is great,” i.e. this truth, hidden once but now revealed, namely, Christ’s spiritual union with the church, mystically represented by marriage, is of deep import. Vulgate wrongly translated “this is a great sacrament,” Rome’s plea for making marriage a sacrament. Not marriage in general, but the marriage of Christ and the church, is the great mystery, as the following words prove, “I say it in regard to (eis) Christ and in regard to (eis) the church,” whereas Gen 2:24 refers to literal marriage. Transl. Eph 5:30, “we are members of His (glorified) body, being (formed) out of (ek) His flesh and of His bones.” Adam’s deep sleep wherein Eve was formed out of His opened side, symbolizes Christ’s death which was the birth of the spouse, the church (Joh 12:24; Joh 19:34-35). As Adam gave Eve a new name, ‘ishah, “woman” or “wife” the counterpart of iysh, “man” or “husband,” so Christ gives the church His new name; He, Solomon, she, the Shulamite (Son 6:13; Rev 2:17; Rev 3:12).
The propagation of the church from Christ, as that of Eve from Adam, is the foundation of the spiritual marriage. Natural marriage rests on the spiritual marriage, whereby Christ left the Father’s bosom to woo to Himself the church out of a lost world. His earthly mother as such He holds secondary to His spiritual bride (Luk 2:48-49; Luk 8:19-21; Luk 11:27-28). He shall again leave His Father’s abode to consummate the union (Mat 25:1-10; Rev 19:7). Marriage is the general rule laid down for most men, as not having continency (1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:5, etc.). The existing “distress” (1Co 7:26) was Paul’s reason then for recommending celibacy where there was the gift of continency. In all cases his counsel is true, “that they that have wives be as though they had none,” namely, in permanent possession, not making idols of them.
Scripture teaches the unity of husband and wife; the indissolubleness of marriage save by death or fornication (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Rom 7:3); monogamy; the equality of both (iysh) and (ishah) being correlative, and she a “help-meet for him,” i.e. a helping one in whom as soon as he sees her he may recognize himself), along with the subordination of the wife, consequent on her formation subsequently and out of him, and her having been first to fall.(1Co 11:8-9; 1Ti 2:13-15.) (See ADAM.) Love, honor, and cherishing are his duty; helpful, reverent subjection, a meek and quiet spirit, her part; both together being heirs of the grace of life (1Pe 3:1-7; 1Co 14:34-35). Polygamy began with the Cainites. (See LAMECH; DIVORCE; CONCUBINE.) The jealousies of Abraham’s (Gen 16:6) and Elkanah’s wives illustrate the evils of polygamy. Scripture commends monogamy (Psa 128:3; Pro 5:18; Pro 18:22; Pro 19:14; Pro 31:10-29; Ecc 9:9).
Monogamy superseded polygamy subsequently to the return from Babylon. Public opinion was unfavorable to presbyters and women who exercise holy functions marrying again; for conciliation and expediency sake, therefore, Paul recommended that a candidate should be married only once, not having remarried after a wife’s death or divorce (1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12; 1Ti 5:9; Luk 2:36-37; 1Co 7:40); the reverse in the case of young widows (1Ti 5:14). Marriage is honorable; but fornication, which among the Gentiles was considered indifferent, is stigmatized (Heb 13:4; Act 15:20). Marriage of Israelites with Canaanites was forbidden, lest it should lead God’s people into idolatry (Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3-4). In Lev 18:18 the prohibition is only against taking a wife’s sister “beside the other (namely, the wife) in her lifetime.”
Our Christian reason for prohibiting such marriage after the wife’s death is because man and wife are one, and the sister-in-law is to be regarded in the same light as the sister by blood. Marriage with a deceased brother’s wife (the Levirate law) was favored in Old Testament times, in order to raise up seed to a brother (Gen 38:8; Mat 22:25). The high priest must marry only an Israelite virgin (Lev 21:13-14); heiresses must marry in their own tribe, that their property might not pass out of the tribe. The parents, or confidential friend, of the bridegroom chose the bride (Genesis 24; Gen 21:21; Gen 38:6). The parents’ consent was asked first, then that of the bride (Gen 24:58). The presents to the bride are called mohar, those to the relatives mattan. Between betrothal and marriage all communication between the betrothed ones was carried on through “the friend of the bridegroom” (Joh 3:29). She was regarded as his wife, so that faithlessness was punished with death (Deu 22:23-24); the bridegroom having the option of putting her away by a bill of divorcement (Deu 24:1; Mat 1:19).
No formal religious ceremony attended the wedding; but a blessing was pronounced, and a “covenant of God” entered into (Eze 16:8; Mal 2:14; Pro 2:17; Gen 24:60; Rth 4:11-12). The essential part of the ceremony was the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The bridegroom wore an ornamental turban; Isa 61:10, “ornaments,” rather (peer) “a magnificent headdress” like that of the high priest, appropriate to the “kingdom of priests” (Exo 19:6); the bride wore “jewels” or “ornaments” in general, trousseau. He had a nuptial garland or crown (Son 3:11, “the crown wherewith His mother (the human race; for He is the Son of man, not merely Son of Mary) crowned Him in the day of His espousals”); and was richly perfumed (Son 3:6). The bride took a preparatory bath (Eze 23:40). This is the allusion in Eph 5:26-27; “Christ loved … gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church not having spot.”
The veil (tsaip) was her distinctive dress, covering the whole person, so that the trick played on Jacob was very possible (Gen 24:65; Gen 29:23); the symbol of her subjection to her husband’s power, therefore called “power on her head” (1Co 11:10). (See DRESS.) Our “nuptials” is derived from nubo, “to veil one’s self.” She also wore girdles for the breasts (“attire,” kishurim) which she would not readily forget (Jer 2:32). Also a gilded or gold “crown” or chaplet (kullah), a white robe sometimes embroidered with gold thread (Rev 19:8; Psa 45:13-14) and jewels (Isa 61:10). Late in the evening the bridegroom came with his groomsmen (“companions,” Jdg 14:11; “children of the bridechamber,” Mat 9:15), singers and torch or lamp bearers leading the way (Jer 25:10); the bride meantime with her maidens eagerly awaited his coming.
Then he led the bride and her party in procession home with gladness to the marriage supper (Mat 25:6; Mat 22:1-11; Joh 2:2; Psa 45:15). The women of the place flocked out to gaze. The nuptial song was sung; hence in Psa 78:63 “their maidens were not praised” in nuptial song (Hebrew) is used for “were not given in marriage,” margin. The bridegroom having now received the bride, his “friend’s joy (namely, in bringing them together) was fulfilled” in hearing the bridegroom’s voice (Joh 3:29). Son 3:11; the feast lasted for seven or even 14 days, and was enlivened by riddles, etc. (Jdg 14:12.) Wedding garments were provided by the host, not to wear which was an insult to him. Large waterpots for washing the hands and for “purifying” ablutions were provided (Mar 7:3).
These had to be “filled” before Jesus changed the water into wine; a nice propriety in the narrative, the minor circumstances being in keeping with one another; the feast being advanced, the water was previously all emptied out of the waterpots for the guests’ ablutions (Joh 2:7). Light is thrown upon Egyptian marriages by a translation of an Egyptian contract of marriage, by Eugene Revillout. It is written in the demotic character upon a small sheet of papyrus, No. 2482, Cat. Egyptien, Musee du Louvre. It is dated in the month of Choiach, year 33 of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and the contracting parties are Patina, son of Pchelkhous, and the lady, Ta-outem, the daughter of Rehu. The terms of the deed are singular as to the dowry required on both sides, together with the clauses providing for repudiation.
After the actual dowry is recited, the sum being specified in shekels, the rights of the children which may hereafter come from the marriage, as well as the payment of the mother’s pin-money, are secured by the following clause: “thy pocket money for one year is besides thy toilet money which I give thee each year, and it is your right to exact the payment of thy toilet money and thy pocket money, which are to be placed to my account, which I give thee. Thy oldest son, my oldest son, shall be the heir of all my property, present and future. I will establish thee as wife.” Practicing in marriage law in Egypt was one of the priestly functions, for at the conclusion the contract states that “the writer of this act is … the priest of Ammon Horpneter, son of Smin” (?). The bridegroom was exempted from military service for a year (Deu 20:7; Deu 24:5).
Women in Scripture times were not secluded as now, but went about married and single with faces unveiled (Gen 12:14; Gen 24:16; Gen 24:65). Some were prophetesses, as Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and took part in public concerns (Exo 15:20; 1Sa 18:6-7; Abigail, 1Sa 25:14-25). The duties of husband and wife are laid down (Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:4-5; 1Pe 3:1-7). Brawling wives stand in contrast to the model wife, God’s gift (Pro 19:13; Pro 21:9; Pro 21:19; Pro 27:15; Pro 31:10-31). (On the spiritual harlot, see BEAST and ANTICHRIST.) Woman, harlot, bride, and ultimately wife, i.e. Christ’s church in probation, the apostate church, and the glorified church, form the grand theme of the Bible from first to last. Israel had God for her “husband,” she became a harlot when she left Him for idols (Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20; Jer 3:1; Jer 3:6; Jer 3:8; Jer 3:14).
Again, Jehovah is to reunite Israel to Him as His earthly bride, as the elect church is His heavenly bride (Isa 54:5, etc.; Isa 62:4-5; Hos 2:19; 2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9; Rev 22:17). The Father prepares for His Son the marriage feast (Mat 22:1-14). The apostate church, resting on and conformed to the godless world, is the harlot riding on the beast and attired in scarlet as the beast. God’s eternal principle in her case as in Israel’s and Judah’s shall hold good, and even already is being illustrated in Rome’s being stripped by the world power; when the church sins with the world, the world the instrument of her sin shall be the instrument of her punishment (Ezekiel 23; Rev 17:1-5; Rev 17:16-18). (See IDOLATRY.)
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
MARRIAGE
From the beginning Gods ideal for marriage has been that one man and one woman live together, independent of parents, in lifelong union (Gen 2:18-24; Mat 19:4-6). This ideal union is broken only by death, in which case the surviving partner is free to remarry (Rom 7:2-3; 1Co 7:39; 1Ti 5:14).
Polygamy in the Old Testament
The early history of the human race is one of almost total departure from God, so that only a very small minority of people retained any real understanding of God (Gen 6:1-8; Rom 1:20-27). Polygamy, the practice of having several wives at the same time, became so widespread that even Gods people did not always regard it as wrong (Gen 25:6; 2Sa 5:13; 1Ki 11:1-3). Inevitably, jealousy and conflict resulted, leading them eventually to recognize that Gods ideal of monogamy was best (Gen 21:8-10; Gen 29:21-35; Gen 30:1-24; Deu 21:15-17; Jdg 8:30-35; Jdg 9:1-6; 1Sa 1:4-8; 2Sa 3:2-5; 1Ki 11:1-8).
In ancient Israel it was considered a matter of social shame if a wife did not have children (Gen 16:1; Gen 30:1; 1Sa 1:10-11; Luk 1:7). According to one custom, if a wife was not able to have children, she may have allowed her husband to produce a child by her maidservant. All legal rights over the child belonged to the wife, not the maid (Gen 16:2; Gen 30:1-8). (Concerning the case where a married man died without leaving children see WIDOW.)
Marriage customs
Among the ancient Israelites, engagement to marry was almost as binding as marriage. Unfaithfulness within an engagement was considered as bad as adultery (Deu 22:23-27; Mat 1:18-20). Parents usually chose the marriage partners for their sons and daughters (Gen 21:21; Gen 24:1-4; Gen 38:6; Rth 3:1-5), though they may have taken into consideration any preference that a son or daughter indicated (Gen 24:58-61; Gen 34:4; Gen 34:8; Jdg 14:2; 1Sa 18:20-21).
The custom was for the bridegroom to give some payment or service to the parents of the bride as the price for the daughter he had taken from them (Gen 29:18; Gen 29:30; Gen 34:12; 1Sa 18:25). The brides parents usually gave a gift to the married couple which, in wealthy families, often consisted of servants or land (Gen 29:24; Gen 29:29; Jdg 1:15; 1Ki 9:16).
Both the bridegroom and the bride wore special clothes for the wedding ceremony and the associated festivities (Isa 61:10; Jer 2:32; Rev 19:7-8; Rev 21:2). The bridegroom had his best man, and the bride her bridesmaids (Psa 45:14; Joh 3:29). The bridegroom and his friends went and brought the bride from her fathers house to his own house, where the feast was held (Psa 45:14-15; Mat 25:1-13). The wedding feast was a time of great celebration, and all who were invited as guests were given special clothes for the occasion (Mat 22:1-4; Mat 22:11-12; Joh 2:1-11). Festivities sometimes went on for a week (Gen 29:27; Mat 9:14-15).
Total union
Whatever the traditions or procedures, marriage is more than a social custom or a legal arrangement. It is also more than a sexual relationship. It is an unselfish giving of each partner to the other in a union that excludes all others. God intends people to have and to enjoy sexual relations, but only as part of a total relationship where a man and a woman commit themselves to each other for life (Mat 19:5-6; Heb 13:4). Divorce is not part of Gods plan for human society (Mal 2:16; Mat 5:32; Mat 19:8-9; see DIVORCE).
Human sexuality is one of Gods gifts to humankind and, like all Gods gifts, it can be properly enjoyed or shamefully abused (1Th 4:4-5; 1Ti 4:3-4). The Bible encourages a healthy enjoyment of sex within marriage (Pro 5:18-19; Ecc 9:9; Song of Son 1:12-13; Son 7:6-13; Son 8:1-3), but it forbids sexual relations before marriage or with any person other than ones marriage partner (Lev 18:6-18; Lev 20:10; Deu 22:20-22; Mal 2:14; Mar 6:18; Rom 7:2; cf. Mat 5:27-28; see ADULTERY; FORNICATION). It condemns prostitution, incest, bestiality and homosexual practices as perversions. They are sins against ones own body (Lev 18:22-23; Lev 19:29; Lev 20:14-17; Rom 1:26-27; 1Co 6:9-10; 1Co 6:13-18; Rev 22:15).
In marriage as God intended it, there is an equality between the man and the woman (Gen 2:23-24). Though there may be physical, emotional and psychological differences between the male and the female, the two complement each other so that each is equipped to do what the other cannot. Together they form a unit, with each dependent on the other (1Co 7:3-4; 1Co 11:11-12).
God holds the man ultimately responsible for the household that comes into being through the marriage (Gen 3:9-12; 1Co 11:3; cf. Rom 5:12). Husbands have at times thought this responsibility gives them special privileges that allow them to treat their wives as inferiors instead of as equals (Gen 3:16), but such a state of affairs was not Gods original intention. Sin has spoiled the marriage relationship as it has spoiled everything else in human society. However, because of the exercise of Christian love, Christian marriage ought to achieve marital harmony, even in circumstances where other marriages do not.
Christian love is the sort of self-sacrificing love that Christ exercised serving others rather than pleasing self. Husband and wife must exercise such love towards each other (Eph 5:1-2), though the husband in particular is required to make sacrifices (Eph 5:25-29).
Likewise husband and wife must exercise submission to each other (Eph 5:21), though the wife in particular is required to recognize the husbands headship of the family (Eph 5:22-24). Where each is prepared to sacrifice self-interest for the sake of the other, the marriage will be enriched (Eph 5:33; see HUSBAND; WIFE). It will also be a fitting picture of the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph 5:29-32).
Special considerations
Since their relationship with Christ governs all their other relationships, Christians should not marry those who do not share their faith in Jesus Christ (2Co 6:14-16; cf. 1Co 7:39). However, where one partner of a non-Christian marriage later becomes a Christian, the marriage should be maintained. God understands the circumstances, and the Christian should do everything possible to make the marriage work harmoniously (1Co 7:12-16).
In certain circumstances it may be Gods will for a person not to marry, and this may at times require much self-discipline (Jer 16:2; Mat 19:12; 1Co 1:7-8,17,32-35). Even among those who intend to marry, self-discipline is necessary. They must take into consideration the added responsibilities that marriage brings (1Co 7:32-34), and must not marry hastily, particularly when there is the possibility of increased social and economic hardship (1Co 7:25-31). But if an unmarried person is constantly aflame with sexual passion, it may be better to marry, lest the temptations prove to be too great (1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:36-38; cf. 1Co 7:5).
While the Christian teaching on marriage is based on principles that the Creator set out for his creatures, it also acknowledges the weaknesses of human nature and the need to deal with them sensibly. Christian morality requires Gods people to uphold his standards when others want to destroy them. At the same time Christian love requires them to give support to those who, having ignored Gods law, are sorry for their sin and need help in rebuilding their lives (Joh 8:1-11; 1Co 6:9-11; Gal 6:1-2).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Marriage
MARRIAGE
1. Forms of Marriage.There are two forms of marriage among primitive races: (1) where the husband becomes part of his wifes tribe, (2) where the wife becomes part of her husbands tribe.
(1) W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia) gives to this form the name sadika, from the sadac or gift given to the wife, (a) The union may be confined to an occasional visit to the wife in her home (mota marriage). This is distinguished from mere prostitution, in that no disgrace is attached, and the children are recognized by the trine; cf. Samsons marriage. (b) The husband may be definitely incorporated into his wifes tribe (beena marriage). The wife meets her husband on equal terms; children belong to her trine, and descent is reckoned on the mothers side. Women could inherit in Arabia under this system (op. cit. p. 94). Possible traces in OT are the marriages of Jacob (Laban claims wives and children as his own, Gen 31:31; Gen 31:42), Moses (Exo 2:21; Exo 4:18), Samson (Jdg 14:1-20; Jdg 15:1-20, Jdg 16:4; there is no hint that he meant to take his wife home; his kid seems to be the sadac or customary present). So the Shechemites must be circumcised (Gen 34:15); Josephs sons born in Egypt are adopted by Jacob (Gen 48:5); Abimelech, the son of Gideons Shechemite concubine (Jdg 8:31), is a Shechemite (Jdg 9:1-5). The words of Gen 2:24 may have originally referred to this custom, though they are evidently not intended to do so by the narrator, since beena marriages were already out of date when they were written. Many of the instances quoted can be explained as due to special circumstances, but the admitted existence of such marriages in Arabia makes it probable that we should find traces of them among the Semites in general. They make it easier to understand the existence of the primitive custom of the matriarchate, or reckoning of descent through females. In addition to the cases already quoted, we may add the closeness of maternal as compared with paternal relationships, evidenced in bars of marriage (see below, 3), and the special responsibility of the maternal uncle or brother (Gen 24:29; Gen 34:25, 2Sa 13:22). It is evident that the influence of polygamy would be in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with each wife.
(2) The normal type is where the wife becomes the property of her husband, who is her Baal or possessor (Hos 2:16), she herself being Beulah (Isa 62:4). She and her children belong to his tribe, and he alone has right of divorce. (a) In unsettled times the wife will he acquired by war (Jdg 5:30). She is not merely a temporary means of pleasure, or even a future mother, but a slave and an addition to a mans wealth. Deu 21:10-14 regulates the procedure in cases of capture; in Jdg 19:1-30; Jdg 20:1-48; Jdg 21:1-25 we have an instance of the custom. Traces may remain in later marriage procedure, e.g. in the band of the bridegrooms friends escorting, i.e. capturing, the bride, and in her feigned resistance, as among the Bedouin (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 81). (b) Capture gives place to purchase and ultimately to contract. The daughter is valuable to the clan as a possible mother of warriors, and cannot be parted with except for a consideration. Hence the dowry (see below, 5) paid to the brides parents.
2. Polygamy among the Hebrews was confined to a plurality of wives (polygyny). There is no certain trace in OT of a plurality of husbands (polyandry), though the Levirate marriage is sometimes supposed to be a survival. The chief causes of polygyny were(a) the desire for a numerous offspring, or the barrenness of first wife (Abrahams case is directly ascribed to this, and among many peoples it is permitted on this ground alone); (b) the position and importance offered by numerous alliances (e.g. Solomon); (c) the existence of slavery, which almost implies it. It can obviously be prevalent only where there is a disproportionate number of females, and, except in a state of war, is possible only to those wealthy enough to provide the necessary dowry. A further limitation is implied in the fact that in more advanced stages, when the harem is established, the wife when secured is a source, not of wealth, but of expense.
Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the Judges, David, Solomon; 1Ch 7:4 is evidence of its prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1Sa 1:1 f.) is significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoiada (2Ch 24:3) as a priest. But it is always treated with suspicion; it is incompatible with the ideal of Gen 2:24, and its origin is ascribed to Lamech, the Cainite (Gen 4:19). In Deu 17:17 the king is warned not to multiply wives; later regulations fixed the number at eighteen for a king and four for an ordinary man. The quarrels and jealousies of such a narrative as Gen 29:21-30 are clearly intended to illustrate its evils, and it is in part the cause of the troubles of the reigns of David and Solomon. Legislation (see below, 6) safeguarded the rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to the Rabbinic interpretation of Lev 21:13 the high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic happiness in the Bible is always connected with monogamy (2Ki 4:1-44, Psa 128:1-6, Pro 31:1-31, Sir 25:1; Sir 25:8; Sir 26:1; Sir 26:13). The marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel ( 10) implied monogamy as the ideal state. Polygamy is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point of view both of religion and of anthropology; monogamy is by far the most common form of human marriage; it was so also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge Westermarck, Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being, however, apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVII. i. 3, cf. 2). Its possibility is implied by the technical continuance of the Levirate law, and is proved by the early interpretation of 1Ti 3:2, whether correct or not ( 8). Justin (Dial. 134, 141) reproaches the Jews of his day with having four or even five wives, and marrying as they wish, or as many as they wish. The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gershom (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 1000), and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.
3. Bars to Marriage
(1) Prohibited degrees.Their range varies extraordinarily among different peoples, but on the whole it is wider among uncivilized than among civilized races (Westermarck, op. cit. p. 297), often embracing the whole tribe. The instinctive impulse was not against marriage with a near relative qua relative, but against marriage where there was early familiarity. Whatever is the origin of bars to marriage, they are certainly early associated with the feeling that it is indecent for housemates to intermarry (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 170). The origin of the instinct is natural selection, consanguineous marriages being on the whole unfavourable to the species, in man as among animals. This, of course, was not consciously realized; the instinct took the form of a repulsion to union with those among whom one had lived; as these would usually be blood relations, that which we recognize as horror of incest was naturally developed (Westermarck, p. 352). We find in OT no trace of dislike to marriage within the tribe (i.e. endogamy), though, judging by Arab analogies, it may have originally existed; on the contrary, the Hebrews were strongly endogamous, marrying within the nation. The objection, however, to incestuous marriages was strong, though in early times there was laxity with regard to intermarriage with relatives on the fathers side, a natural result of the matriarchate and of polygamy, where each wife with her family formed a separate group in her own tent. Abram married his half-sister (Gen 20:12); 2Sa 13:13, Eze 22:11 imply the continuance of the practice. Nahor married his niece (Gen 11:29), and Amram his paternal aunt (Exo 6:20). On marriage with a stepmother see below, 6. Jacob married two sisters (cf. Jdg 15:2). Legislation is found in Lev 18:7-17; Lev 20:11 (cf. Deu 27:20; Deu 27:22-23); for details see the commentaries. We note the omission of prohibition of marriage with a niece, and with widow of maternal uncle. Lev 18:13 forbids marriage not with a deceased but with a living wifes sister, i.e. a special form of polygamy. The bastard of Deu 23:2 is probably the offspring of an incestuous marriage. An heiress was not allowed to marry outside her tribe (Num 36:6; cf. Num 27:4, Tob 6:12; Tob 7:12). For restrictions on priests see Lev 21:7; Lev 21:14. There were no caste restrictions, though difference in rank would naturally be an objection (1Sa 18:18; 1Sa 18:23). Outside the prohibited degrees consanguineous marriages were common (Gen 24:4, Tob 4:12); in Jdg 14:3 the best marriage is from thy brethren. Jubilees 4 maintains that all the patriarchs from Adam to Noah married near relatives. Cousin marriages among the Jews are said to occur now three times more often than among other civilized peoples (Westermarck, p. 481).
(2) Racial bars arose from religious and historical causes. Gen 24:1-67; Gen 28:1-22; Gen 34:1-31, Num 12:1, Jdg 14:3 illustrate the objection to foreign marriages; Esaus Hittite wives are a grief to his parents (Gen 26:34; Gen 27:46); cf. Lev 24:10. The marriage of Joseph (Gen 41:45) is due to stress of circumstances, but David (2Sa 3:3) and Solomon (1Ki 3:1; 1Ki 11:1) set a deliberate example which was readily Imitated (1Ki 16:31). Among the common people there must have been other cases similar to Naomis (Rth 1:4): Bathsheba (2Sa 11:8), Hiram (1Ki 7:14), Amasa (1Ch 2:17), Jehozabad (2Ch 24:26) are the children of mixed marriages. They are forbidden with the inhabitants of Canaan (Exo 34:16, Deu 7:3), but tolerated with Moabites and Egyptians (Deu 23:7). Their prevalence was a trouble to Ezra (9, 10) and to Nehemiah (Neh 10:30; Neh 13:23). Tob 4:12; Tob 6:16, 1Ma 1:15 renew the protest against them. In the Diaspora they were permitted on condition of proselytism, but Jubilees 30 forbids them absolutely; they are fornication. Jewish strictness in this respect was notorious (Tac. Hist. v. 5; cf. Act 10:28). The case of Timothys parents (Act 16:1-3) is an example of the greater laxity which prevailed in central Asia Minor. It is said that now the proportion of mixed to pure marriages among the Jews is about 1 to 500 (Westermarck, p. 375), though it varies greatly in different countries. 1Co 7:39 probably discourages marriage with a heathen (cf. 1Co 7:12 ff; 1Co 9:5), but the general teaching of the Epp. would remove any religious bar to intermarriage between Christians of different race, though it does not touch the social or physiological advisability.
4. Levirate Marriage (Lat. lvir, a brother-in-law).In Deu 25:5-10 (no || in other codes of OT) it is enacted that if a man die leaving no son (child LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , Josephus, Mat 22:24), his brother, if he lives on the same estate, is to take his widow, and the eldest child is to succeed to the name and inheritance of the deceased (cf. Gen 38:9). If the survivor refuses, a formal declaration is to be made before the elders of the city, and the widow is to express her contempt by loosing his sandal and spitting in his face. The law is a codification, possibly a restriction, of an existing custom. (a) It is presupposed for the patriarchal age in Gen 38:1-30, the object of this narrative being to insist on the duty of the survivor; (b) Heb. has a special word = to perform the duty of a husbands brother; (c) the custom is found with variations in different parts of the worldIndia, Tibet, Madagascar, etc. In India it is confined to the case where there is no child, and lasts only till an heir is born; sometimes it is only permissive. In other cases it operates without restriction, and may be connected with the form of polyandry where the wife is the common property of all the brothers. But it does not necessarily imply polyandry, of which indeed there is no trace in OT. Among the Indians, Persians, and Afghans it is connected with ancestor worship, the object being to ensure that there shall be some one to perform the sacrificial rites; the supposed indications of this among the Hebrews are very doubtful. In OT it is more probably connected with the desire to preserve the family name (a man lived through his children), and to prevent a division or alienation of property. On the other hand, the story of Rth 4:1-22 seems to belong to the circle of ideas according to which the wife is inherited as part of a mans property. Boaz marries Ruth as goel, not as levir, and the marriage is legally only a subordinate element in the redemption of the property. There is no stigma attached to the refusal of the nearer kinsman, and the son ranks as belonging to Boaz. The prohibited degrees in Lev 18:1-30 (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) make no exception in favour of the Levirate marriage, whether repealing or presupposing it is uncertain. In later times we have the Sadducees question in Mar 12:19||. It does not imply the continuance of the practice. It had fallen into disuse, and the Mishna invents many limitations to avoid the necessity of compliance. It was agreed that the woman must have no child (Dt. son), and the school both of Shammai and of the Sadducees apparently confined the law to the case of a betrothed, not a wedded, wife. If so, the difficulty was twofold, striking at the Levirate custom as well as at the belief in the Resurrection (Edershelm, LT ii. 400).
5. Marriage Customs
(1) The arranging of a marriage was normally in the hands of the parents (Gen 21:21; Gen 24:3; Gen 28:1; Gen 34:4, Jdg 14:2, 2Es 9:47); there are, in fact, few nations or periods where the children have a free choice. But (a) infant or child marriages were unknown; (b) the consent of the parties was, sometimes at least, sought (Gen 24:8); (c) the rule was not absolute; it might be broken wilfully (Gen 26:34), or under stress of circumstances (Exo 2:21); (d) natural feeling will always make itself felt in spite of the restrictions of custom; the sexes met freely, and romantic attachments were not unknown (Gen 29:10; Gen 34:3, Jdg 14:1, 1Sa 18:20); in these cases the initiative was taken by the parties. One view of Canticles is that it is a drama celebrating the victory of a village maidens faithfulness to her shepherd lover, in face of the attractions of a royal rival. It was a disgrace if a daughter remained unmarried (Sir 42:9); this fact is the key to 1Co 7:25 ff. (2) The betrothal was of a more formal and binding nature than our engagement; among the Arabs it is the only legal ceremony connected with a marriage. Gen 24:58; Gen 24:60 may preserve an ancient formula and blessing. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar) paid to the parents or representatives of the bride, the daughter being a valuable possession. Deu 22:29 (cf. Exo 22:18) orders its payment in a case of seduction, and 50 shekels is named as the average. In Gen 34:12 Hamor offers never so much dowry; cf. the presents of ch. 24. It might take the form of service (Gen 29:1-35, Jacob; 1Sa 18:25, David). Dowry, in our sense of provision for the wife, arose in two ways. (a) The parents provided for her, perhaps originally giving her a portion of the purchase money (Gen 24:61; Gen 29:24). Caleb gives his daughter a field (Jos 15:19 = Jdg 1:15); Solomons princess brings a dowry of a city (1Ki 9:16); Raguel gives his daughter half his goods (Tob 8:21; Tob 10:10). This dowry was retained by the wife if divorced, except in case of adultery. (b) The husband naturally signified his generosity and affection by gifts to his bride (Gen 24:53; Gen 34:12 [where gift is distinct from dowry], Est 2:9). According to the Mishna, the later ceremony of betrothal consisted in payment of a piece of money, or a gift, or the conveyance of a writing, in presence of two witnesses. A third method (by cohabitation) was strongly discountenanced. After betrothal the parties were legally in the position of a married couple. Unfaithfulness was adultery (Deu 22:23, Mat 1:19). The bridegroom was exempt from military service (Deu 20:7). Non-fulfilment of the marriage was a serious slight (1Sa 18:19, Jdg 14:19), but conceivable under certain circumstances (Gen 29:27).
(2) Wedding ceremonies.Great uncertainty attaches to the proceedings in Biblical times. We have to construct our picture from passing notices, combined with what we know of Arabic and later Jewish customs. In some cases there seems to have been nothing beyond the betrothal (Gen 24:63-67); or the wedding festivities followed it at once; but in later times there was a distinct interval, not exceeding a year in case of a virgin. Tobit (Tob 7:14) mentions a contract (cf. Mal 2:14), which became a universal feature. The first ceremony was the wedding procession (Psa 45:15, 1Ma 9:37), which may be a relic of marriage by capture, the bridegrooms friends (Mat 9:15, Joh 3:29; cf. 60 mighty men of Son 3:7) going, often by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants; in Jdg 14:11; Jdg 14:15; Jdg 14:20 Samsons comrades are necessarily taken from the brides people. The rejoicings are evidenced by the proverbial voice of the bridegroom, etc. (Jer 7:34 etc., Rev 18:23). Gen 24:53, Psa 45:13-15, Jer 2:32, Rev 19:8; Rev 21:2 speak of the magnificence of the bridal attire; Isa 61:10, of the garland of the bridegroom and jewels of the bride (cf. Isa 49:18); the veil is mentioned in Gen 24:65; Gen 29:23; the supposed allusions to the lustral bath of the Greeks (Rth 3:3, Eze 23:40, Eph 5:25) are very doubtful. The situation in Mat 25:1 is not clear. Are the virgins friends of the bridegroom waiting for his return with his bride, or friends of the bride waiting with her for him? All that it is possible to say is that the general conception is that of the wedding procession by night in which lights and torches have always played a large part. Another feature was the scattering of flowers and nuts; all who met the procession were expected to join in it or to salute it.
The marriage supper followed, usually in the home of the bridegroom (2Es 9:47); Gen 29:22, Jdg 14:10, Tob 8:19 are easily explained exceptions. Hospitality was a sacred duty; he who does not invite me to his marriage will not have me to his funeral. To refuse the invitation was a grave insult (Mat 22:1-46). Nothing is known of the custom, apparently implied in this passage, of providing a wedding garment for guests. Joh 2:1-25 gives us a picture of the feast in a middle-class home, where the resources are strained to the uttermost. It is doubtful whether the ruler of the feast (cf. Sir 32:1-2) is the best man (Sir 3:29, Jdg 14:20), the office being unusual in the simple life of Galilee (Edersheim, LT i. 355). There is nowhere any hint of a religious ceremony, though marriage was regarded with great reverence as symbolizing the union of God with Israel (ib. 353). The feast was no doubt quasi-sacramental (cf. the Latin confarreatio), and the marriage was consummated by the entry into the chamber (huppah). W. R. Smith (op. cit. p. 168) finds in this a relic of beena marriage (see above, 1), the huppah or canopy (Joe 2:16) being originally the wifes tent (Gen 24:67, Jdg 4:17); cf. the tent pitched for Absalom (2Sa 16:22). In Arab. [Note: Arabic.] , Syr., and Heb. the bridegroom is said to go in to the bride. Psa 19:5 speaks of his exultant coming forth on the following morning; the chamber can hardly refer there to the canopy under which in modern weddings the pair stand during the ceremony, though this has no doubt been evolved from the old tent.
The wedding festivities were not confined to the supper of the first night, at any rate in OT times. As now in Syria, the feast lasted for 7 days (Gen 29:27, Tob 11:10; Tob 8:19 [a fortnight]). The best picture is in Jdg 14:1-20, with its eating and drinking and not very refined merriment. Canticles is generally supposed to contain songs sung during these festivities; those now sung in Syria show a remarkable similarity. Jdg 7:1-7 in particular would seem to be the chorus in praise of the brides beauty, such as is now chanted, while she herself in a sword dance displays the charms of her person by the flashing firelight. During the week the pair are king and queen, enthroned on the threshing-board of the village. It is suggested that Solomon (Son 3:7) had become the nickname for this village king. Deu 24:5 exempts the bridegroom from military service for a year (cf. Deu 20:7).
6. Position of the wife.The practically universal form of marriage was the Baal type, where the wife passed under the dominion of her lord (Gen 3:16, Tenth Com.). Side by side with this was the ideal principle, according to which she was a help meet for him (Gen 2:18), and the legal theory was always modified in practice by the affection of the husband or the strong personality of the wife; cf. the position of the patriarchs wives, of women in Jg. or in Pr. (esp. 31); cf. 1Sa 25:18, 2Ki 4:8. But her value was largely that of a mother of children, and the position of a childless wife was unpleasant (Gen 16:4; Gen 30:1-4, 1Sa 1:6, 2Es 9:43). Polygamy led to favouritism; the fellow-wife is a rival (1Sa 1:6)a technical term. Deu 21:15 ff. safeguards the right of the firstborn of a hated wife; Exo 21:10 provides for the rendering of the duties of marriage to a first wife, even if a purchased coacubine; if they are withheld she is to go free (cf. Deu 21:14 of a captive). The difference between a wife and a concubine depended on the wifes higher position and birth, usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. She might claim the inheritance for her children (Gen 21:10); her slave could not be taken as concubine without her consent (Gen 16:2). As part of a mans chattels his wives were in certain cases inherited by his heir, with the limitation that a man could not take his own mother. The custom lasted in Arabia till forbidden by the Koran (ch. 4). In OT there is the case of Reuben and Bilhah (Gen 35:22; Gen 49:4), perhaps implying the continuance of the custom in the tribe of Reuben, after it had been proscribed elsewhere (Driver, ad loc.). It is presupposed in 2Sa 3:7, where Ishbosheth reproaches Abner for encroaching on his birthright, and in 2Sa 16:22, where Absalom thus publishes his claim to the kingdom. In 1Ki 2:22 Adonijah, in asking for Abishag, is claiming the eldest brothers inheritance. Eze 22:10 finds it still necessary to condemn the practice; cf. Deu 22:30, Lev 18:8, Rth 4:1-22 shows how the wife is regarded as part of the inheritance. A widow normally remained unmarried. If poor, her position was bad; cf. the injunctions in Dt., the prophets, and the Pastoral Epp. In royal houses her influence might be greater than that of the wife; e.g. the difference in the attitude of Bathsheba in 1Ki 1:16 and in 1Ki 2:19, and the power of the queen-mother (1Ki 15:13, 2Ki 11:1-21). There was a strong prejudice in later times against her re-marrying (Luk 2:36; Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XVII. xiii. 4, XVIII. vi. 6). There is no instance of a corresponding dislike to the marriage of a widower, but the wife was regarded as a mans property even after his death. St. Paul, however, permits re-marriage (1Co 7:39), and even enjoins it for younger widows (1Ti 5:14).
7. Adultery.If a bride was found not to be a virgin, she was to be stoned (Deu 22:13-21). A man who violated an unmarried girl was compelled to marry her with payment of dowry (Deu 22:29, cf. Exo 22:16). A priests daughter playing the harlot was to be burnt (Lev 21:9). Adultery holds a prominent place among social sins (Seventh and Tenth Com., Eze 18:11). If committed with a married or betrothed woman, the penalty was stoning for both parties, a betrothed damsel being spared if forced (Deu 22:22-27, Lev 20:10, Eze 16:40; Eze 23:45). The earlier penalty was hurning, as in Egypt (Gen 38:24; Tamar is virtually betrothed). In Num 5:11-31 the fact of adultery is to be established by ordeal, a custom found in many nations. It is to be noted that the test is not poison, but holy water; i.e. the chances are in favour of the accused. The general point of view is that adultery with a married woman is an offence against a neighbours property; the adultery of a wife is an offence against her husband, but she has no concern with his fidelity. It is not prohable that the extreme penalty was ever carried out (2Sa 11:1-27, Hos 3:1-5). The frequent denunciations in the prophets and Pr. (Pro 2:18; Pro 5:3; Pro 6:25) show the prevalence of the crime; the usual penalty was divorce with loss of dowry (cf. Mat 5:31). In the pericope of Joh 8:1-59, part of the test is whether Christ will set Himself against Moses by sanctioning the ahrogation of the Law; it is not implied that the punishment was ever actually inflicted; in fact, no instance of it is known. The answer (Joh 8:11) pardons the sinner, but by no means condones the sin: damnavit, sed peccatum non hominem (Aug.); cf. the treatment of the woman who was a sinner (Luk 7:47). The NT is uncompromising in its attitude towards this sin, including in its view all acts of unchastity as offences against God and the true self, as sanctified by His indwelling, no less than against ones neighbour (Mat 5:27, Act 15:29, 1Co 5:11; 1Co 6:9; 1Co 6:13-20, Gal 5:19, 1Th 4:3). The blessing on the virgins of Rev 14:4 probably refers to chastity, not celibacy; cf. the bed undefiled of Heb 13:4. The laxity of the age made it necessary to insist on purity as a primary Christian virtue (see Swete, ad loc.).
8. Divorce is taken for granted in OT (Lev 21:7; Lev 21:14; Lev 22:13, Num 30:9), it being the traditional right of the husband, as in Arabia, to put away his wife (Gen 21:14). The story of Hosea probably embodies the older procedure, which is regulated by the law of Deu 24:1. There must be a bill of divorcement (Isa 50:1, Jer 3:8), prepared on a definite charge, and therefore presumably before some public official, and formally given to the woman. (But cf. Mat 1:19, where possibility of private divorce is contemplated [or repudiation of betrothal?].) The time and expense thus involved would act as a check. Further, if the divorcee re-marries, she may not return to her former husbanda deterrent on hasty divorce, also on re-marriage, if there is any prospect of reconciliation. The right of divorce is withheld in two cases (Deu 22:19; Deu 22:29). There was great divergence of opinion as regards the ground if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found in her the nakedness of a thing. The school of Hillel emphasized the first clause, and interpreted it of the most trivial things, practically for any cause (Mat 19:3); that of Shammai laid stress rightly on the second clause, and confined it to unchastity. But the vague nature of the expression (cf. Deu 23:14), and the fact that Deu 22:22 enacts death for unchastity, show that something wider must be meant, probably immodest or indecent behaviour (Driver, ad loc.). In spite of the prohibition of Mal 2:13-16 and the stern attitude of many Rabbis, divorce continued to he frequent; Ezr 9:10 encouraged it. The Mishna allows it for violation of the Law or of Jewish customs, e.g. breaking a vow, appearing in public with dishevelled hair, or conversing indiscriminately with men. Practically the freedom was almost unlimited; the question was not what was lawful, but on what grounds a man ought to exercise the right the Law gave him. It was, of course, confined to the husband (1Sa 25:44 is simply an outrage on the part of Saul). Women of rank such as Salome (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XV. vii. 10) or Herodias (XVIII. v. 4) might arrogate it, but it is condemned as a breach of Jewish law. Christ contemplates its possibility in Mar 10:12, perhaps having in view the Greek and Roman world, where it was legal. But the words caused a difficulty to the early versions, which substitute desertion for divorce, and may be a later insertion, added for the sake of completeness. In a later period the Talmud allowed a wife to claim a divorce in certain cases, e.g. if her husband had a loathsome disease.
In the NT divorce seems to be forbidden absolutely (Mar 10:11, Luk 16:8, 1Co 7:10; 1Co 7:39). Our Lord teaches that the OT permission was a concession to a low moral standard, and was opposed to the ideal of marriage as an inseparable union of body and soul (Gen 2:23). But in Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9 He seems to allow it for fornication, an exception which finds no place in the parallels (cf. 1Co 7:15, which allows re-marriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen), (a) Fornication cannot here be sin before marriage; the sense of the passage demands that the word shall be taken in its wider sense (cf. Hos 2:5, Amo 7:17, 1Co 5:1); it defines the uncleanness of Deu 24:1 as illicit sexual intercourse. (b) Divorce cannot be limited to separation from bed and hoard, as by R.C. commentators (1Co 7:1-40 uses quite different words). To a Jew it always carried with it the right of re-marriage, and the words causeth her to commit adultery (Mat 5:32) show that our Lord assumed that the divorce would marry again. Hence if He allowed divorce under certain conditions, He allowed re-marriage. (c) It follows that Mat 19:9, asit stands, gives to an injured husband the right of divorce, and therefore of re-marriage, even if it be supposed that the words except for fornication qualify only the first clause, or if shall marry another he omitted with B. A right given to an injured husband must on Christian principles he allowed to an injured wife. Further, re-marriage, if permitted to either party, is logically permitted both to innocent and to guilty, so far as the dissolution of the marriage bond is concerned, though it may well be forbidden to the latter as a matter of discipline and penalty. Mat 5:32 apparently allows the re-marriage of the justifiably divorced, i.e. guilty wife, though the interpretation of this verse is more doubtful than that of Mat 19:9. (d) The view implied by the exception is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to re-marriage. But re-marriage also closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible; cf. the teaching of Hosea and Jer 3:1-25; Hermas (Mand. iv. 1) allows no re-marriage, and lays great stress on the taking back of a repentant wife. (e) Hence much is to he said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Mt. is an editorial addition from the Judaic standpoint, or under the pressure of practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard. (For the authorities, see Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , Ext. Vol. p. 27b, and add Wrights Synopsis and Allens St. Mat.) It is true that though the textual variations in both passages of Mt. are numerous, there is no MS authority for the entire omission of the words. But there is no hint of the exception in Mk., Lk., or 1 Cor.; Mat 19:3 alters the question of Mar 10:2, adding the qualification for every cause, which thus prepares the way for the qualified answer of v. 9. This answer really admits the validity of the law of Deu 24:1, with its stricter interpretation (see p. 586b), whilst the language of v. 8 leads us to expect its abrogation. The introduction of the exception upsets the argument, which in Mk. is clear and logical. Again, is it not contrary to Christs method that He should legislate in detail? He rather lays down universal principles, the practical application of which He left to His Church (see below, 11).
(f) The requirement in 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12, Tit 1:6, that the bishop and deacon shall he the husband of one wife, is probably to be understood as a prohibition of divorce and other sins against the chastity of marriage (cf. Heb 13:4), made necessary by the low standard of the age. Of course, no greater laxity is allowed to the layman, any more than he is allowed to he a brawler or striker; but sins of this type are mentioned as peculiarly inconsistent with the ministry. Other views of the passage are that it forhids polygamy (a prohibition which could hardly be necessary in Christian circles) or a second marriage. But there was no feeling against the re-marriage of men (see above, 6), and St. Paul himself saw in a second marriage nothing per se inconsistent with the Christian ideal (1Ti 5:14), so that it is hard to see on what grounds the supposed prohibition could rest.
9. The Teaching of NT.(1) Marriage and celibacy. The prevalent Jewish conception was that marriage was the proper and honourable estate for all men. Any Jew who has not a wife is no man (Talmud). The Essene, on the other band, avoided it as unclean and a degradation. Of this view there is no sign in NT (1Ti 4:3). Christ does, however, emphasize the propriety of the unmarried state in certain circumstances (Mat 19:12 [? Rev 14:4]). The views of St. Paul undoubtedly changed. In 1Th 4:4 he regards marriage merely as a safeguard against immorality. The subject is prominent in 1 Cor. In 1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:38 he prefers the unmarried state, allowing marriage for the same reason as in 1 Th. (1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:36). He gives three reasons for his attitude, the one purely temporary, the others valid under certain conditions. (a) It is connected with the view he afterwards abandoned, of the nearness of the Paronsia (1Co 7:31); there would be no need to provide for the continuance of the race. (b) It was a time of distress, i.e. hardship and persecution (1Co 7:26). (c) Marriage brings distractions and cares (1Co 7:32). The one-sidedness of this view may he corrected by his later teaching as to (2) the sanctity of the marriage state. The keynote is struck by our Lords action. The significance of the Cana miracle can hardly be exaggerated (Joh 2:1-25). It corresponds with His teaching that marriage is a Divine institution (Mat 19:9). So Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, and the Pastoral Epp. assume the married state as normal in the Christian Church. It is raised to the highest pinnacle as the type of the union betwixt Christ and His Church. This conception emphasizes both the honourableness of the estate and the beinousness of all sins against it; husband and wife are one flesh (Eph 5:1-33; cf. Heb 13:4). (3) As regards relations between husband and wife, it cannot be said that St. Paul has entirely shaken himself free from the influences of his Jewish training ( 6). The duty of the husband is love (Eph 5:28), of the wife obedience and fear, or reverence (Eph 5:22; Eph 5:33, Col 3:18), the husband being the head of the wife (Eph 5:23, 1Co 11:8; 1Co 11:7-11); she is saved through her childbearing (1Ti 2:11-15). The view of 1Pe 3:1-7 is similar. It adds the idea that each must help the other as joint heirs of the grace of life, their common prayers being hindered by any misunderstanding. Whether the subordination of the wife can be maintained as ultimate may be questioned in view of such passages as Gal 3:28.
10. Spiritual applications of the Marriage Figure
In OT the god was regarded as baal, husband or owner, of his land, which was the mother of its inhabitants. Hence it lay very near to think of the god as the husband of the worshipping nationality, or mother land (W. R. Smith, Prophets, 171); the idea was probably not peculiar to Israel. Its most striking development is found in Hosea. Led, as it seems, by the experience of his own married life, he emphasizes the following points. (1) Israels idolatry is whoredom, adultery, the following of strange lovers (note the connexion of idolatry with literal fornication). (2) J [Note: Jahweh.] still loves her, as Hosea has loved his erring wife, and redeems her from slavery. (3) Hoseas own unquenchable love is but a faint shadow of J [Note: Jahweh.] s. A similar idea is found in Isa 54:4; in spite of her unfaithfulness, Israel has not been irrevocably divorced (Isa 50:1). Cf. Jer 3, 3:1, 32, Eze 16:1-63, Mal 2:11. The direct spiritual or mystical application of Ca. is now generally abandoned.
In NT, Christ is the bridegroom (Mar 2:19, Joh 3:29), the Church His bride. His love is emphasized, as in OT (Eph 5:25), and His bride too must be holy and without blemish (Eph 5:27, 2Co 11:2). In OT the stress is laid on the ingratitude and misery of sin as adultery, in NT on the need of positive holiness and purity. Rev 19:7 develops the figure, the dazzling white of the brides array being contrasted with the harlots scarlet. In Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9 she is further identified with the New Jerusalem, two OT figures being combined, as in 2Es 7:26. For the coming of her Bridegroom she is now waiting (Rev 22:17, cf. Mat 25:1), and the final joy is represented under the symbol of the marriage feast (Mat 22:2, Rev 19:9).
11. A general survey of the marriage laws and customs of the Jews shows that they cannot be regarded as a peculiar creation, apart from those of other nations. As already appears, they possess a remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic race; we may add the striking parallels found in the Code of Hammurabi, e.g. with regard to betrothal, dowry, and divorce. Anthropological researches have disclosed a wide general resemblance to the customs of more distant races. They have also emphasized the relative purity of OT sexual morality; in this, as in other respects, the Jews had their message for the world. But, of course, we shall not expect to find there the Christian standard. In the beginning represents not the historical fact, but the ideal purpose. Gen 2:1-25 is an allegory of what marriage was intended to be, and of what it was understood to be in the best thought of the nation. This ideal was, however, seldom realized. Hence we cannot apply the letter of the Bible, or go to it for detailed rules. Where its rules are not obviously unsuited to modern conditions, or below the Christian level, a strange uncertainty obscures their exact interpretation, e.g. with regard to the prohibited degrees, divorce, or the husband of one wife; there is even no direct condemnation of polygamy. On the other hand, the principle as expanded in NT is clear. It is the duty of the Christian to keep it steadily before him as the ideal of his own life. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole must depend upon social conditions, and the general moral environment.
C. W. Emmet.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Marriage
The Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, have in a great variety of circumstances shew in what high esteem the holy estate of marriage was considered by holy men of old. And though in the Old Testament we read of many wives being joined to one husband, yet our Lord Jesus expressly said, that it was not so from the beginning. (Mat 19:3-9) And there is reason to believe, that in numberless instances where we read of a man having more wives than one, all but one were rather as concubines than wives. Such, for example, as Abraham’s Hagar and Ke-turah. And I think it very plain, from the New Testament doctrine upon this subject, that from the very first order of things, even from the creation, the spiritual marriage and unity between Christ and his church was all along respected by the marriage-state, and uniformly intended to be shadowed forth. In confirmation of this opinion, I beg the reader to consult the following Scriptures: Gen 2:18-25; Eph 5:22-33; Heb 13:4. And when the readers hath fully considered the force of these Scriptures: let him turn to John’s gospel, second chapter and there read how the Lord Jesus honouered the marriage both with his presence and first miracle that he wrought; than let him turn to the fifth chapter of Mathew’s Gospel, and Luke the sixteenth and eighteenth, and mark how strongly the Lord attacheth adultery to the separation of men and their wives. From the whole of which taken together, I think it is very plain, not only of the original design from the beginning, that every woman should have her own husband, and, every husband his own wife, but also that the married state was intended, in the most dear and tender manner, to set forth and display Christ’s union with his church. Perhaps it may not be improper under this article, to make another observation in the allusion to the customs of the East on the celebration of their marriages, and which may serve to illustrate and explain, in some measure, that circumstance respecting the man without a wedding garment, which our Lord speaks of in the marriage-feast the king made for his son. (See Mat 22:1-14)
We cannot need to be informed how splendid and costly the entertainments made for marriage feasts always were in the East, Their ordinary entertainments were great, and no expense was spared in them; but even the poorest of the people on bridal occasions exerted themselves to make the festivity as rich as possible. In the marriage therefore of the king’s son, we may well suppose the display of magnificence must have been proportionably great. The circumstance of the wedding garment provided for the guests, was in exact conformity to the oriential custom. Certain rich vests, or caffans, were provided for every one, therefore, when the king came in to see the guests, and found a man without the wedding garment, the contempt he had shewn in refusing to put on what must have been provided for him, excited the king’s displeasure, and rendered him a just object of the king’s wrath. This explains the sense of the parable. But the spiritual meaning of the parable is still infinitely more important. The invitation of the gospel to the marriage of the Lord Jesus with our nature, runs in the same charter of grace. “Go ye into the highways, and as many as ye shall and bid to the marriage.” So that wheresoever the sound of the gospel comes, it may be truly said, in the language of the parable, the invitation goeth forth, and there will be gathered together, all, as many as the servants find, both bad and good; and the wedding will be furnished with guests. The man therefore whom the king finds at his table without the wedding garment, is a type or repre%sentation of every one of the same description and character, who contumaciously refuses to be clothed with the robe of Christ’s righteousness, but comes before the king with the filthy rags of his own righteousness; and as at the sight and remonstrance of the king that man was speechless, unable to speak a word by way of softening his guilt, so at the last day, when the Lord Jesus shall come to be glorified m his saints, and admired in all that believe, all that are found without the justifying garment of Jesus’s salvation will be struck dumb, and overwhelmed with guilt and shame. The soul that is Christless now, will be speechless then. Such seems to be the evident scope and tendency of this beautiful parable of our Lord.
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Marriage
marij:
Introduction, Scope and Viewpoint of the Present Article
1.Marriage among the Hebrews
2.Betrothal the First Formal Part
3.Wedding Ceremonies
4.Jesus’ Sanction of the Institution
5.His Teaching concerning Divorce
LITERATURE
It would be interesting to study marriage biologically and sociologically, to get the far and near historical and social background of it as an institution, especially as it existed among the ancient Jews, and as it figures in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. For, like all social institutions, marriage, and the family which is the outcome of marriage, must be judged, not by its status at any particular time, but in the light of its history. Such a study of it would raise a host of related historic questions, e.g. What was its origin? What part has it played in the evolution and civilization of the race? What social functions has it performed? And then, as a sequel, Can the services it has rendered to civilization and progress be performed or secured in any other way? This, indeed, would call for us to go back even farther – to try to discover the psychology of the institution and its history, the beliefs from which it has sprung and by which it has survived so long. This were a task well worth while and amply justified by much of the thinking of our time; for, as one of the three social institutions that support the much challenged form and fabric of modern civilization, marriage, private property and the state, its continued existence, in present form at least, is a matter of serious discussion and its abolition, along with the other two, is confidently prophesied. Marriage, as at present understood, is an arrangement most closely associated with the existing social status and stands or falls with it (Bebel, Socialism and Sex, 199, Reeves, London; The Cooperative Commonwealth in Its Outline, Gronlund, 224). But such a task is entirely outside of and beyond the purpose of this article.
Neither the Bible in general, nor Jesus in particular, treats of the family from the point of view of the historian or the sociologist, but solely from that of the teacher of religion and morals. In short, their point of view is theological, rather than sociological. Moses and the prophets, no less than Jesus and His apostles, accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to certain practical, ethical questions, and they dealt with it accordingly. There is nothing in the record of the teachings of Jesus and of His apostles to indicate that they gave to marriage any new social content, custom or sanction. They simply accepted it as it existed in the conventionalized civilization of the Jews of their day and used it and the customs connected with it for ethical or illustrative purposes. One exception is to be made to this general statement, namely, that Jesus granted that because of the exigencies of the social development Moses had modified it to the extent of permitting and regulating divorce, clearly indicating, however, at the same time, that He regarded such modification as out of harmony with the institution as at first given to mankind. According to the original Divine purpose it was monogamous, and any form of polygamy, and apparently of divorce, was excluded by the Divine idea and purpose. The treatment of the subject here, therefore, will be limited as follows: Marriage among the Ancient Hebrews and Other Semites; Betrothal as the First Formal Part of the Transaction; Wedding Ceremonies Connected with Marriage, especially as Reflected in the New Testament; and Jesus’ Sanction and Use of the Institution, Teaching concerning Divorce, etc.
1. Marriage Among the Hebrews:
With the Hebrews married life was the normal life. Any exception called for apology and explanation. Any Jew who has not a wife is no man (Talmud). It was regarded as awaiting everyone on reaching maturity; and sexual maturity comes much earlier indeed in the East than with us in the West – in what we call childhood. The ancient Hebrews, in common with all Orientals, regarded the family as the social unit. In this their view of it coincides with that, of modern sociologists. Of the three great events in the family life, birth, marriage and death, marriage was regarded as the most important. It was a step that led to the gravest tribal and family consequences. In case of a daughter, if she should prove unsatisfactory to her husband, she would likely be returned to the ancestral home, discarded and discredited, and there would be almost inevitably a feeling of injustice engendered on one side, and a sense of mutual irritation between the families (Jdg 14:20; 1Sa 18:19). If she failed to pass muster with her mother-in-law she would just as certainly have to go, and the results would be much the same (compare customs in China). It was a matter affecting the whole circle of relatives, and possibly tribal amity as well. It was natural and deemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of the wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians of the couple involved. Though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Gen 24:8) and romantic attachments were not unknown (Gen 29:20; Gen 34:3; Jdg 14:1; 1Sa 18:20), the gift or woman in the case was not currently thought of as having a personal existence at her own disposal. She was simply a passive unit in the family under the protection and supreme control of father or brothers. In marriage, she was practically the chattel, the purchased possession and personal property of her husband, who was her baal or master (Hos 2:16), she herself being beulah (Isa 62:4). The control, however, was not always absolute (Gen 26:34; Exo 2:21).
The bargaining instinct, so dominant among Orientals then as now, played a large part in the transaction. In idea the family was a little kingdom of which the father was the king, or absolute ruler. There are many indications, not only that the family was the unit from which national coherence was derived, but that this unit was perpetuated through the supremacy of the oldest male. Thus society became patriarchal, and this is the key of the ancient history of the family and the nation. Through the expansion of the family group was evolved in turn the clan, the tribe, the nation, and the authority of the father became in turn that of the chief, the ruler, and the king. The Oriental cannot conceive, indeed, of any band, or clan, or company without a father, even though there be no kith or kinship involved in the matter. The father in their thought, too, was God’s representative, and as such he was simply carrying out God’s purpose, for instance, in selecting a bride for his son, or giving the bride to be married to the son of another. This is as true of the far East as of the near East today. Accordingly, as a rule, the young people simply acquiesced, without question or complaint, in what was thus done for them, accepting it as though God had done it directly. Accordingly, too, the family and tribal loyalty overshadowed love-making and patriotism, in the larger sense. Out of this idea of the solidarity and selectness of the tribe and family springs the overmastering desire of the Oriental for progeny, and for the conservation of the family or the tribe at any cost. Hence, the feuds, bloody and bitter, that persist between this family or tribe and another that has in any way violated this sacred law.
Traces of what is known as beena marriage are found in the Old Testament, e.g. that of Jacob, where Laban claims Jacob’s wives and children as his own (Gen 31:31, Gen 31:43), and that of Moses (Exo 2:21; Exo 4:18). This is that form of marriage in which the husband is incorporated into the wife’s tribe, the children belonging to her tribe and descent being reckoned on her side (compare W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 94). In Samson’s case we seem to have an instance of what is known among Arabs as cadkat marriage (from cadak, gift), the kid here being the customary cadak (Jdg 14; Jdg 15:1; Jdg 16:4). There is no hint that he meant to take his wife home. It is differentiated from prostitution in that no disgrace is attached to it and the children are recognized as legitimate by the tribe. Such marriages make it easier to understand the existence of the matriarchate, or the custom of reckoning the descent of children and property through the mothers. The influence of polygamy would work in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with the several wives. There is, however, no clear evidence in the Old Testament of polyandry (a plurality of husbands), though the Levirate marriage is regarded by some as a survival of it. In other words, polygamy among the Hebrews seems to have been confined to polygyny (a plurality of wives). It is easy to trace its chief causes: (1) desire for a numerous offspring (May his tribe increase!); (2) barrenness of first wife (as in Abraham’s case); (3) advantages offered by marital alliances (e.g. Solomon); (4) the custom of making wives of captives taken in war (compare Psa 45:3, Psa 45:9); (5) slavery, which as it existed in the Orient almost implied it.
2. Betrothal the First Formal Part:
Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than the engagement is with us. Indeed, it was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage, and that the most binding part. Among the Arabs today it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. Gen 24:58, Gen 24:60 seems to preserve for us an example of an ancient formula and blessing for such an occasion. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar), which was paid to the parents, not to the bride. It may take the form of service (Gen 29; 1Sa 18:25). It is customary in Syria today, when the projected marriage is approved by both families, and all the financial preliminaries have been settled, to have this ceremony of betrothal. It consists in the acceptance before witnesses of the terms of the marriage as contracted for. Then God’s blessing is solemnly asked on the union thus provided for, but to take place probably only after some months, or perhaps some years. The betrothal effected, all danger from any further financial fencing and bluffing now being at an end, happiness and harmony may preside over all the arrangements for the marriage day. Among the Jews the betrothal was so far regarded as binding that, if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breach of contract on his part, the young woman could not be married to another man until she was liberated by a due process and a paper of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan, and in cases becomes very oppressive. The marriage may have been intended by the parents from the infancy of the parties, but this formality of betrothal is not entered on till the marriage is considered reasonably certain and measurably near. A prolonged interval between betrothal and marriage was deemed undesirable on many accounts, though often an interval was needed that the groom might render the stipulated service or pay the price – say a year or two, or, as in the case of Jacob, it might be seven years. The betrothed parties were legally in the position of a married couple, and unfaithfulness was adultery (Deu 22:23; Mat 1:19).
Polygamy is likely to become prevalent only where conditions are abnormal, as where there is a disproportionate number of females, as in tribal life in a state of war. In settled conditions it is possible only to those able to provide dowry and support for each and all of the wives.
The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (1Ch 7:4); among the middle class (1Sa 1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (Gen 2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (Gen 4:19). Kings are warned against it (Deu 17:17; compare Gen 29:31; 30). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Ki 4; Psa 128:1-6; Prov 31; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1, 13). Marriage is applied figuratively, too, to the union between God and Israel, implying monogamy as the ideal state. Nevertheless, having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy fell into disuse in Hebrew society. Herod had nine wives at one time (Josephus, Ant., XVII, i, 2). Justin Martyr (Dial., 134, 141) reproaches Jews of his day with having four or even five wives, and for marrying as many as they wish (compare Talm). It was not definitely and formally forbidden among Jews until circa 1000 AD. It exists still among Jews in Moslem lands. Side by side with this practice all along has been the ideal principle (Gen 2:18) rebuking and modifying it. The legal theory that made the man lord of the wife (Gen 3:16; Tenth Commandment) was likewise modified in practice by the affection of the husband and the personality of the wife.
The difference between a concubine and a wife was largely due to the wife’s birth and higher position and the fact that she was usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. A slave could not be made a concubine without the wife’s consent (Gen 16:2).
3. Wedding Ceremonies:
There is a disappointing uncertainty as to the exact ceremonies or proceedings connected with marriage in Bible times. We have to paint our picture from passing allusions or descriptions, and from what we know of Jewish and Arabic customs. In cases it would seem that there was nothing beyond betrothal, or the festivities following it (see Gen 24:3 ff). Later, in the case of a virgin, an interval of not exceeding a year came to be observed.
The first ceremony, the wedding procession, apparently a relic of marriage by capture (compare Jdg 5:30; Psa 45:15), was the first part of the proceedings. The bridegroom’s friends (Joh 3:29) went, usually by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants to the home of the groom (Mat 9:15; Joh 3:29). The joyousness of it all is witnessed by the proverbial voice of the bridegroom and the cry, Behold the bridegroom cometh! (Jer 7:34; Rev 18:23). The procession was preferably by night, chiefly, we may infer, that those busy in the day might attend, and that, in accordance with the oriental love of scenic effects, the weird panorama of lights and torches might play an engaging and kindling part.
The marriage supper then followed, generally in the home of the groom. Today in Syria, as Dr. Mackie, of Beirut, says, when both parties live in the same town, the reception may take place in either home; but the older tradition points to the house of the groom’s parents as the proper place. It is the bringing home of an already accredited bride to her covenanted husband. She is escorted by a company of attendants of her own sex and by male relatives and friends conveying on mules or by porters articles of furniture and decoration for the new home. As the marriage usually takes place in the evening, the house is given up for the day to the women who are busy robing the bride and making ready for the coming hospitality. The bridegroom is absent at the house of a relative or friend, where men congregate in the evening for the purpose of escorting him home. When he indicates that it is time to go, all rise up, and candles and torches are supplied to those who are to form the procession, and they move off. It is a very picturesque sight to see such a procession moving along the unlighted way in the stillness of the starry night, while, if it be in town or city, on each side of the narrow street, from the flat housetop or balcony, crowds look down, and the women take up the peculiar cry of wedding joy that tells those farther along that the pageant has started. This cry is taken up all along the route, and gives warning to those who are waiting with the bride that it is time to arise and light up the approach, and welcome the bridegroom with honor. As at the house where the bridegroom receives his friends before starting some come late, and speeches of congratulation have to be made, and poems have to be recited or sung in praise of the groom, and to the honor of his family, it is often near midnight when the procession begins. Meanwhile, as the night wears on, and the duties of robing the bride and adorning the house are all done, a period of relaxing and drowsy waiting sets in, as when, in the New Testament parable, both the wise and the foolish virgins were overcome with sleep. In their case the distant cry on the street brought the warning to prepare for the reception, and then came the discovery of the exhausted oil.
Of the bridegroom’s retinue only a limited number would enter, their chief duty being that of escort. They might call next day to offer congratulations. An Arabic wedding rhyme says:
To the bridegroom’s door went the torch-lit array,
And then like goats they scattered away.
With their dispersion, according to custom, the doors would be closed, leaving within the relatives and invited guests; and so, when the belated virgins of the parable hastened back, they too found themselves inexorably shut out by the etiquette of the occasion. The opportunity of service was past, and they were no longer needed.
At the home all things would be made ready, if possible on a liberal scale. Jn 2 gives a picture of a wedding feast where the resources were strained to the breaking point. Hospitality was here especially a sacred duty, and, of course, greatly ministered to the joy of the occasion. An oriental proverb is significant of the store set by it:
He who does not invite me to his marriage
Will not have me to his funeral.
To decline the invitation to a marriage was a gross insult (Mt 22).
It was unusual in Galilee to have a ruler of the feast as in Judea (Jn 2). There was no formal religious ceremony connected with the Hebrew marriage as with us – there is not a hint of such a thing in the Bible. The marriage was consummated by entrance into the chamber, i.e. the nuptial chamber (Hebrew hedher), in which stood the bridal bed with a canopy (huppah), being originally the wife’s tent (Gen 24:67; Jdg 4:17). In all lands of the dispersion the name is still applied to the embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand or sit during the festivities. In Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew the bridegroom is said to go in to the bride.
A general survey of ancient marriage laws and customs shows that those of the Hebrews are not a peculiar creation apart from those of other peoples. A remarkable affinity to those of other branches of the Semitic races especially, may be noted, and striking parallels are found in the Code of Hammurabi, with regard, e.g., to betrothal, dowry, adultery and divorce. But modern researches have emphasized the relative purity of Old Testament sexual morality. In this, as in other respects, the Jews had a message for the world. Yet we should not expect to find among them the Christian standard. Under the new dispensation the keynote is struck by our Lord’s action. The significance of His attending the marriage feast at Cana and performing His first miracle there can hardly be exaggerated. The act corresponds, too, with His teaching on the subject. He, no less than Paul, emphasizes both the honorableness of the estate and the heinousness of all sins against it.
4. Jesus’ Sanction of the Institution:
The most characteristic use of marriage and the family by our Lord is that in which He describes the kingdom of God as a social order in which the relationship of men to God is like that of sons to a father, and their relation to each other like that between brothers. This social ideal, which presents itself vividly and continuously to His mind, is summed up in this phrase, Kingdom of God, which occurs more than a hundred times in the Synoptic Gospels. The passages in which it occurs form the interior climax of His message to men. It is no new and noble Judaism, taking the form of a political restoration, that He proclaims, and no far-off Divine event to be realized only in some glorious apocalyptic consummation; but a kingdom of God within you, the chief element of it communion with God, the loving relation of children to a Father, a present possession. Future in a sense it may be, as a result to be fully realized, and yet present; invisible, and yet becoming more and more visible as a new social order, a conscious brotherhood with one common, heavenly Father, proclaimed in every stage of His teaching in spite of opposition and varying fortunes with unwavering certainty of its completion – this is the kingdom that Jesus has made the inalienable possession of the Christian consciousness. His entire theology may be described as a transfiguration of the family (see Peabody, Jesus Christ, and the Social Question, 149 ff; Holtzmann, New Testament Theology, I, 200; Harnack, History of Dogma, I, 62; B. Weiss, Biblical Theol. of the New Testament, I, 72, English translation, 1882).
Beyond this Jesus frequently used figures drawn from marriage to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the kingdom, as Paul did concerning Christ and the church. There is no suggestion of reflection upon the Old Testament teaching about marriage in His teaching except at one point, the modification of it so as to allow polygamy and divorce. Everywhere He accepts and deals with it as sacred and of Divine origin (Mat 19:9, etc.), but He treats it as transient, that is of the flesh and for this life only.
5. His Teaching Concerning Divorce:
A question of profound interest remains to be treated: Did Jesus allow under any circumstances the remarriage of a divorced person during the lifetime of the partner to the marriage? Or did He allow absolute divorce for any cause whatsoever? Upon the answer to that question in every age depend momentous issues, social and civic, as well as religious. The facts bearing on the question are confessedly enshrined in the New Testament, and so the inquiry may be limited to its records. Accepting with the best scholarship the documents of the New Testament as emanating from the disciples of Jesus in the second half of the 1st century AD, the question is, what did these writers understand Jesus to teach on this subject? If we had only the Gospels of Mark and Luke and the Epistles of Paul, there could be but one answer given: Christ did not allow absolute divorce for any cause (see Mar 10:2 ff; Luk 16:18; Gal 1:12; 1Co 7:10). The Old Testament permission was a concession, He teaches, to a low moral state and standard, and opposed to the ideal of marriage given in Gen (Luk 2:23).
The position of women in that day was far from enviable. They could be divorced on the slightest pretext, and had no recourse at law. Almost all the rights and privileges of men were withheld from them. What Jesus said in relation to divorce was more in defense of the rights of the women of His time than as a guide for the freer, fuller life of our day. Jesus certainly did not mean to recommend a hard and enslaving life for women. His whole life was one long expression of full understanding of them and sympathy for them (Patterson, The Measure of a Man, 181 f).
Two sayings attributed to Christ and recorded by the writer or editor of the First Gospel (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9) seem directly to contravene His teaching as recorded in Mk and Luke. Here he seems to allow divorce for fornication ( , ei me ep pornea, save for fornication), an exception which finds no place in the parallels (compare 1Co 7:15, which allows remarriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen). The sense here demands that fornication be taken in its wider sense (Hos 2:5; Amo 7:17; 1Co 5:1). Divorce to a Jew carried with it the right of remarriage, and the words ’causeth her to commit adultery’ (Mat 5:32) show that Jesus assumed that the divorced woman would marry again. Hence, if He allowed divorce, He also allowed remarriage. A critical examination of the whole passage in Mt has led many scholars to conclude that the exceptive clause is an interpolation due to the Jewish-Christian compiler or editor through whose hands the materials passed. Others think it betrays traces of having been rewritten from Mark or from a source common to both Matthew and Mark, and combined with a semi-Jewish tradition, in short, that it is due to literary revision and compilation. The writer or compiler attempted to combine the original sayings of Jesus and His own interpretation. Believing that our Lord had not come to set aside the authority of Moses, but only certain Pharisaic exegesis, and supported, as doubtless he was, by a Jewish-Christian tradition of Palestine, he simply interpreted Mark’s narrative by inserting what he regarded as the integral part of an eternal enactment of Yahweh. In doing this he was unconsciously inconsistent, not only with Mark and Luke, but also with the context of the First Gospel itself, owing to his sincere but mistaken belief that the Law of Moses must not be broken. The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible (compare Hosea; Jer 3; Hermas, Mand iv. 1). Certainly much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Matthew is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (see Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (five volumes), extra vol, 27b, and The Teaching of our Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A. Oxon., University of the South, 1912).
The general principle expanded in the New Testament and the ideal held up before the Christians is high and clear. How far that ideal can be embodied in legislation and applied to the community as a whole all are agreed must depend upon social conditions and the general moral development and environment. See further DIVORCE.
Literature.
Material from Mishna in Selden, Uxor Heb, London, 1546; Hamberger, Real. Encyclopedia f. Bibel und Talmud, Breslau, 1870; Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie; Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie; McLennan, Primitive Marriage; Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891; W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895; Tristram, Eastern Customs, London, 1894; Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs, London, 1898; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, III, concerning the family.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Marriage
The Levirate Law.The divine origin of marriage, and the primitive state of the institution, are clearly recorded in the instance of the first human pair (Gen 2:18-25), whence it appears that woman was made after man to be ‘a helper suited to him.’ The narrative is calculated to convey exalted ideas of the institution. It is introduced by a declaration of the Lord God, that ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (Gen 2:18); of the truth of which Adam had become convinced by experience. In order still further to enliven his sense of his deficiency, the various species of creatures are made to pass in review before him, ‘to see what he would call them; on which occasion he could behold each species accompanied by its appropriate helper, and upon concluding his task would become still more affectingly aware, that amid all animated nature there was not found an help meet for himself.’ It was at this juncture, when his heart was thus thoroughly prepared to appreciate the intended blessing, that a divine slumber, or trance, fell upon hima state in which, as in after ages, the exercise of the external senses being suspended, the mental powers are peculiarly prepared to receive revelations from God (Gen 15:12; Act 10:10; Act 22:17; 2Co 12:2). His exclamation when Eve was brought to him shows that he had been fully conscious of the circumstances of her creation, and had been instructed by them as to the nature of the relation which would thenceforth subsist between them. ‘The man said, thisstime, it is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; this shall be called woman, for out of man was this taken.’ The remaining words, ‘for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they (two) shall be one flesh,’ which might otherwise seem a proleptical announcement by the historian of the social obligations of marriage, are by our Lord ascribed to the Divine agent concerned in the transaction, either uttered by Him personally, or by the mouth of Adam while in a state of inspiration. ‘Have ye not read that He that made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, for this cause,’ etc. (Mat 19:4-5). It is a highly important circumstance in this transaction, that God created only one female for one man, and united thema circumstance which is the very basis of our Lord’s reasoning in the passage against divorce and remarriage; but which basis is lost, and his reasoning consequently rendered inconclusive, by the inattention of our translators to the absence of the article, ‘He made them a male and a female, and said, they shall become one flesh; so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ ‘The weight of our Lord’s argument,’ says Campbell, ‘lay in this circumstance, that God at first created no more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom he united in the bond of marriage, and, in so doing, exhibited a standard of that union to all generations.’ The apostasy introduced a new feature into the institution, namely, the subjection of the wife’s will to that of her husband (Gen 3:16; comp. Num 30:6-16). The primitive model was adhered to even by Cain, who seems to have had but one wife (Gen 4:17). Polygamy, one of the earliest developments of human degeneracy, was introduced by Lamech, who ‘took unto him two wives’ (Gen 4:19; circa 3874 B.C.). The intermarriage of ‘the Sons of God,’ i.e. the worshippers of the true God, with ‘the daughters of men,’ i.e. the irreligious (B.C. 2468), is the next incident in the history of marriage. They indulged in unrestrained polygamy ‘they took them wives of all that they chose.’ From this event may be dated that headlong degeneracy of mankind at this period, which ultimately brought on them extirpation by a deluge (Gen 6:3-7). At the time of that catastrophe Noah had but one wife (Gen 7:7), and so each of his sons (Gen 7:13). Pursuing the investigation of the subject according to chronological arrangement, Job next appears (B.C. 2130) as the husband of one wife (Job 2:9; Job 19:17). Reference is made to the adulterer, who is represented as in terror and accursed (Job 24:15-18). The wicked man is represented as leaving ‘widows’ behind him; whence his polygamy may be inferred (Job 27:15). Job expresses his abhorrence of fornication (Job 31:1), and of adultery (Job 31:9), which appears in his time to have been punished by the judges (Job 31:11). Following the same arrangement, we find Abraham and Nahor introduced as having each one wife (Gen 11:29). From the narrative of Abraham’s first equivocation concerning Sarah, it may be gathered that marriage was held sacred in Egypt. Abraham fears that the Egyptians would sooner rid themselves of him by murder than infringe by adultery the relation of his wife to an obscure stranger. The reproof of Pharaoh, ‘Why didst thou say, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way’ (Gen 12:11-19), affords a most honorable testimony to the views of marriage entertained by Pharaoh at that period, and most likely by his court and nation. It seems that Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister. Such marriages were permitted till the giving of the law (Lev 18:9). Thus Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, married his father’s sister (Exo 6:20), a union forbidden in Lev 18:12.
The first mention of concubinage, or the condition of a legal though subordinate wife, occurs in the case of Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaid, whom Sarah, still childless, after a residence of ten years in Canaan, prevailed on Abraham, apparently against his will, to receive into that relation (Gen 16:1), which was however considered inviolable (Gen 49:4; Lev 18:8; 2Sa 3:8; 2Sa 3:16; 2Sa 3:21-22; 1Ch 5:1). The vehement desire for offspring, common to women in the East, as appears from the histories of Rebecca (Gen 25:21), of Rachel (Gen 30:1), of Leah (Gen 30:5), and of Hannah (1Sa 1:6-7), seems to have been Sarah’s motive for adopting a procedure practiced in such cases in that region in all ages. The miseries naturally consequent upon it are amply portrayed in the history of the Patriarchs (Gen 16:4-10; Gen 30:1; Gen 30:3; Gen 30:15).
Lot does not appear to have exceeded one wife (Gen 19:15). The second equivocation of the same kind by Abraham respecting Sarah elicits equally honorable sentiments concerning marriage, on the part of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen 20:5-6; Gen 20:9-10, etc.), who, it appears, had but one proper wife (Gen 20:17; see also Gen 26:7-11). Perhaps Abraham relied on the ancient custom, which will shortly be adverted to, of the consent of the ‘brother’ being requisite to the sister’s marriage, and thus hoped to secure his wife’s safety and his own. In ancient times the parents chose wives for their children (Gen 21:21; Gen 38:5; Deu 22:16); or the man who wished a particular female asked his father to obtain her from her father, as in the case of Shechem (B.C. 1732; Gen 34:4-6; comp. Jdg 14:2-3). The consent of her brothers seems to have been necessary (Gen 34:5; Gen 34:8; Gen 34:11; Gen 34:13-14; comp. Gen 24:50; 2Sa 13:20-29). A dowry was given by the suitor to the father and brethren of the female (Gen 34:11-12; comp. 1Sa 18:25; Hos 3:2). This, in a common case, amounted to from 30 to 50 shekels, according to the law of Moses (comp. Exo 22:16; Deu 22:29). Pausanias considers it so remarkable for a man to part with his daughter without receiving a marriage-portion with her, that he takes pains, in a case he mentions, to explain the reason. In later times we meet with an exception (Tob 8:21). It is most likely that from some time before the last-named period the Abrahamid restricted their marriages to circumcised persons (Gen 28:8; comp. Jdg 3:6; 1Ki 11:8; 1Ki 11:11; 1Ki 11:16; Josephus, Antiq. xi. 8, 2; xii. 4, 6; xviii. 9, 5). The marriage of Isaac develops additional particulars; for beside Abraham’s unwillingness that his son should marry a Canaanitess (Gen 24:3; comp. Gen 26:34; Gen 27:46; Exo 34:16; Jos 23:12; Ezr 9:2; Ezr 10:3; Ezr 10:10-11), costly jewels are given to the bride at the betrothal (Gen 24:22), and ‘precious things to her mother and brother’ (Gen 24:53); a customary period between espousals and nuptials is referred to (Gen 24:55); and the blessing of an abundant offspring invoked upon the bride by her relatives (Gen 24:60)which most likely was the only marriage ceremony then and for ages afterwards (comp. Rth 4:11-13; Psa 45:16-17); but in Tob 7:13, the father places his daughter’s right hand in the hand of Tobias before he invokes his blessing. It is remarkable that no representation has been found of a marriage ceremony among the tombs of Egypt. The Rabbins say that among the Jews it consisted of a kiss (Son 1:2). It is probable that the marriage covenant was committed to writing (Pro 2:17; Mal 2:14; Tob 7:13-14); perhaps, also, confirmed with an oath (Eze 16:8). It seems to have been the custom with the patriarchs and ancient Jews to bury their wives in their own graves, but not their concubines (Gen 49:31). In Gen 25:1, Abraham, after the death of Sarah, marries a second wife. Esau’s polygamy is mentioned Gen 28:9; Gen 36:2-13 (B.C. 1760). Jacob serves seven years to obtain Rachel in marriage (Gen 29:18-20); and has a marriage feast, to which the men of the place are invited (Gen 29:22; comp. Son 5:1; Son 8:13). Samson’s marriage feast lasts a week (Jdg 14:10-12; B.C. 1136; comp. Joh 2:1, etc.); in later times it lasted longer (Tob 8:19). The persons invited to Samson’s marriage are young men (Jdg 14:10); called ‘sons of the bride-chamber,’ Mat 9:15. Females were invited to marriages (Psa 45:14), and attended the bride and bridegroom to their abode (1Ma 9:37); and in the time of Christ, if it was evening, with lamps and flambeaux (Mat 25:1-10). In later ages the guests were summoned when the banquet was ready (Mat 22:3), and furnished with a marriage garment (Mat 22:11). The father of the bride conducted her at night to her husband (Gen 29:23; Tob 8:1). The bride and bridegroom were richly ornamented (Isa 61:10). In Mesopotamia, and the East generally, it was the custom to marry the eldest sister first (Gen 29:26). By the deception practiced upon Jacob in that country, he marries two wives, and, apparently, without anyone objecting (Gen 29:30). Laban obtains a promise from Jacob not to marry any more wives than Rachel and Leah (Gen 31:50). The wives and concubines of Jacob and their children travel together (Gen 32:22-23); but a distinction is made between them in the hour of danger (Gen 33:1-2; comp. Gen 25:6). Following the arrangement we have adopted, we now meet with the first reference to the Levirate Law. Judah, Jacob’s son by Leah, had married a Canaanitish woman (Gen 38:2). His first-born son was Er (Gen 38:3). Judah took a wife for him (Gen 38:6). Er soon after died (Gen 38:7), and Judah said, to Onan, ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, Tamar, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.’ ‘Onan knew that the offspring would not be his.’ All these circumstances bespeak a pre-established and well known law, and he evaded the purpose of it, and thereby, it is said, incurred the wrath of God (Gen 38:10). It seems, from the same account, to have been well understood, that upon his death the duty devolved upon the next surviving brother. No change is recorded in this law till just before the entrance of Israel into Canaan (B.C. 1451), at which time Moses modified it by new regulations to this effect:’If brethren dwell together (i.e. in the same locality), and one of them die, and leave no child, the wife of the dead must not marry out of the family, but her husband’s brother or his next kinsman must take her to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother, and the first-born of this union shall succeed in the name of his deceased father, that his name may be extant in Israel;’ not literally bear his name, for Ruth allowed her son by Boaz to be called Obed, and not Mahlon, the name of her first husband (Rth 4:17, yet see Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8, 23). In case the man declined the office, the woman was to bring him before the elders, loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in, or, as some render it, before his face, by way of contempt (Deu 25:9-10. Josephus understands in the face, Antiq. v. 9, 4), and shall say, ‘So shall it be done unto the man that will not build up his brother’s house; and his name shall be called in Israel, the house of him that hath his shoe loosed,’ quasi Bare-sole! It does not appear that the original law was binding on the brother, if already married; and we may well believe that Moses, who wished to mitigate it, allowed of that exception. The instance of Ruth (B.C. 1245), who married Boaz, her husband’s relation, exhibits the practice of the law under the Judges. Boaz was neither the father of, nor the nearest relation to, Elimelech, father-in-law to Ruth, the wife of Mahlon, and yet he married her after the refusal of him who was the nearest relation (Rth 2:20; Ruth 3; Ruth 4).
It should seem, from the instance of Potiphar’s wife, that monogamy was practiced in Egypt (Gen 39:7). Pharaoh gave to Joseph one wife (Gen 41:45). The Israelites, while in Egypt, seem to have restricted themselves to one. One case is recorded of an Israelite who had married an Egyptian woman (Lev 24:10). The giving of the law (B.C. 1491) acquaints us with many regulations concerning marriage which were different from the practices of the Jews while in Egypt, and from those of the Canaanites, to whose land they were approaching (Lev 18:3). There we find laws for regulating the marriages of bondmen (Exo 21:3-4), and of a bondmaid, (Exo 21:7-12). The prohibition against marriages with the Canaanites is established by a positive law (Exo 24:16). Marriage is prohibited with any one near of kin, ‘of the remainder of his flesh’ (Lev 18:6-19). A priest is prohibited from marrying one that had been a harlot, or divorced (Lev 21:7). The high-priest was also excluded from marrying a widow, and restricted to one wife (Lev 21:13-14). Daughters who, through want of brothers, were heiresses to an estate, were required to marry into their own tribe, and, if possible, a kinsman, to prevent the estate passing into another family (Num 27:1-11; Num 36:1-12). The husband had power to annul his wife’s vow, if he heard it, and interfered at the time (Num 30:6-16). If a man had betrothed a wife, he was exempt from the wars, etc. (Deu 20:7; Deu 24:5). It was allowed to marry a beautiful captive in war, whose husband probably had been killed (Deu 21:10-14, etc.). Abundance of offspring was one of the blessings promised to obedience, during the miraculous providence which superintended the Theocracy (Lev 26:9; Deu 7:13-14; Deu 28:11; Psa 127:3; Psa 128:3); and disappointment in marriage was one of the curses (Deu 28:18; Deu 28:30; comp. Psa 47:9; Jer 8:10). A daughter of a distinguished person was offered in marriage as a reward for perilous services (Jos 15:16-17; 1Sa 17:25). Concubinage appears in Israel (B.C. 1413) (Jdg 19:1-4). The violation of a concubine is avenged (Jdg 20:5-10). Polygamy (Jdg 8:30). The state of marriage among the Philistines may be inferred, in the time of Samson, from the sudden divorce from him of his wife by her father, and her being given to his friend (Jdg 14:20), and from the father offering him a younger sister instead (Jdg 15:2). David’s numerous wives (2Sa 3:3-5). In Psalms 45, which is referred to this period by the best harmonists, there is a description of a royal marriage upon a most magnificent scale. The marriage of Solomon to Pharaoh’s daughter is recorded in 1Ki 3:1; to which the Song of Solomon probably relates, and from which it appears that his mother ‘crowned him with a crown on the day of his espousals’ (1Ki 3:3; 1Ki 3:11). It would appear that in his time females were married young (Pro 2:17; comp. Joe 1:8); also males (Pro 5:18). An admirable description of a good wife is given in Pro 31:10-31. The excessive multiplication of wives and concubines was the cause and effect of Solomon’s apostasy in his old age (1Ki 11:1-8). He confesses his error in Ecclesiastes, where he eulogizes monogamy (Ecc 9:9; Ecc 7:28). Rehoboam took a plurality of wives (2Ch 11:18-21); and so Abijah (2Ch 13:21), and Ahab (1Ki 20:3), and Belshazzar, king of Babylon (Dan 5:2). It would seem that the outward manners of the Jews, about the time of our Lord’s advent, had become improved, since there is no case recorded in the New Testament of polygamy or concubinage among them. Our Lord excludes all causes of divorce, except whoredom (Mat 5:32), and ascribes the origin of the Mosaic law to the hardness of their hearts. The same doctrine concerning divorce had been taught by the prophets (Jer 3:1; Mic 2:9; Mal 2:14-16). The apostles inculcate it likewise (Rom 7:3; 1Co 7:4; 1Co 7:10-11; 1Co 7:39); yet St. Paul considers obstinate desertion by an unbelieving party as a release (1Co 7:15). Our Lord does not reprehend celibacy for the sake of religion, ‘those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake’ (Mat 19:12; comp. 1Co 7:32; 1Co 7:36). Second marriages not condemned in case of death (Rom 7:2). Mixed marriages disapproved (1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14). Early marriage not recommended (1Co 7:36). Marriage affords the means of copious illustrations to the writers of Scripture. The prophets employ it to represent the relation of the Jewish church to Jehovah, and the apostles that of the Christian church to Christ. The applications they make of the idea constitute some of the boldest and most touching figures in the Scripture.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Marriage
This is God’s institution: He said it was not good that man should be alone, and He provided a suitable help for Adam in the person of Eve. Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (isha ), because she was taken out of Man (ish ). Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Gen 2:23-24. This declaration of union was confirmed by the Lord, who, in quoting the above, added, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Mat 19:5-6; Mar 10:7-9. It is confirmed also by being taken as a type of the sacred union of the Lord with the church: “We are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” Eph 5:30-32.
All this shows that God’s institution of marriage was the union of one man and one woman, the two and only two, becoming one. What is more than this is not of God, but is of human lust. This order was first broken through by Lamech, the sixth from Adam, who had two wives. Long after this instances are recorded of wives, on account of their great desire for children, giving their maid servants to their husbands: an act that would now be judged as most unnatural in a wife. Sarai gave her Egyptian handmaid to Abram ‘to be his wife’ (the same word for ‘wife’ being used for both Sarai and Hagar), and God said He would make of Ishmael a great nation. Jacob’s two wives gave their handmaids to their husband, and thus he had four wives. God reckoned the twelve sons of these four women equally as sons of Jacob, and they became the heads of the twelve tribes. It might have been thought that God would not have blessed the issue of these unions, but He did: there is no record of any law having been given on this subject.
In early times marriages were also contracted between near relatives. This was altered by the law of Moses as well as restrictions introduced as to divorce, though even under the law, because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed them to put away their wives for any cause, “but from the beginning it was not so,” and from the time the Lord was on earth it was not to be so any longer. Mat 19:5-9. The choice of persons to be appointed as bishops and deacons in the church, was restricted to those who were the husbands of ‘one wife.’ 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12; Tit 1:6. God has providentially so ordered it in all countries called christian that a man is allowed to have but one wife; and in the best of those countries a man cannot divorce his wife except when she herself has already broken the marriage bond. Instruction is given in the Epistles to both: the wives are to be in subjection to their husbands, and the husbands are to love and cherish their wives, even as Christ the church. Eph 5:28-29.
It is not now known how the negotiations were conducted that led to a man and woman being betrothed, or espoused, or what were the ceremonies usually attending it. The betrothed couple were at once looked upon as husband and wife, as seen in the case of Joseph, who thought of divorcing his espoused wife Mary. Mat 1:18-19. In the East a man does not usually see his espoused wife until they are married (as Isaac did not see Rebecca and had no choice in the matter), the engagement, and the amount of dowry to be paid by the husband to the bride’s father, being arranged by the relatives.
Of the ancient marriage ceremonies very little is known. On the night of a marriage the young women went forth with lamps or torches to meet the bridegroom and to escort him to the house of the bride, as in Mat 25. Such processions have been seen in modern times, and the same cry has been heard, “Behold the bridegroom.” They had marriage feasts, as in the parable of Mat 22 (when a special garment was provided for each of the guests), and as the one to which the Lord, His mother, and His disciples were invited at Cana, where the Lord made the water into wine. Joh 2:1-11.
The assembly has been espoused as a chaste virgin to Christ, 2Co 11:2; and it waits for that glorious time when it will be said, “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready . . . . arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousnesses of saints . . . . Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” Rev 19:7-9. The Lord will also have an earthly bride during the kingdom. Hos 2:7. See also the Canticles.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Marriage
Consanguineous:
– Abraham and Sarah
Gen 11:29; Gen 12:13; Gen 20:3; Gen 20:9-16
– Isaac and Rebekah
Gen 24:3-4; Gen 24:67; Gen 28:2
– Jacob and his wives
Gen 29:15-30
– Levirate (the brother required to marry a brother’s widow)
Gen 38:8; Gen 38:11; Deu 25:5-10; Rth 4:5; Mat 22:24; Mar 12:19-23; Luk 20:28
Parents contract for their children:
– Hagar selects a wife for Ishmael
Gen 21:21
– Abraham selects a wife for Isaac
Gen 24
– Laban arranges for his daughters’ marriage
Gen 29
– Samson asks his parents to procure him a wife
Jdg 14:2
Parents’ consent required in the Mosaic law
Exo 22:17
Presents given to parents to secure their favor
Gen 24:53; Gen 34:12; Deu 22:29; 1Sa 18:25; Hos 3:2
Nuptial feasts
Gen 29:22; Jdg 14:12; Est 2:18; Mat 22:11-12
Jesus present at
Joh 2:1-5
Ceremony attested by witnesses
Rth 4:1-11; Isa 8:1-3
Bridegroom exempt one year from military duty
Deu 24:5
Bridal ornaments
Isa 49:18; Jer 2:32
Bridal presents
Gen 24:53; Psa 45:12
Herald preceded the bridegroom
Mat 25:6
Wedding robes adorned with jewels
Isa 61:10
Wives obtained:
– By purchase
Gen 29:20; Rth 4:10; Hos 3:2; Hos 12:12
– By kidnapping
Jdg 21:21-23
Given by kings
1Sa 17:25; 1Sa 18:17; 1Sa 18:21
Daughters given in, as rewards of valor
Jdg 1:12; 1Sa 17:25; 1Sa 18:27
Wives taken by edict
Est 2:2-4; Est 2:8-14
David gave one hundred Philistine foreskins for a wife
2Sa 3:14
Wives among the Israelites must be Israelites
Exo 34:16; Deu 7:3-4; 1Ch 23:22; Ezr 9:1-2; Ezr 9:12; Neh 10:30; Neh 13:26-27; Mal 2:11; 1Co 7:39; 2Co 6:14
Betrothal, a quasi-marriage
Mat 1:18; Luk 1:27
Betrothal made with the spirit
Eze 16:8
Celibacy:
– Deplored
Jdg 11:38; Isa 4:1; Jer 16:9
– Advised
1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:24-40
Obligations under, inferior to duty to God
Deu 13:6-10; Mat 19:29; Luk 14:26
Not binding after death
Mat 22:29-30; Mar 12:24-25 Bride; Bridegroom
Unclassified scriptures relating to
Gen 2:23-24; 1Co 6:16; Exo 22:16-17; Eph 5:22-33; Lev 18:6-18; Deu 22:30; Lev 20:14; Lev 20:17; Lev 20:19-21; Lev 21:1; Lev 21:7; Lev 21:13-15; Num 36:8; Deu 21:10-14; Deu 24:1-5; Pro 18:22; Pro 21:9; Pro 21:19; Jer 29:6; Hos 2:19-20; Mal 2:13-16; Mat 5:31-32; Mar 6:17-18; Mar 10:2-12; Mat 19:2-9; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:1-3; 1Co 7:1-40; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 11:11-12; 1Ti 3:2; 1Ti 3:12; 1Ti 4:1; 1Ti 4:3; 1Ti 5:14; Heb 13:4
Figurative
– Figurative
Isa 54:5; Isa 62:4-5; Jer 3:14; Jer 31:32; Hos 1:2; Hos 2:19-20; Eph 5:30-32; Rev 19:7-9
Parables from
Mat 22:2; Mat 25:1-10 Divorce; Husband; Wife
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Marriage
Marriage. The institution of marriage dates from the time of man’s original creation. Gen 2:18-25. The marriage bond is not to be dissolved except on the strongest grounds. Comp. Mat 19:9. On the relation of the wife to the husband, see 1Co 11:8-9; 1Ti 2:13. In the patriarchal age polygamy prevailed. Gen 16:4; Gen 25:1; Gen 25:6; Gen 28:9; Gen 29:23; Gen 29:28; 1Ch 7:14. Divorce also prevailed in the patriarchal age, though but one instance of it is recorded. Gen 21:14. The Mosaic law discouraged polygamy, restricted divorce, and aimed to enforce purity of life. It was the best civil law possible at the time, and sought to bring the people up to the pure standard of the moral law. Our Lord and his apostles re-established the integrity and sanctity of marriage, Mat 19:4-5; Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Rom 7:3; 1Co 7:10-11, and enforced moral purity, Heb 13:1-25; Heb 4:1-16, etc., especially by the formal condemnation of fornication. Act 15:20. In the Hebrew commonwealth an Israelite and a non-Israelite were not allowed to marry, except in a few special cases, and Israelites closely related could not marry. See Lev 18:6-18, and for exceptions, Deu 25:5-9. The law which regulates this exception has been named the “levirate” law, from the Latin levir, “brother-in-law.” The choice of the bride devolved not on the bridegroom himself, but on his relations or on a mend deputed for this purpose. The consent of the maiden was sometimes asked, Gen 24:58; but this appears to have been subordinate to the previous consent of the father and the adult brothers. Gen 24:51; Gen 34:11. The act of betrothal was celebrated by a feast, and among the more modern Jews it is the custom in some parts for the bridegroom to place a ring on the bride’s finger. The ring was regarded among the Hebrews as a token of fidelity, Gen 41:42, and of adoption into a family. Luk 15:22. During the interval between betrothal and marriage, the bride lived with her friends; her communications with her future husband were carried on through a friend deputed for the purpose, termed the “friend of the bridegroom.” Joh 3:29. She was regarded as the wife of her future husband; hence faithlessness on her part was punishable with death, Deu 22:23-24, the husband having, however, the option of “putting her away.” Deu 24:1; Mat 1:19. At the marriage ceremony the bride removed from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or bis father. The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festival dress, and especially by placing on his head a handsome nuptial turban. Psa 45:8; Son 4:10-11. The bride was veiled. Her robes were white, Rev 19:8, and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, Psa 45:13-14, and covered with perfumes, Psa 45:8; she was further decked out with jewels. Isa 49:18; Isa 61:10; Rev 21:2. When the fixed hour arrived, which was generally late in the evening, the bridegroom set forth from his house attended by his groomsmen (A. V.” companions,” Jdg 14:11; “children of the bride-chamber,” Mat 9:15), preceded by a band of musicians or singers, Gen 31:27; Jer 7:34; Jer 16:9, and accompanied by persons bearing flambeaux, Jer 25:10; 2Es 10:2; Mat 25:7; Rev 18:23, and took the bride with the friends to his own house. At the house a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors were invited, Gen 29:22; Mat 22:1-10; Luk 14:8; Joh 2:2, and the festivities were protracted for seven or even fourteen days. Jdg 14:12; Tob 8:19. The guests were sometimes furnished with fitting robes, Mat 22:11, and the feast was enlivened with riddles, Jdg 14:12, and other amusements. The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber, Jdg 15:1; Joe 2:16, where a canopy was prepared. Psa 19:5; Joe 2:16. The bride was still completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, Gen 29:23, was not difficult. A newly married man was exempt from military service, or from any public business which might draw him away from his home, for the space of a year, Deu 24:5; a similar privilege was granted to him who was betrothed. Deu 20:7.
The conditions of married life.The wife appears to have taken her part in family affairs, and even to have enjoyed a considerable amount of independence. Jdg 4:18; 1Sa 25:14; 2Ki 4:8, etc. In the New Testament the mutual relations of husband and wife are a subject of frequent exhortation. Eph 5:22; Eph 5:33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:4-5; 1Pe 3:1-7. The duties of the wife in the Hebrew household were multifarious, Gen 18:6; 2Sa 13:8, the distribution of food, Pro 31:15, the manufacture of the clothing, Pro 31:13; Pro 31:21-22; and the legal rights of the wife are noticed in Exo 21:10, under the three heads of food, raiment, and duty of marriage or conjugal right. Marriage is used to illustrate the spiritual relationship between God and his people. Isa 54:6; Jer 3:14; Hos 2:19. In the New Testament the image of the bridegroom is transferred from Jehovah to Christ, Mat 9:15; Joh 3:29, and that of the bride to the church. 2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2. 9. For full account, see Bissell’s Biblical Antiquities.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Marriage
Marriage.
1. Its origin and history. — The institution of marriage dates from the time of man’s original creation. Gen 2:18-25. From Gen 2:24, we may evolve the following principles:
(1) The unity of man and wife, as implied in her being formed out of man.
(2) The indissolubleness of the marriage bond, except on; the strongest grounds, Compare Mat 19:9.
(3) Monogamy, as the original law of marriage.
(4) The social equality of man and wife.
(5) The subordination of the wife to the husband. 1Co 11:8-9; 1Ti 2:13.
(6) The respective duties of man and wife.
In the patriarchal age, polygamy prevailed, Gen 16:4; Gen 25:1; Gen 25:8; Gen 28:9; Gen 29:23; Gen 29:26; 1Ch 7:14, but to a great extent, divested of the degradation which, in modern times, attaches to that practice. Divorce also prevailed in the patriarchal age, though but one instance of it is recorded. Gen 21:14. The Mosaic law discouraged polygamy, restricted divorce, and aimed to enforce purity of life. It was the best civil law possible at the time, and sought to bring the people up to the pure standard of the moral law.
In the Post-Babylonian period, monogamy appears to have become more prevalent than at any previous time. The practice of polygamy nevertheless still existed; Herod the Great had no less than nine wives at one time. The abuse of divorce continued unabated. Our Lord and his apostles re-established the integrity and sanctity of the marriage bond by the following measures:
(a) By the confirmation of the original charter of marriage as the basis on which all regulations were to be framed. Mat 19:4-5.
(b) By the restriction of divorce to the case of fornication, and the prohibition of remarriage in all persons divorced on improper grounds. Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9; Rom 7:3; 1Co 7:10-11.
(c) By the enforcement of moral purity generally Heb 13:4 etc., and especial formal condemnation of fornication. Act 15:20.
2. The conditions of legal marriage. — In the Hebrew commonwealth, marriage was prohibited
(a) between an Israelite and a non-Israelite. There were three grades of prohibition: total in regard to the Canaanites on either side; total on the side of the males in regard to the Ammonites and Moabites; and temporary on the side of the males in regard to the Edomites and Egyptians, marriages with females, in the two latter instances, being regarded as legal. The progeny of illegal marriages between Israelites and non-Israelites was described as “bastard.” Deu 23:2.
(b) between an Israelite and one of his own community. The regulations relative to marriage between Israelites and Israelites were based on considerations of relationship.
The most important passage relating to these is contained in Lev 18:6-18, wherein we have, in the first place, a general prohibition against marriage between a man and the “flesh of his flesh,” and in the second place, special prohibitions against marriage with a mother, stepmother, sister or half-sister, whether “born at home or abroad,” granddaughter, aunt, whether by consanguinity on either side or by marriage on the father’s side, daughter in-law, brother’s wife, stepdaughter, wife’s mother, stepgranddaughter, or wife’s sister during the lifetime of the wife.
An exception is subsequently made, Deu 26:5-9, in favor of marriage with a brother’s wife, in the event of his having died childless. The law which regulates this has been named the “levirate”, from the Latin levir, “brother-in-law”.
3. The modes by which marriage was effected. — The choice of the bride devolved, not on the bridegroom himself, but on his relations or on a friend deputed by the bridegroom for this purpose. The consent of the maiden was sometimes asked, Gen 24:58, but this appears to have been subordinate to the previous consent of the father and the adult brothers. Gen 24:51; Gen 34:11.
Occasionally, the whole business of selecting the wife was left in the hands of a friend.
The selection of the bride was followed by the espousal, which was a formal proceeding undertaken by a friend or legal representative on the part of the bridegroom and by the parents on the part of the bride; it was confirmed by oaths, and accompanied with presents to the bride. The act of betrothal was celebrated by a feast, and among the more modern Jews, it is the custom in some parts for the bridegroom to place a ring on the bride’s finger. The ring was regarded, among the Hebrews, as a token of fidelity, Gen 41:42, and of adoption into a family. Luk 15:25.
Between the betrothal and the marriage, some interval elapsed, varying from a few days, in the patriarchal age, Gen 24:55, to a full year, for virgins and a month, for widows, in later times. During this period, the bride-elect lived with her friends, and all communication between herself and her future husband was carried on through the medium of a friend deputed for the purpose, termed the “friend of the bridegroom.” Joh 3:29.
She was now virtually regarded as the wife of her future husband; hence, faithlessness on her part was punishable with death, Deu 22:23-24, the husband having, however, the option of “putting her away.” Deu 24:1; Mat 1:19.
The essence of the marriage ceremony consisted in the removal of the bride from her father’s house to that of the bridegroom or his father. The bridegroom prepared himself for the occasion by putting on a festive dress, and especially, by placing on his head, a handsome nuptial turban. Psa 45:8; Son 4:10-11. The bride was veiled. Her robes were white, Rev 19:8, and sometimes embroidered with gold thread, Psa 45:13-14, and covered with perfumes. Psa 45:8. She was further decked out with jewels. Isa 49:18; Isa 61:10; Rev 21:2.
When the fixed hour arrived, which was, generally late in the evening, the bridegroom set forth from his house, attended by his groomsmen, (Authorized Version, “companions,” Jdg 14:11, “children of the bride-chamber,” Mat 9:15, preceded by a band of musicians or singers, Gen 31:27; Jer 7:34; Jer 16:9, and accompanied by persons bearing flambeaux, 2Es 10:2; Jer 25:10; Mat 25:7; Rev 18:23, and took the bride with the friends to his own house.
At the house, a feast was prepared, to which all the friends and neighbors were invited, Gen 29:22; Mat 22:1-10; Luk 14:8; Joh 2:2, and the festivities were protracted for seven, or even fourteen, days. Jdg 14:12; Job 8:19. The guests were provided by the host with fitting robes, Mat 22:11, and the feast was enlivened with riddles, Jdg 14:12, and other amusements.
The last act in the ceremonial was the conducting of the bride to the bridal chamber, Jdg 15:1; Joe 2:16, where a canopy was prepared. Psa 19:5; Joe 2:16. The bride was still completely veiled, so that the deception practiced on Jacob, Gen 29:23, was not difficult.
A newly married man was exempt from military service, or from any public business which might draw him away from his home, for the space of a year, Deu 24:5, a similar privilege was granted to him who was ‘betrothed. Deu 20:7.
4. The social and domestic conditions of married life. — The wife must have exercised an important influence in her own home. She appears to have taken her part in family affairs, and even to have enjoyed a considerable amount of independence. Jdg 4:18; 1Sa 25:14; 2Ki 4:8; etc. In the New Testament, the mutual relations of husband and wife are a subject of frequent exhortation. Eph 5:22; Eph 5:33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:4-5; 1Pe 3:1-7.
The duties of the wife, in the Hebrew household, were multifarious; in addition to the general superintendence of the domestic arrangements, such as cooking, from which even women of rank were not exempt, Gen 18:8; 2Sa 13:5, and the distribution of food at meal times, Pro 31:13, the manufacture of the clothing and of the various fabrics required in her home devolved upon her, Pro 31:13; Pro 31:21-22, and if she were a model of activity and skill, she produced a surplus of fine linen shirts and girdles, which she sold and so, like a well-freighted merchant ship, brought in wealth to her husband from afar. Pro 31:14; Pro 31:24. The legal rights of the wife are noticed in Exo 21:10 under the three heads of food, raiment, and duty of marriage or conjugal right.
5. The allegorical and typical allusions to marriage have exclusive reference to one object, namely, to exhibit the spiritual relationship between God and his people. In the Old Testament, Isa 54:5; Jer 3:14; Hos 2:19. In the New Testament, the image of the bridegroom is transferred from Jehovah to Christ, Mat 9:15; Joh 3:29, and that of the bride to the Church, 2Co 11:2; Rev 19:7; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
MARRIAGE
Marriage is symbolically used in the Scriptures to signify a state,f1 and reason or cause of great joy and happiness.
A man is not perfect till marriage. Till then there is something wanting to make him easy, Gen 2:18. Therefore marriage, by the Greeks,f2 was called perfection; and a bride in Hebrew is called H3618 that is a perfect one, from H3634, to perfect or consummate.
WIFE, according to the Indian Interpreter, ch. 123., “Is the symbol of the power and authority of her husband; and as he dreams of seeing her well or ill dressed, so he shall meet with joy or affliction.
F1 Isa 60:19; Isa 62:5; Joh 3:29; Mat 9:15.
F2 Hesych. v. et . Suid. v. .
Fuente: A Symbolical Dictionary
MARRIAGE
(1) Commended. SEE Home, HOME
(2) Obligations of. SEE Home, HOME
(3) Of the Israelites with the Heathen Forbidden
Gen 24:3; Gen 28:1; Deu 7:3; Jos 23:12; Ezr 9:12; Neh 13:25
–SEE Separation (2), SEPARATION
(4) Figurative of God’s Union with the Church
Isa 54:5; Isa 62:5; Jer 3:14; Hos 2:19; Mat 22:2; Mat 25:10; Rev 19:7
–SEE Bride, CHURCH, THE
Christ, Bridegroom, CHURCH, THE
(5) Of the Kinsman’s Widow
Deu 25:5; Rth 3:9; Rth 4:10; Mat 22:24
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Marriage
a civil and religious contract, by which a man is joined and united to a woman, for the ends of procreation. The essence of marriage consists in the mutual consent of the parties. Marriage is a part of the law of nations, and is in use among all people. The public use of marriage institutions consists, according to Archdeacon Paley, in their promoting the following beneficial effects:
1. The private comfort of individuals.
2. The production of the greatest number of healthy children, their better education, and the making of due provision for their settlement in life.
3. The peace of human society, in cutting off a principal source of contention, by assigning one or more women to one man, and protecting his exclusive right by sanctions of morality and law.
4. The better government of society, by distributing the community into separate families, and appointing over each the authority of a master of a family, which has more actual influence than all civil authority put together.
5. The additional security which the state receives for the good behaviour of its citizens, from the solicitude they feel for the welfare of their children, and from their being confined to permanent habitations.
6. The encouragement, of industry.
Whether marriage be a civil or a religious contract, has been a subject of dispute. The truth seems to be that it is both. It has its engagements to men, and its vows to God. A Christian state recognizes marriage as a branch of public morality, and a source of civil peace and strength. It is connected with the peace of society by assigning one woman to one man, and the state protects him, therefore, in her exclusive possession. Christianity, by allowing divorce in the event of adultery, supposes, also, that the crime must be proved by proper evidence before the civil magistrate; and lest divorce should be the result of unfounded suspicion, or be made a cover for license, the decision of the case could safely be lodged no where else. Marriage, too, as placing one human being more completely under the power of another than any other relation, requires laws for the protection of those who are thus so exposed to injury. The distribution of society into families, also, can only be an instrument for promoting the order of the community, by the cognizance which the law takes of the head of a family, and by making him responsible, to a certain extent, for the conduct of those under his influence. Questions of property are also involved in marriage and its issue. The law must, therefore, for these and many other weighty reasons, be cognizant of marriage; must prescribe various regulations respecting it; require publicity of the contract; and guard some of the great injunctions of religion in the matter by penalties. In every well ordered society marriage must be placed under the cognizance and control of the state. But then those who would have the whole matter to lie between the parties themselves, and the civil magistrate, appear wholly to forget that marriage is also a solemn religious act, in which vows are made to God by both persons, who, when the rite is properly understood, engage to abide by all those laws with which he has guarded the institution; to love and cherish each other; and to remain faithful to each other until death. For if, at least, they profess belief in Christianity, whatever duties are laid upon husbands and wives in Holy Scripture, they engage to obey by the very act of their contracting marriage. The question, then, is whether such vows to God as are necessarily involved in marriage, are to be left between the parties and God privately, or whether they ought to be publicly made before his ministers and the church. On this the Scriptures are silent; but though Michaelis has shown that the priests under the law were not appointed to celebrate marriage; yet in the practice of the modern Jews it is a religious ceremony, the chief rabbi of the synagogue being present, and prayers being appointed for the occasion. This renders it probable that the character of the ceremony under the law, from the most ancient times, was a religious one. The more direct connection of marriage with religion in Christian states, by assigning its celebration to the ministers of religion, appears to be a very beneficial custom, and one which the state has a right to enjoin. For since the welfare and morals of society are so much interested in the performance of the mutual duties of the married state; and since those duties have a religious as well as a civil character, it is most proper that some provision should be made for explaining those duties; and for this a standing form of marriage is best adapted. By acts of religion, also, they are more solemnly impressed upon the parties. When this is prescribed in any state, it becomes a Christian cheerfully, and even thankfully, to comply with a custom of so important a tendency, as matter of conscientious subjection to lawful authority, although no Scriptural precept can be pleaded for it. That the ceremony should be confined to the clergy of an established church, is a different consideration. We think that the religious effect would be greater, were the ministers of each religious body to be authorized by the state to celebrate marriages among their own people, due provision being previously made by the civil magistrate for the regular and secure registry of them, and to prevent the laws respecting marriage from being evaded; which is indeed his business. The offices of religion would then come in by way of sanction and moral enforcement.
When this important contract is once made, then certain rights are acquired by the parties mutually, who are also bound by reciprocal duties, in the fulfilment of which the practical virtue of each consists. And here the superior character of the morals of the New Testament, as well as their higher authority, is illustrated. It may, indeed, be within the scope of mere moralists to show that fidelity, and affection, and all the courtesies necessary to maintain affection, are rationally obligatory upon those who are connected by the nuptial bond; but in Christianity nuptial fidelity is guarded by the express law, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and by our Lord’s exposition of the spirit of that law which forbids the indulgence of loose thoughts and desires, and places the purity of the heart under the guardianship of that hallowed fear which his authority tends to inspire. Affection, too, is made a matter of diligent cultivation upon considerations, and by a standard, peculiar to our religion. Husbands are placed in a relation to their wives, similar to that which Christ bears to his church, and his example is thus made their rule. As Christ loved the church, so husbands are to love their wives; as Christ gave himself, his life, for the church, Eph 5:25, so are they to hazard life for their wives; as Christ saves his church, so is it the bounden duty of husbands to endeavour, by ever possible means, to promote the religious edification and salvation of their wives. The connection is thus exalted into a religious one; and when love which knows no abatement, protection at the hazard of life, and a tender and constant solicitude for the salvation of a wife, are thus enjoined, the greatest possible security is established for the exercise of kindness and fidelity. The oneness of this union is also more forcibly stated in Scripture than any where beside. They twain shall be one flesh. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies; he that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church. Precept and illustration can go no higher than this; and nothing evidently is wanting either of direction or authority to raise the state of marriage into the highest, most endearing, and sanctified relation in which two human beings can stand to each other.
2. We find but few laws in the books of Moses concerning the institution of marriage. Though the Mosaic law no where obliges men to marry, the Jews have always looked upon it as an indispensable duty implied in the words, Increase and multiply, Gen 1:28; so that a man who did not marry his daughter before she was twenty years of age, was looked upon as accessary to any irregularities the young woman might be guilty of for want of being timely married. Moses restrained the Israelites from marrying within certain degrees of consanguinity; which had till then been permitted, to prevent their taking wives from among the idolatrous nations among whom they lived. Abraham gave this as a reason for choosing a wife for Isaac from among his own kindred, Gen 34:3, &c. But when his descendants became so exceedingly multiplied, this reason ceased; and the great lawgiver prohibited, under pain of death, certain degrees of kindred as incestuous. Polygamy, though not expressly allowed, is however tacitly implied in the laws of Moses, Genesis 31; Exo 21:10. This practice likewise was authorized by the example of the patriarchs. Thus Jacob married both the daughters of Laban. In respect to which custom, Moses enjoins that, upon the marriage of a second wife, a man shall be bound to continue to the first her food, raiment, and the duty of marriage. The Jews did not always content themselves with the allowance of two wives, as may be seen in the examples of David, Solomon, and many others. However, they made a distinction between the wives of the first rank, and those of the second. The first they called nashim, and the other pilgashim; which last, though most versions render it by the words concubines, harlots, and prostitutes, yet it has no where in Scripture any such bad sense. There is a particular law called the Levirate, which obliged a man, whose brother died without issue, to marry his widow, and raise up seed to his brother, Deu 25:5, &c. But Moses in some measure left it to a man’s choice, whether he would comply with this law or not; for in case of a refusal the widow could only summon him before the judges of the place, when, if he persisted, she untied his shoe, and spit in his face, and said, Thus shall it be done unto the man who refuses to build up his brother’s house. A man was at liberty to marry not only in the twelve tribes, but even out of them, provided it was among such nations as used circumcision; such were the Midianites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Moabites, and Egyptians. Accordingly, we find Moses himself married to a Midianite, and Boaz to a Moabite. Amasa was the son of Jether, an Ishmaelite, by Abigail, David’s sister; and Solomon, in the beginning of his reign, married Pharaoh’s daughter. Whenever we find him and other kings blamed for marrying strange women, we must understand it of those nations which were idolatrous and uncircumcised.
It appears almost impossible to Europeans, says Mr. Hartley, that a deception like that of Laban’s could be practised. But the following extract, from a journal which I kept at Smyrna, presents a parallel case: The Armenian brides are veiled during the marriage ceremony; and hence deceptions have occurred, in regard to the person chosen for wife. I am informed that, on one occasion, a young Armenian at Smyrna solicited in marriage a younger daughter, whom he admired. The parents of the girl consented to the request, and every previous arrangement was made. When the time for solemnizing the marriage arrived, the elder daughter, who was not so beautiful, was conducted by the parents to the altar, and the young man was unconsciously married to her. And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was the elder daughter.’ The deceit was not discovered, till it could not be rectified; and the manner in which the parents justified themselves was precisely that of Laban: It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the first-born.’ It is really the rule among the Armenians, that neither a younger son nor daughter be married, till their elder brother or sister have preceded them. I was once present at the solemnization of matrimony among the Armenians; and some recollections of it may tend to throw light on this and other passages of Scripture. The various festivities attendant on these occasions continue for three days and during the last night the marriage is celebrated. I was conducted to the house of the bride, where I found a very large assemblage of persons. The company was dispersed through various rooms; reminding me of the directions of our Saviour, in regard to the choice of the lowermost rooms at feasts. On the ground floor I actually observed that the persons convened were of an inferior order of the community, while in the upper rooms were assembled those of higher rank. The large number of young females who were present, naturally reminded me of the wise and foolish virgins in our Saviour’s parable. These being friends of the bride, the virgins, her companions, had come to meet the bridegroom, Psa 45:14. It is usual for the bridegroom to come at midnight; so that, literally, at midnight the cry is made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh! go ye out to meet him, Mat 25:6. But, on this occasion the bridegroom tarried: it was two o’clock before he arrived. The whole party then proceeded to the Armenian church, where the bishop was waiting to receive them; and there the ceremony was completed. See DIVORCE and See BRIDE.
Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary
Marriage
Isa 54:1 (a) This situation is described more particularly in Gal 4:27. The Lord is telling us that Israel is married to GOD, and is “the wife” of GOD. GOD calls Himself “her husband.” The ungodly are those who have no relationship to GOD. Their number far exceeds the number of those who belong to GOD. Those on the broad road are many, while those on the narrow road are few. This is also the story of the difference between Israel and the Church. The laws of Sinai produced a few followers, but the love of Calvary has produced a multitude of followers. The Jewish nation has remained few in number, while among the Gentiles the Gospel has brought multitudes into the family of GOD.
Isa 62:4 (a) The time is coming when Israel, GOD’s people, will again own all their own land to the east of the sea, they will walk with GOD, they will live godly lives, they will love the GOD of their land, and He will again be able to shower upon them the blessings of Heaven, hath spiritual and physical.
Jer 3:14 (a) In this place GOD is calling His people Israel to return to Him in sweet fellowship and confiding trust so that He may again be to them all that a husband should be.
Mal 2:11 (a) The affection of Judah for idols is compared to a marriage wherein the heart that should have been joined to the Lord turned away from Him to be joined to idols.
Rom 7:4 (a) This is a beautiful type of the blessed relationship which is brought about when the sinner trusts the Lord JESUS and is born again. It is the act of being saved wherein the sinner gives himself to CHRIST and CHRIST gives Himself to the sinner in a very sweet, eternal and devoted union.
Rev 19:7 (a) In this way is described that precious, mysterious union which will take place some day in the sky between the Lord JESUS and His bride, the Church. Individually, we are married to CHRIST at the moment we are saved. Collectively, we will enjoy this precious mutual event some day above the clouds when all the Church of GOD is united together, differences are forgotten, sectarian lines are eliminated, and the saints go marching in to the marriage supper of the Lamb.