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
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.
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.
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. (Matt. xix. 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, to the end; Ephes. v. 22. to the end; Heb. 13. 4. And when the readers hathfully 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 everywoman 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 speaksof in the marriage - feast the king made for his son. (See Matt. xx2: 1 to 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 inexact 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 marriageof 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 representation 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 salvationwill 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.
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.
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 him—a 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 them—a 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 Abrahamidæ 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.
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.\par 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 .\par 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 .\par 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 .\par 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.\par 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.’"\par 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 .\par 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.\par
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.
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 (
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 (
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
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 (
The veil (
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
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).
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.
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.
How Long Wives Are Bound To Their Husbands
Rom_7:1-3; 1Co_7:39-40.
Husbands And Wives Becoming One
Gen_2:24; Mat_19:4-6; Mar_10:6-9; 1Co_6:15-16; Eph_5:28-31.
Prudent Wives
Pro_19:14.
The Contentions Of A Wife
Pro_19:13.
The Duties Of A Husband
Deu_24:5; Pro_5:15-20; 1Co_7:1-3; Eph_5:25; Eph_5:28; Eph_5:33; Col_3:19; 1Pe_3:7.
The Duties Of A Wife
1Co_7:1-3; Eph_5:22; Eph_5:33; Col_3:18; 1Pe_3:1-6.
The Reward For Marrying Idolaters
Exo_34:11-16; Deu_7:1-4; 1Ki_11:1-8; Neh_13:23-27; Mal_2:11-13.
The Rights Of Marriage
1Co_7:3-5.
Those That Do Not Marry
1Co_7:25-38.
Those That Love Their Wife
Eph_5:28-29.
Those That Marry
Pro_18:22; 1Co_7:25-38.
Those That Remarry Or Marry Those Who Have Been Divorced
Mat_5:31-32; Mat_19:9; Mar_10:11-12; Luk_16:18; Rom_7:1-3.
Unbelieving Spouses
1Co_7:10-16.
What Marriage Is
Heb_13:4.
What Marriage Is Analogous To
Eph_5:22-33.
Who Does Not Marry
Mat_22:23-32; Mar_12:18-27; Luk_20:27-38.
Who Not To Marry
Deu_7:1-4; Jos_23:1-12; Ezr_9:1-2; Ezr_9:10-12; Ezr_10:2-3; Neh_10:29-30; Neh_13:23-27.
Who Should Get Married
Exo_22:16-17; 1Co_7:6-9.
Why You Should Get Married
1Co_7:1-2; 1Co_7:6-9.
By: Isidore Singer, J. F. McLaughlin, Solomon Schechter, Julius H. Greenstone, Joseph Jacobs
Forms of the Marriage Relation.
—Biblical Data:
The earliest Hebrew literature represents a comparatively high development of social and domestic life. Of primitive conditions of polyandry, such as existed among the early Arabs, there is no certain evidence in the Old Testament. Even of the matriarchate, or reckoning of kinship through the mother, which W. Robertson Smith holds to have been originally the universal rule of Arabia ("Kinship and Marriage," 2d ed., pp. 145-190), there is no clear indication. Traces thereof have been supposed to remain in certain family connections, such as those of Milcah and Sarah, or in tribal groups, such as the sons of Leah and of Rachel, and also in the evidently closer and more intimate relationship between children of the same mother or with relatives on the maternal side. There is, however, probably nothing more in these than such distinctions as would necessarily arise in polygamous families and in the natural intimacy between full brothers and sisters. Polygamy, or, more correctly, polygyny, was the prevalent form of the marriage relation in Old Testament times. There seems to have been no limit to the number of wives or concubines a man might have, except his ability to maintain them and their children. As a matter of fact, however, only men of wealth, chiefs, or kings had many wives; the historian draws special attention to the large households of Gideon, David, and Solomon (Judges viii. 30; II Sam. v. 13; I Kings xi. 1 et Seq.). The Patriarchs had not many wives; Isaac appears to have been content with one. Cases such as those of Elkanah (I Sam. i. 1-2) and Jehoiada (II Chron. xxiv. 3), each of whom had two wives, may have been common (comp. Deut. xxi. 15).
Not infrequently the Hebrew slave-girl became the wife or the concubine of her master. Instances are given of the wife voluntarily giving her maid to be wife to her husband (Gen. xvi. 3; xxx. 3, 9). The lot of the childless wife in such a home was evidently an unhappy one. The law of later times was designed to limit the practise and to correct the abuses of polygamy. The king is enjoined not to multiply wives, "that his heart turn not away"(Deut. xvii. 17). A man may not "take a woman to her sister to be a rival to her" (Lev. xviii. 18, R. V.). The interests of the less loved, or the hated, wife and her children are guarded (Deut. xxi. 15-17). Even in the earliest legislation the slave-girl who is espoused by her master and the slave's wife are protected in their rights (Ex. xxi. 2-11; comp. Deut. xxi. 10 et seq.).
By the Prophets polygamy was discouraged. In the prophetic history monogamy is presented as the ideal original state (Gen. ii. 18 et seq.). Plurality of wives first occurs among the degenerate Cainites (Gen. iv. 23); but Noah is the husband of one wife, and so, apparently, is the patriarch Job. The idyllic pictures of II Kings iv., Ps. cxxviii., Prov. xxxi. 10 et seq., are of monogamous homes. Hosea and Isaiah were monogamists. When the Prophets represent Jehovah's relation to Israel by the figure of marriage, it is as a jealous husband choosing and betrothing to himself one beloved wife (Hos. ii.; Isa. l. 1, liv. 5). The books of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus exalt the place and character of the wife in the undivided home (Prov. xii. 4, xviii. 22, xix. 14, xxxi. 10 et seq.; Ecclus. [Sirach] xxv. 1, 8; xxvi. 1 et seq., 13 et seq.; comp. Eccl. ix. 9). Monogamy was the rule among the Jews in Roman times, but there were notable exceptions. While the New Testament does not expressly prohibit, it discredits and discourages, polygamy (e.g., Matt. xix. 4-5; I Tim. iii. 2, 12).
Kinship and Marriage.
In the earliest Hebrew history endogamy prevails; particular care is taken that Isaac and Jacob shall contract marriage only with their own kin. The Canaanite wives of Esau were "a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah" (Gen. xxvi. 34-35; comp. xxvii. 46). Some of the sons of Jacob also departed from this custom (Gen. xxxviii. 1-2, xli. 45). Moses married outside his own people, but he was a fugitive, and became an adopted member of his wife's tribe (Ex. ii. 21; comp. iv. 18). It was, nevertheless, looked upon as right and fitting that marriage should take place within the circle of one's own kindred (Gen. xxiv. 2-4, xxix. 19; comp. Judges xiv. 3).
However, the changed conditions subsequent to settlement in Canaan made an intermingling of races inevitable (see Judges iii. 6; Ruth i. 4; II Sam. xi. 3; I Kings vii. 14; I Chron. ii. 17; II Chron. xxiv. 26), and the custom of the kings in making foreign alliances by marriage favored this (II Sam. iii. 3; I Kings iii. 1, xi. 1, xvi. 31). The Deuteronomic law forbids marriage with the Canaanites, but, apparently, makes an exception to the endogamous rule in favor of the Edomites and Egyptians (Deut. vii. 3, xxiii. 7; comp. Ex. xxxiv. 16). The period of the Exile and the century following was also a period of laxity, but strict laws prohibiting marriage with the foreigner were enforced in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra ix. 10; Neh. xiii. 23-30).
The older custom of intermarriage within the circle of kinship was governed by no strict rules. Of course marriage with a daughter or uterine sister was not tolerated, but there was no bar to union with close relatives on the father's side, and even down to the Babylonian exile such unions appear to have been common (Gen. xx. 12; Ex. vi. 20; Num. xxvi. 59; II Sam. xiii. 13; Ezek. xxii. 10-11). Deuteronomy prohibits certain marriages with near relatives (xxii. 30; xxvii. 20, 22-23), but the most elaborate legislation in this direction is found in Leviticus (xviii. 7-17, xx. 11-21). According to this law a man may not marry his mother, stepmother, mother-in-law, father's sister, mother's sister, paternal uncle's wife, half-sister, stepsister (daughter of stepmother and her former husband), sister-in-law (brother's wife), living wife's sister, daughter-in-law, stepdaughter, granddaughter, or daughter of stepson or stepdaughter. It is clear that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not forbidden, but it has been argued that the near relatives of the wife equally with those of the husband are within the forbidden degree to him and that, as the wife's mother and daughter are barred, so also, by analogy, is the wife's sister. Whatever its anomalies or defects, there is no doubt that by this law a high ideal of domestic and social purity was maintained. The pre-Islamic Arabic custom, authorized by Mohammed, was closely similar. See Incest.
The ancient custom of levirate marriage requires to be considered here. According to the story in Gen. xxxviii., it was an obligation resting upon a man to take in marriage the childless widow of a deceased brother and "to raise up seed to his brother." The Deuteronomic law provides that where brothers live together, if one die without sons, the widow shall not marry a stranger, but that her husband's brother shall take her, and that the first-born son shall be reckoned the son of the dead brother and shall succeed to his inheritance. Apparently there is a twofold purpose here—to perpetuate the husband's name and to prevent the alienation of the property. The widow is permitted to insult publicly an unwilling brother-in-law by loosing his shoe and spitting in his face (see Ḥaliẓah). Thenceforth his name is to be called in Israel "the house of him that hath his shoe loosed" (Deut. xxv. 5-10; comp. Matt. xxii. 24-25; Mark xii. 19; Luke xx. 28). A slightly different example of the same custom is presented in the Book of Ruth. Indeed, the custom has been shown to have been widely prevalent outside of Israel (Westermarck, "History of Human Marriage," pp. 510-514). It is difficult to determine whether or not the law in Lev. xviii. 16 and xx. 21 is intended as an abrogation of the old levirate law. More probably Leviticus states the general rule to which the levirate is a particular exception (see Nowack, "Lehrbuch der Hebräischen Archäologie," i. 346; Driver, "Deuteronomy," ad loc.). See Levirate Marriage.
Duties of Husband and Wife.
The wife was regarded as property (see Ex. xx. 17; comp. the Hebrew terms "ba'al" = "husband" and "be'ulah" = "wife"; literally, the "owner" or "master" and the "owned"). She was, however, valuable property and was, as a rule, well cared for. She was not isolated as among the Mohammedans, but had considerable freedom and influence. In the wealthier homes she must often have had a large measure of independence,and in the royal household she sometimes became an important power in the state. It will be sufficient to recall the stories of Sarah and Rebekah; of Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, who judged Israel; of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite; of Abigail (Nabal's wife) and the Shunammite woman; of Jezebel and Athaliah. In the prophetic account of the Creation (Gen. ii., iii.) she is made a helpmeet for her husband, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. In the home the innermost apartment was hers, or, in some instances, a separate house (Judges xv. 1, xvi. 9; I Kings vii. 8). She performs the ordinary household duties or manages the affairs of her household and directs her servants (I Sam. ii. 19; Prov. xxxi. 10 et seq.). She must be chaste and obedient, and infidelity on her part is looked upon as a gross sin (Gen. iii. 16; Deut. xxii. 20 et seq.; Ezek. xvi.; John viii. 5-7). A false accusation against her is severely punished (Deut. xxii. 13 et seq.); a curious ordeal is prescribed in Num. v. 11-31 for testing the truth or falsity of a charge of infidelity. Adultery is strictly forbidden in the moral code and is denounced by the Prophets as a crime comparable to stealing, murder, false swearing, and idolatry (Ex. xx. 14; Jer. vii. 9, xxiii. 10; Hos. iv. 2; Mal. iii. 5). The husband must provide his wife with food and raiment. While greater laxity was evidently permitted to him than to the wife, yet conjugal fidelity was highly esteemed and sexual license regarded as foolish and even fatal (Judges xix.-xx.; II Sam. xi.-xii.; Prov. ii., v., vi., vii.). In the New Testament love and fidelity on the part of the husband, and obedience on the part of the wife, are inculcated (Acts xv. 29; Ephes. v. 22-33; Coloss. iii. 18-19; I Thes. iv. 3-6).
Betrothal and Nuptial Rites.
The first step toward marriage was betrothal, involving the consent of the parent or guardian of the girl and the payment of a price. The act of betrothal is expressed by the Hebrew word "aras"; the price paid, by "mohar" (see Gen. xxxiv. 12; Ex. xxii. 16-17; Deut. xx. 7, xxii. 29; Hos. ii. 19-20). The mohar may be in the form of service in the field or in war (Gen. xxix.; I Sam. xviii. 25). Probably it was customary, even in early times, to give the bride some portion of the mohar, or at least to give her presents (Gen. xxiv. 53, xxxi. 15, xxxiv. 12). After betrothal the bride might be taken to her husband's house and the nuptials celebrated either immediately or later (Gen. xxiv. 49-67; Judges xiv. 5 et seq.). The initial steps, it appears, were customarily taken by the parents of the suitor, who formally made the proposal (Gen. xxiv., xxxiv. 4-6; Judges xiv. 2, 10). Not infrequently, however, in the comparatively free social intercourse of those days, the young man and woman had met and formed a mutual attachment resulting in a love-match (Gen. xxix. 9-12, 18; I Sam. xviii. 20, 28).
The bride did not always go to her husband empty-handed. Sometimes she received gifts from her father, and a king's parting gift to his daughter was in one case a conquered city (Josh. xv. 16 et seq.; Judges i. 12 et seq.; I. Kings ix. 16). In post-exilic times mention is made of a wife's dowry and of a woman being able, by her own wealth, to support her husband (Tobit viii. 21; Ecclus [Sirach] xxv. 22). Mention is made also of a written marriage-contract (Tobit vii. 14).
After betrothal the bride was subject to the same restrictions as a wife (Deut. xxii. 23-24). Of the marriage ceremonial little is known; it is not mentioned at all in the story of Isaac, while in that of Jacob (Gen. xxix.) a marriage-feast and a nuptial week are spoken of. The central features in later times were the wedding-procession and the wedding-feast. The bridegroom in festive attire and accompanied by his friends went to the home of the bride, whence she, likewise in bridal garments, veiled, and accompanied by her companions, was led to the house of his parents (Isa. lxi. 10; Judges xiv. 10-11; Jer. ii. 32; Isa. xlix. 18; Ps. xlv. 8-15). The procession was enlivened with songs by, or in praise of, the bride and bridegroom, and was lighted, if in the evening, by torches or lamps (Jer. vii. 34, xvi. 9, xxv. 10; I Macc. ix. 37-39; Matt. xxv. 1-12; comp. Ps. xlv. and the Canticles, possibly representing such wedding-songs). There followed the nuptial feast in the house of the bridegroom, and the subsequent festivities sometimes continued for several days (Matt. ix. 15, xxii. 1-14; John ii. 1).
Divorce.
The husband has the right to divorce his wife, but he was required by the Deuteronomic law to give her a writing of divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1). She may remarry, but if she is again divorced or is left a widow her former husband may not receive her again (Deut. xxiv. 2-4). Older practises are probably represented in Hos. ii. and II Sam. iii. 14. In two cases the right to divorce was withdrawn (Deut. xxii. 19, 29). The prophet Malachi protested most strongly against the practise (Mal. ii. 10-16). In the teaching of Jesus it is expressly condemned except on the ground of adultery (Matt. v. 31-32; Mark x. 2-12; Luke xvi. 18; comp. I Cor. vii. 11-13). See Divorce and Geṭ.
Bibliography:
Benzinger, Arch. Freiburg, 1894;
Nowack, Lehrbuch der Hebr. Arch. vol. i. ib. 1894;
Keil, Biblical Archœology, vol. ii.;
Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i. 371-395, Berlin, 1887;
McLennan, Primitive Marriage (reprinted in Studies in Ancient History, London, 1876);
W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1895 (new ed., London, 1903);
Starcke, The Primitive Family, London, 1889;
Westermarck, History of Human Marriage, London, 1891 (new ed., 1903);
Cheyne and Black, Encyc. Bibl.;
Hastings, Dict. Bible.
—In Rabbinical Literature:
Wedded life was regarded by the Rabbis as the most natural and the most exalted state. The unmarried man lives without joy, without blessing, and without good; also, according to others, without the Torah, without a wall (protection), and without peace (Yeb. 62b; Gen. R. xvii. 2). R. Ḥisda, in interpreting the expression "in want of all things" as used in Deut. xxviii. 48, said that it meant "without a wife" (Ned. 41a). Another amora, R. Eleazar, referring to Gen. v. 2, wished to deprive the unmarried man of his manhood (Yeb. 63a). It is therefore permitted for one to sell a scroll of the Law if the money is needed for the purpose of getting married (Meg. 27a; Yer. Bik. iii. 6; comp. Desecration). At marriage all sins are forgiven (Yeb. 63a; Yer. Bik. iii. 3).
Choice of Wife.
One should be careful in selecting a wife. A sayingcurrent among the Rabbis was, "Hasten to buy land; deliberate before taking a wife; descend one step in choosing a wife; ascend one step in choosing the best man" ("shushbin"; Yeb. 63a). One should first establish a home and plant a vineyard, and then marry (Soṭah 44a). The pursuit of the study of the Law, however, should be postponed until after marriage, when a man is settled in mind and can devote himself entirely to that vocation (Yoma 72b; Men. 110a; comp. Ḳid. 29b).
To marry a woman for her wealth was deprecated by the Rabbis (Ḳid. 70a; "Seder Eliyahu Zuṭa," ch. iii., ed. Friedmann, Vienna, 1902; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 3, 1, Isserles' gloss; "Sefer Ḥasidim," §§ 1094, 1096, ed. Wistinetzki, Berlin, 1891; see Dowry). The daughter of a respectable family is most to be desired (B. B. 109b); especially should the brothers of the bride be good and respectable men, for the character of the children is like that of the brothers of the mother (B. B. 110a; "Sefer Ḥasidim," §§ 1092, 1099, 1100). One should sell all he possesses in order to marry the daughter of a learned man (Pes. 49a, b; Ket. 111b; Yalḳ., Ex. 269; comp. Yoma 71a). A marriage between the daughter of a priest or of a learned man and an ignoramus ("'am haareẓ") will not be a successful one (Pes. 49a). All the promises of the Prophets will be fulfilled upon him who gives his daughter in marriage to a learned man (Ber. 34b); it is as if he united himself with the divine presence itself ("Shekinah"; Ket. 111b). It is deemed advisable that the wife should not be of a higher rank than the husband, in accordance with the homely saying, "A shoe that is larger than my foot I do not 5..desire" (Ḳid. 49a). The Rabbis were very much opposed to marriage between an old man and a young woman, or vice versa (Yeb. 44a; Sanh. 76a, b); they also advised against marrying a divorced woman or a widow (Pes. 112a). Marriage should be contracted with no other intention than that of doing the will of God (Soṭah 12a; "Seder Eliyahu Zuṭa," ch. iii.).
Influence of Wife.
The acquisition of a good and virtuous wife was regarded by the Rabbis as one of the greatest blessings. The praise given to the virtuous woman in Prov. xxxi. is elaborated in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), from which the Rabbis frequently quote the sentence: "Blessed is the man that hath a virtuous wife, for the number of his days shall be doubled" (xxvi. 1, Hebr.; comp. Yeb. 63b). He is rich who has a wife whose deeds are noble (Shab. 25b), for the wife can influence her husband more than he can influence her (see Gen. R. xvii. 1). In Palestine the custom was to address a man who had just been married with the question, "Maẓa o Moẓe?" referring to the initial words of two passages, Prov. xviii. 22 ("Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing") and Eccl. vii. 26 ("And I find more bitter than death the woman...." (Ber. 8a; Yeb. 63b). The quarrelsome woman was abhorred by the Rabbis of the Talmud, so that one would rather have all the evils combined than a bad wife (Shab. 11b). Some of the prominent Rabbis are recorded as having suffered much from the spitefulness of their wives (Yeb. 63a; comp. B. B. 145b).
Physical beauty in woman was highly appreciated by the Rabbis; a beautiful wife is one of the things that contributes to man's happiness (Ber. 57b; comp. Yoma 74b). A woman that has beautiful eyes needs no further recommendation (Ta'an. 24a). "The highest attribute of a woman is her beauty" was the song of the maidens of Jerusalem at their gatherings on the Fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement when wishing to attract the attention of the assembled youths (Ta'an. 31a). While it is commendable to marry soon after betrothal (Midr. Shemuel xvii. 4 and note, ed. Buber, Cracow, 1893), no one should marry a woman unless he has seen her beforehand (Ḳid. 41a; "Sefer Ḥasidim," § 1143). Similarity in stature or in complexion between the man and the woman was regarded with disfavor. A tall man should not marry a tall woman, nor a short man a short woman; a dark man should not marry a dark woman, nor a fair-complexioned man a fair-complexioned woman (Bek. 45b).
Marriages Made in Heaven.
The proverb that "marriages are made in heaven" is illustrated by a story in the Midrash. A Roman matron, on being told by R. Jose ben Ḥalafta that God arranges all marriages, said that this was an easy matter, and boasted that she could do as much herself. Thereupon she assembled her male and female slaves and paired them off in couples; but on the morrow they all went to her with complaints. Then she admitted that divine intervention is necessary to suitable marriages (Gen. R. lxviii. 3-4). Even God Himself finds it as difficult an undertaking as the dividing of the Red Sea. Forty days before a child is born its mate is determined upon (Gen. R. lxviii. 3-4; Soṭah 2a; Sanh. 22a; comp. M. Ḳ. 18b; "Sefer Hasidim," § 1128).
R. Jose asked of Elijah, "The Bible calls the wife a helpmeet; in what manner does she assist her husband?" To this Elijah replied, "A man brings wheat to his house, but he would have to chew the grains of wheat; he brings flax to his house, but he would have to clothe himself in flax—were it not for the wife, who [in preparing these materials] enlightens his eyes and helps him onto his feet" (Yeb. 63a; Leḳaḥ Ṭob to Gen. ii. 18; comp. "Seder Eliyahu Rabba," x. [ix.], where the story is given at greater length). To the worthy man the wife is a helpmeet; to the unworthy man the wife is a hindrance (Yeb. 63a).
The term "ḳiddushin" (sanctification), by which the act of marriage is designated in rabbinical writings, points to the reverence in which this ceremony was held. "He thus prohibits her to the whole world as a sacred object" is the explanation given to that term (Ḳid. 2b). Marriage was the symbol frequently employed by the Prophets to designate the relation between God and Israel (Hos. ii. 2-22; Isa. lxii. 4-5, liv. 6; Jer. iii. 1, 20; Ezek. xvi.; et al.). The love-songs of Canticles were taken by the Rabbis to refer to the love of God for Israel (see "Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim" to Cant. viii. 5; "Seder Eliyahu Rabba," ch. vii. [vi.] and x. [ix.]; et al.); God betrothed Israel with few gifts in this world, but the marriage which will take place in the Messianic time will be attended with many gifts (Ex. R. xvi. 30). The relation of Israel to the Torahis also symbolized as that of man to wife. The Torah is betrothed to Israel and therefore forbidden to every other nation (Ex. R. xxxiii. 8; Sanh. 59a; Pes. 49b).
Bibliography:
Buchholz, Die Familie, Breslau, 1867;
Suwalski, Ḥayye ha-Yehudi, ch. liii., Warsaw, 1893.
Frequency. —Statistics:
The number of marriages and the conditions under which they are contracted differ in the Jewish from those of the surrounding population. A smaller proportion marry, though these, for the most part, marry earlier than their neighbors. However, the changed social conditions in Germany in recent years are tending to modify the proportions. The number of Jews marrying to every thousand of the Jewish population (including children) is almost invariably less than among the general population, as may be seen from the following table:
|
Place. |
Epoch. |
Jews. |
Christians. |
Authority. |
|
Algiers |
1878 |
105 |
75 |
"Annuaire Statistique de la France," 1881, p. 580. |
|
Austria |
1864 |
46 |
83 |
Jeiteles, "Cultusgemeinde Wien," p. 50. |
|
" |
1870 |
53 |
98 |
Bergmann, "Beiträge," p. 69. |
|
Baden |
1857-63 |
58 |
74 |
Ib. |
|
Bavaria |
1835-68 |
61 |
75 |
Ib. |
|
Bucharest |
1878 |
127 |
65 |
"Orasului Bucaresci," 1878. |
|
France |
1855-59 |
62 |
82 |
Legoyt, "Immunities," p. 68. |
|
Hungary |
1864-73 |
64 |
105 |
Schwicker, "Ungarn," p. 99. |
|
Prussia |
1822-40 |
72 |
89 |
Hoffmann, in "Jour. Stat. Soc." 1846, p. 78. |
|
" |
1820-76 |
75 |
88 |
Fircks, "Zeit. Preuss. Stat." 1884, p. 148. |
|
" |
1878-82 |
65 |
78 |
Ruppin, in "Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie," 1902, p. 384. |
|
" |
1888-92 |
66 |
80 |
Ib. |
|
" |
1893-97 |
66 |
81 |
Ib. |
|
Russia |
1852-59 |
82 |
95 |
Legoyt, l.c. p. 52. |
|
" |
1867 |
87 |
100 |
"Le Mouvement de la Russie en 1867, " p. 19. |
|
Tuscany |
1861 |
70 |
97 |
Legoyt, l.c. p. 60. |
|
Victoria (Australia) |
1871-80 |
53 |
63 |
"Victorian Year-Book," 1881, p. 177. |
Jews live generally in towns, and fewer town-dwellers marry than country people. There is a larger preponderance of Jewesses over Jews in most of the countries of western Europe, where emigration removes the young men, and this slightly reduces the rate of marriage. In fact, the rate is probably illusory because reckoned on the whole of the population, including children. The larger the number of marriages the larger the number of children, and, therefore, the larger the population. Thus because the number of marriages among Jews is really greater, it has the appearance of being smaller.
Age.
The age at which marriage is contracted affects more than any other circumstance the physical, mental, and social characteristics of the offspring, determining the average duration of a generation, the fertility of marriage, and the physical and mental health of children, and, it has been conjectured, the proportion of sex to sex in the offspring. The most important ages are those below 20 and those between 20 and 30, the latter being the normal and more desirable period for marriage. The following details are known with regard to Jewish marriages at these ages. The figures in parentheses refer to females.
|
Place. |
Epoch. |
Under 20. |
20 to 30. |
||
|
______________________ |
_____________________ |
||||
|
Jews. |
Christians. |
Jews. |
Christians. |
||
|
Austria |
1861-70 |
(23.5) |
(15.1) |
68.6 (58.7) |
58.6 (57.6) |
|
Moscow |
1868-72 |
6.2 (49.3) |
4.0 (29.9) |
76.6 (48.5) |
55.9 (55.6) |
|
Budapest |
1858-70 |
(38.4) |
(20.5) |
67.6 (48.5) |
51.0 (53.1) |
|
Posen |
1867-73 |
0.7 (17.8) |
1.7 (17.1) |
65.7 (69.1) |
69.4 (63.2) |
|
Russia |
1867 |
47.6 (63.2) |
36.9 (56.7) |
37.9 (29.4) |
42.9 (33.7) |
|
" |
1897 |
5.9 (27.7) |
31.2 (55.0) |
77.7 (63.9) |
54.5 (38.5) |
|
St. Petersburg |
1866-72 |
9.5 (56.9) |
3.7 (27.3) |
52.4 (30.6) |
48.1 (51.4) |
Consanguineous Marriages.
The relatively early marriage of Jews was noticed in 1841 by Hoffmann, who mentions that 78.6 per cent of Jewish marriages in Prussia between 1822 and 1840 occurred under the age of 40 as against 74.6 of the general population ("Jour. Stat. Soc." ix. 80). Körösi attempts to prove that Jews have the fewest abnormal marriages (that is, where the bride is under 18, or over 40, and the bridegroom over 40)—12 per cent as against 35 per cent among Catholics, and 33 per cent among Protestants ("Statistisches Jahrbuch," 1873, p. 37). In Russia, however, the general population appears to marry earlier than the Jewish. The proportion of protogamous marriages, or first marriages, is larger among Jews than among Gentiles, as may be seen from the following table giving the percentage of such marriages:
|
Place. |
Epoch. |
Jews. |
Christians. |
Authority. |
|
Austria |
1861-70 |
87 (93) |
82 (89) |
Schimmer. "Stat. der Jud." 1873, p. 6. |
|
Budapest |
1858-75 |
88 (94) |
86 (89) |
Körösi, "Grandes Villes," p. 4. |
|
Moscow |
1868-72 |
88 (88) |
83 (85) |
Ib. p. 178. |
|
Prague |
1879-80 |
86 (96) |
82 (92) |
"Statist. Handbuch," 1881, p. 24. |
|
Prussia (Eastern) |
1867-73 |
91 (97) |
83 (89) |
Bergmann, l.c. p. 96. |
|
Russia |
1870 |
74 (80) |
82 (87) |
"Jour. Stat. Soc." 1880, p. 363. |
|
St. Petersburg. |
1866-72 |
83 (78) |
85 (87) |
Körösi, l.c. p. 172. |
This is probably due to the greater viability of Jews, since the longer husband and wife live the less likely either is to contract a second marriage. Thus among Jews in Budapest in 1870 no less than 66 per cent of those over 50 had husband, or wife, living, as against 51 per cent among Catholics and 53 per cent among Protestants ("Statist. Jahrb." 1873, p. 38). It is probable that Jews more frequently than others marry their cousins. Jacobs has shown this for England, where marriage of cousins occurs to the extent of 7.5 per cent of all marriages as against 2 per cent in the general population ("Studies in Jewish Statistics," ch. i.); Stieda has shown the same for Lorraine, where such marriages occur in the proportion of 23.02 per 1,000 among Jews as against 1.86 among Protestants, and 9.97 among Catholics.
The following table gives the proportion of inter-marriages between Jews and Christians, and betweenChristians and Jewesses, at the times and places mentioned:
|
Place. |
Epoch. |
Jews-Christians. |
Christians-Jewesses. |
Authority. |
|
Algeria |
1878 |
0.94 |
0.94 |
"Ann. Stat. France." 1881, p. 581. |
|
Bavaria |
1876-80 |
1.57 |
2.19 |
"Zeit. Bay. Stat." 1881, p. 213. |
|
Berlin |
1881 |
7.95 |
4.91 |
"Statist. Jahrb." ix. 8. |
|
" |
1895-99 |
10.53 |
6.53 |
Ruppin, l.c. p. 761. |
|
Budapest |
1881 |
0.96 |
0.10 |
"Pest in 1880,." p. 12. |
|
Prague |
1878-80 |
1.14 |
0.20 |
"Statist. Handbuch," 1881, p. 24. |
|
Prussia |
1875-79 |
4.46 |
5.36 |
Fircks, "Zeit. Preus. Stat." 1880, p. 16. |
|
Vienna |
1865-74 |
2.60 |
3.06 |
Körösi, l.c. p. 18. |
Relatively speaking, mixed marriages are not very numerous (see Intermarriage).
Divorces.
The creeds professed by divorced persons are rarely given, so that it is difficult to ascertain whether Jews are divorced more frequently than others. In Bavaria, between 1862 and 1865, divorces were 5.1 per cent in Jewish marriages as against 6.1 per cent in Protestant and 5.7 per cent in Catholic marriages ("Annales de Demographie," 1882, p. 290). In Berlin, 1885-86, Jewish divorces were 2.7 as against 3.6 for Protestants and 2.7 for Catholics; ten years later the figures were—Jews, 3.3; Protestants, 4.7; Catholics, 3.3 (Ruppin, l.c. 1902, p. 385).
Bibliography:
Jacobs, Studies in Jewish Statistics, pp. 49-54.
MARRIAGE
1. Forms of Marriage.—There are two forms of marriage among primitive races: (1) where the husband becomes part of his wife’s tribe, (2) where the wife becomes part of her husband’s 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. Samson’s marriage. (b) The husband may be definitely incorporated into his wife’s tribe (beena marriage). The wife meets her husband on equal terms; children belong to her trine, and descent is reckoned on the mother’s 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); Joseph’s sons born in Egypt are adopted by Jacob (Gen 48:5); Abimelech, the son of Gideon’s 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 man’s 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 bridegroom’s 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 bride’s 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 (Abraham’s 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.
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 father’s 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 wife’s 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; Esau’s 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 Naomi’s (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 Timothy’s 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. lçvir, ‘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
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 maiden’s 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); Solomon’s 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 bridegroom’s 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 Samson’s comrades are necessarily taken from the bride’s 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 wife’s tent (Gen 24:67, Jdg 4:17); cf. the tent pitched for Absalom (2Sa 16:22). In Arab.
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 bride’s 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 wife’s 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 man’s 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 brother’s 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.
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 priest’s 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 neighbour’s 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 one’s 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 husband—a 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.
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 divorcêe 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
(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 Lord’s 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) Israel’s idolatry is whoredom, adultery, the following of strange lovers (note the connexion of idolatry with literal fornication). (2) J″
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 bride’s array being contrasted with the harlot’s 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.
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
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
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 (
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
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” (
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.
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 ôὸ ἑáõôïῦ óêåῦïò in that passage of a man’s 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 man’s 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 Master’s 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 Nazirite’s 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 heaven’s 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 Lord’s words about leaving ‘house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God’s 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 Lord’s 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 Lord’s 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 Christ’s 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’ (ìéᾶò ãõíáéêὸò ἄíäñá) 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 ìéᾶò 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 ὁ ðáñèÝíïò, 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 Lord’s teaching. ‘My sisters’ (he says) are to love the Lord and be content with their spouses (óõìâßïéò) 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 (ἁãíåßᾳ, 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 (ðëÝïí ôïῦ ἐðéóêüðïõ: 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 (ἁãíüò) in the flesh, let him be so, and not boast, knowing that it is Another who bestows his continence (ἐãêñÜôåéáí) upon him.’ We note that both Ignatius and Clement use ἁãíüò or ἁãíåßá 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 ἁãíåßá. 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 (ἡñìïóÜìçí, 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 (ðïéåῖí ãÜìïí), 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 bride’s house; but the other view, held by most commentators, is much more probable. Normally the wedding is in the bridegroom’s 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 DXÓ, 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; ãÜìïò and ãÜìïé 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 bridegroom’s 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 king’s 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 (ἔíäõìá ãÜìïõ, 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 Jacob’s 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 Laban’s fraud).
The friend of the bridegroom (ὁ ößëïò ôïῦ íõìößïõ, Joh_3:29) is the same as the ðáñáíýìöéïò or ðÜñï÷ïò ãÜìùí (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 ðÜñï÷ïò means ‘one who sits beside another in a chariot’ (ὄ÷ïò). The corresponding feminine is ðáñÜíõìöïò, 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’ (ἀñ÷éôñßêëéíïò) 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 bridegroom’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 íåùôÝñáò 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 ãåãïíõῖá 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 clergyman’s 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 Joseph’s 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 father’s 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 Philip’s 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 brother’s 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 Ramsay’s 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 ðáñʼ ἡìῖí, 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 Timothy’s 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 Timothy’s 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. Peter’s 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 men’s 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 ðïñíåßá, let us consider in detail our Lord’s 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’ (ðáñåêôὸò ëüãïõ ðïñíåßáò), and in Mat_19:9 ‘except for fornication’ (åἰ ìὴ ἐðὶ ðïñíåßᾳ), 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 Lord’s 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 ðïñíåßá mean in the two Matthaean passages? It is distinguished from ìïé÷åßá in Mat_15:19, Mar_7:21 f., and in inferior Manuscripts of Gal_5:19; cf. 1Co_6:9 and Heb_13:4 (ðüñíïé and ìïé÷ïß). Lyttelton (op. cit. p. 174 ff.) makes ðïñíåßá the sin of the flesh, and ìïé÷åßá the breaking of the marriage bond by ðïñíåßá or otherwise. According to some, ðïñíåßá 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 ðïñíåßá and ìïé÷åßá, when named in the same context, are to be distinguished, ðïñíåßá in the exceptive clauses can hardly have the meaning assigned; in Hos_2:5, Amo_7:17 Septuagint , ðïñíåýù 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 ìïé÷åßá can be committed by intention somewhat militates against Lyttelton’s view, and shows that there is not always a very sharp distinction in the NT between the two words. We may, then, probably take ðïñíåßá 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 Lord’s 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’ (ἐîÝëèῃ ἀðὸ), 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 Church’s sanction to an act which she perhaps disapproves, and recognizing the existence of a valid marriage. For the Church’s 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. Schürer, 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.
Marriage is vitally important in Judaism, and refraining from marriage is considered unnatural. Marriage is not solely for the purpose of procreation, but is primarily for the purpose of love and companionship. See also Interfaith Marriages; Kosher Sex; Divorce.
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.
From the beginning God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 bride’s 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 father’s 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 God’s plan for human society (Mal 2:16; Mat 5:32; Mat 19:8-9; see DIVORCE).
Human sexuality is one of God’s gifts to humankind and, like all God’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 God’s 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 husband’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 God’s 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).