Marriage Myths, Part 6 - Slave Love

To this day, use of the word 'slavery' immediately evokes controversy and intense, raw negative emotion. The thought of practices related to chattel slavery of the 19th century questions the very notions we hold dear about man's ability to treat others peacefully. The events of the recent past in America have, no doubt, forever changed the way modern people perceive slavery. It is for this reason that the appearance or mention of slaves in the Bible will always be a “hot-button” issue for skeptics.

For instance, recently in Harrisburg (of which I live within 30 miles) an atheist group sponsored a billboard attacking the state legislature's declaration of 2012 as the “Year of the Bible”. [1] On the billboard was included an image of a slave, and a select quote from the Bible referencing a command given to slaves. The intention was clear – to evoke strong, negative emotion against considering the Bible as a standard for making law. After all, it has been used to make laws such as slavery legal. Within a day, of course, the billboard was vandalized and replaced, stirring up an overwhelmingly negative reaction in the nearby black community.

To all individuals, then, this is clearly an important topic to deal with it. With most people's understanding of slavery, to just consider the Bible discusses the practice is difficult to deal with. It is not uncommon for it to be forgiven as something that was merely practiced and accepted in ancient culture. In this sense, God is seen as merely overlooking the issue to handle it at an appropriate time. Still, others defend the Bible itself by mentioning the high standards set on the practice, and language in the New Testament that states freedom and equal treatment for all, master and slave (Gal 3:28, Col 3:11). All sides of the issue, unfortunately, only hit on parts of the problem. Like many other things discussed in this series so far, few people ever really perceive the reality of the situation. [2]

With complexities involved in discussing the Bible's use of slavery, then, it is little surprise it shows up in our skeptical author's graphic. This post, of course, will focus less on the issue of slavery itself (that would require a separate discussion). Instead, this is a series on marriage and we will look closer at the challenges our graphic appears to present. What should we make of God requiring slaves to be married? It is as objectionable as our skeptic would likely agree? Get ready to 'take every thought captive' with me as we delve into this issue!

The first graphic above portrays a typical married couple, with one person added to their side – a female slave. The only appeal made that supposedly proves this to be a Biblical form of marriage is to the text of Genesis 16. For those of you who don't know, this is the story of Sarah and Hagar, her servant (KJV handmaid, Strong's 8198). In it, Sarah has been unable to have children for more than 10 years. Frustrated and hopeless, she does the only thing she can imagine to ensure Abraham will have a descandant. She presents Hagar to Abraham as a bride, so he can then father children to be legitimate descendants. It is a lame attempt for Abraham and Sarah to have a hand in trying to move along God's promise to Abraham of fathering a nation.

As has been the case other times we've looked at ancient marriage, what this really ends up being is nothing but an example of surrogate motherhood. Children were the primary purpose for marriage and this would help ensure men would be able to have descendants. Intercourse was taboo unless done within a marriage (for purposes of proving inheritance, etc.)  So marriage to a woman whose birthing system is working is the legal, honorable way to proceed in this case.

What is unclear is exactly what the objection is here. The graphic mentions that a man could take his wife's property, but this is not really what is portrayed here. The property is offered by the wife, and for good reason. Is it somehow perceived that forcing a slave to marry someone interferes with their personal desires to choose a mate? That too would be misplaced, since all marriages were arranged in those days. To take a moral high ground against that is to impose modern standards on ancient people (to judge them by your own standards).

The reality of the situation is twofold. First, for Hagar to be a servant is not to imply the same thing as saying she was a chattel slave (as was practiced in the 1800's). There is no indication in the text here that she receives any poor treatment. A servant, or “slave” in those days was merely a hired hand – much like I am for the company that fills my paychecks. Similar to employment, this was also an agreement entered into by the servant. It was not forced upon someone, but would actually be requested by them!

Secondly, consider that Hagar was offered full marriage. This implies that Abraham would be required to treat her no differently than Sarah. She would have all the same privileges and would receive equal respect in the household. This would, in a sense, be a huge promotion from being a servant. It is extremely difficult to find anything negative in this as an example for modern times. Not only was Hagar not a slave in the sense we think of, she was placed in a very generous position (perhaps more than she was comfortable with, as the story plays out in Gen 16:4).

Moving along, the 2^nd graphic presents a scenario from Exodus 21:4. Amongst some guidelines being given to the Israelites during their desert wanderings, God tells Moses that if a servant is given a wife by his master, the wife and her children belong to the master when the servant is freed. One wonders why our graphic's creator has a larger problem with the first half of this stipulation, as opposed to the latter half. But the point is moot - all marriages in the ancient world were arranged – whether slave or not.

In some sense, that the master would choose to give a wife to his servant (“slave”) indicates tremendous generosity. A servant that would be granted the privilege of marriage (likely to someone in the master's family) is a sign that the servant has earned major respect with the master. He has proven trustworthy in his stewardship, and a close bond has formed between master and servant.

The passage further stipulates that if the servant desired to keep the marriage, he could enter a lifetime of service with the patron. This would only be fathomable if the relationship between the two was extremely beneficial to both parties. This further shows the arrangement in view is not a barbaric or oppressive one, as one might picture when they hear the word “slave”. As we have seen time over in this series, this form of marriage instead is a tremendous honor for all parties involved.

Finally, as we have seen before, the graphic's author seems to enjoy the copy/paste feature of his editor. Once again he has put in an objection regarding “sexual submission”, but it appears to have no basis in the Biblical narrative. This should not be surprising - there is no evidence in the Bible that sexual submission was a requirement of marriage. Sex may not have primarily served  mutual enjoyment, and in a sense it was an expectation for the evening whether a wife desired it or not. But this is not "submission"; it is hardly even different than what is seen in many modern marriages. Were it even a valid argument, would it really be something to cringe at?

In the end, no matter how offensive the word of slavery is to many sensitive Westerners, the appearance of servants and slaves in the Bible is not only justifiable, but uniquely different from what modern people oppose. High standards were set in those days on how people were treated, and clearly marriage in either of these cases was not anything degrading or abusive. It was more a legal formality of sorts, and I don't see skeptics protesting people who follow the law.


For more on the topic of slavery itself (which may become a blog topic in the future), see http://www.christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Below are the TektonTV videos on this subject

[1] WGAL.com. "Atheist Billboard Offends Some African-Americans." Msnbc.com. Msnbc Digital Network, 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46649444/ns/local_news-lancaster_pa/t/atheist-billboard-offends-some-african-americans/>.

[2] In the English language, the use of the word slavery itself changed after the practice of the 1800's. What was historically called slavery, and what was practiced by ancient people, was very different from chattel slavery of the 1800's. In fact, for this reason, historians often refer to the ancient practice as 'indentured servitude' – a fancy word that implies something closer to modern employment than to the propagation of abuse towards a cheap labor force.

Marriage Myths, Part 5 - Helpless Victim?

So far, through this series you’ve seen that many ancient stipulations for marriage, despite appearing offensive to modern Americans, were quite honorable and understandable in full context. But as we continue this series, will this continue to hold true? Prepare to ‘take every thought captive’ as we investigate the next form of marriage our graphic depicts.

In the text of Deuteronomy Chapter 22, verses 28-29, we read the following:

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives. (NET)

According to these verses, it seems the Bible is asking a rapist “caught in the act” to pay her father a bride price and take the victim as his wife – permanently. Such an act is hard to comprehend for anyone who thinks of the abuse suffered by rape victims. To think they might live with and serve the man who committed such an act is outrageous. Traumatic and terrible acts like rape are frequently punishable by most standards of law! Why does the man seem to get off easy and the woman get it tough? Doesn't God care about victims of rape? This just seems to confirm the negative stereotypes for patriarchal societies and oppression of women.

As you should know by now, however, there is more here than meets the eye. First, one thing is clear about this passage. The woman is a victim. Note that the woman here is not engaged (“betrothed”). This means she can safely be assumed to be a virgin (sex outside of marriage was rare). Anyone who would have sex with her, then, would drastically reduce her ability to be married (cared for and supported). This brings tremendous shame on her family (something to be avoided at all costs)  The woman herself, unmarried and now with little hope of being married or having children, would join her family as being outcasts.

For the man to have to marry this woman is punishment also, however. Why? Am I completely crazy? First, consider this - he is not allowed to divorce her for any reason. This means he will have to do what it takes to make the woman happy (the woman gains an edge here). He is also now responsible to provide for her – food, clothing, money, etc. - indefinitely. And he also carries the embarrassment of marrying a woman he wronged. He will have to live with this and must work to improve his reputation with her. This may not seem like a big deal at first, but consider how important reputation was to ancient people – it was to be prized and maintained at all costs. It was the highest good, the most valuable thing possible.

And speaking of costs, the 50 shekel penalty, elsewhere in the Bible, is tribute paid by the rich (2 Kings 15:20). Dr. Thompson notes that it was likely the equivalent of 5 years pay for the average man [1] - no small sum to cough up. Clearly, a man in this position would not feel he was getting off easy! Both people will love with and endure hardship as a result of the action. But when you look closer at what the man is asked to do by marrying the victim, he is being made to take responsibility for his action. He is being forced to man up – to provide for the woman and family he harmed. Is that something we really want to discourage these days?

Of course, the marriage itself would not necessarily be forced. As discussed in previous posts, ancient law (torah) was not handled as literally as we think of in our justice system. A penalty stated was the maximum allowed, and families always had the option of accepting or enforcing lower penalties. Glen Miller goes into more detail on this here, especially at applies to our passage. While not stated directly in this passage, it is a more viable solution than it appears as first. Consider that in Exodus 22:16-17 - the original law, as given (Deuteronomy is sometimes considered Mose's summary), an identical situation is being described. But what is different? The father has the option of refusing the marriage. The only certainty is that the dowry will be paid!

Even with all this considered, many would say it still seems awkward to consider God would ask someone to marry a rapist. What about the emotional trauma and other psychological considerations? Because of this, I want to look at another aspect of understanding this text. Is the act being performed really rape?

It may sound like a dodge tactic to some, but consider this. The act the man performs is translated as “rape” in some popular Bible translations, but this is not consistent practice with most translations. First, look at the following renderings of verse 28 in 2 popular translations (aside from the NET, quoted above):

• NIV: If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered
• HCSB: If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered

Now, look at how the verse is rendered in some of these other major translations (which do not specify the word rape).

• ESV: If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found
• CEV: Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught
• NASB: If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered
• KJV: If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found

Although rape is not specified by the translators, it has generally been assumed by commentators over the years that rape is implied. This tradition dates back to the Middle Ages[2][3], and apparently is adhered to by many in the Middle East.[4] This tradition is no doubt responsible for why some translations do read rape here. In addition, it seems that, in surrounding context, verse 28 follows stipulations for a situation sounding much like forcecd rape (Deut 22:23-27).

But is this a fair assessment? Are both passages talking about the same thing? We need to take a closer look to find out. We'd expect more translations to read rape, if that is what is implied. So to answer our question, let's compare the verses in question.

First, look at the punishments involved. In verses 23-25, stoning is ordered for any guilty individuals involved. But in our passage, marriage is forced on the individuals. If both passages are dealing with rape, why handle the situation differently? Perhaps this is because the preceding verses (Deut 22:23-27) deal with a woman who is already engaged (betrothed) to a man – already committed to marriage. But verse 28 deals with a woman who is not engaged. A woman not engaged is waiting to be married but now would be unlikely to do so; an engaged woman has already been “purchased” and has no business being touched.

The fact that these 2 situations are contrasted may imply, then, that both are dealing with different circumstances for the same issue. But the question remains – is rape really in view in both cases, as has been assumed by many commentators? After all, translators have hesitated to put the words rape in the mouth of the author here. Is God still asking a woman to marry a man who's raped her, regardless of her "marriageability"?

In order to get a better handle on this, let's see what we get if we compare the text of the verses. In verse 25, the action being performed by the man (often translated as forces her and lies with her, seizes and rapes her) is translated from 2 Hebrew words: chazaq shakab. In verse 28, however, the action being performed is translated from the words taphas shakab. Notice how the phrases are clearly different, but the translation tactics are similar. Is this warranted?

The word shakab, found in both phrases, is what is translated as “lie with her” or “sleep with her”. This is consistent in both passages and in numerous examples throughout the Bible. There is little debate over this word – it is a known euphemism for a sexual act. So both passages are clearly discussing something sexual. This is little surprise, too, as many other situations discussed in Chapter 22 also reference sexual acts.

But what about the word taphas (Strong's 8610), as opposed to chazaq (Strong's 2388)? If both situations might refer to rape (a forced or unwilling sexual act), why are these 2 different words used? What do they mean? Let's look at how each word is used in the Bible.

Strong's relates the basic, literal definition of chazaq as meaning “to be strong, to grow strong” [5] In practice, it conveys a few other meanings aside from this. It is the word translated as courageous, and is the word used throughout Exodus 7-14 to indicate God's hardening of Pharoah's heart. It is also used a few times of people when they grab their clothes to rip them (a sign of grief), and is used when people grab the horns of the altar in the temple. Perhaps more relevant to the issue at hand, it is a word used in Judges 19:25, when a concubine is forcefully taken by strangers and abused overnight. A few verses later in Judges 19:29, the Levite grabs the concubine to cut her up.

Clearly, when chazaq is used, some kind of force or strength is being exerted over the object in question. This would easily lead one to believe the sexual act in verses 23-27 is forceful, and may be why the passage is considered to be discussing rape. But what of the word taphas, in verse 28? How is it used, and can it carry the same meaning?

The basic definition of taphas is reported as “to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield” [6] In Genesis 4:1, Jubal is the father of all who handle the harp, and Ezekiel 27:29 mentions people who handle oars. Likewise, Amos 2:15 talks of those who handle bows and Jeremiah 50:16 talks about handling a sickle. In Genesis 39:12 Potiphar's wife is said to grab Joseph to get his attention, and in 1 Kings 11:30 Abijah grabs his robe and rips it. In 1 Kings 18:40 Elijah takes the prophets of Baal captive, and in numerous places (2 Kings 16:19, Isaiah 36:1, Jeremiah 40:10, and more) a city is taken captive . In Proverbs 30:9, the writer is concerned about taking God's name in vein and repeated references in Ezekiel have God saying he will catch someone in his snare or people being taken in a pit.

A quick glance then reveals taphas does have some overlapping use with chazaq: both can be used of someone taking hold of an object. But with the word taphas, we see fewer examples of force being used and more examples of skill or talent (oars, farming, swords and bows). We also have more instances where surprise or deception is in view. For instance, Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph, prophets are taken captive, and others are caught by a trap or a pit.

In the end, you can see each word appears to carry with it different implications. It seems shakab definitely deals with a forced act, where taphas implies some kind of deception or skill. This would seem to justify comparison to Exodus 22:16-17, which speaks of a dowry being required for someone who entices (not rapes) a betrothed virgin. But this is perhaps why many have been careful to translate either act as rape. 

With this in view, the action ins verse 28 could more likely be a seduction or “one-night-stand” scenario. And if that is so, the man is being forced to pay for his mistake and take responsibility for his deceit. I hope you would agree that this is nothing but honorable. In addition, God is not asking a rape victim to live with her rapist. He is instead giving the woman the upper hand in a situation where she was taken advantage of!

Rev. Ralph Smith takes a closer look at the issue from a “woman's rights” perspective.




Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.








[1] "WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL." WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. James C. Thompson, B.A., M.Ed., July 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/index.htm>.
[2] "Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach That a Rape Victim Has to Marry Her Rapist? | MandM." MandM. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/07/sunday-study-does-the-bible-teach-that-a-rape-victim-has-to-marry-her-rapist.html>.
[3] Matt and Madeleine also make a strong case that the word rape, in the Middle Ages, carried with it a much broader connotation than our modern word. In essence, they argue that the word rape, in previous centuries, referred to any kind of unwanted sexual act – not necessarily a forced one.
[4] In fact, the issue recently came up in world news. This may beg the question - if Middle Eastern tradition understands this as rape, wouldn't that lend authenticity to this interpretation, as their tradition predates the Middle Ages? Perhaps, if that specific statement can be proven. The author of Answering Christianity, who defends orthodox Islam (the religion of 99% of Moroccans), defends the verse as rape - how? Not by appealing to traditions, but by saying "lay hold on her" must mean a forced act. To not see this as rape, he believes, means the Bible condones sex before marriage. (though it's clearly not condoning it)
Note there is no word study or interaction with context or language. If this is the thinking that formed their tradition, it is just as likely that similar thinking influenced the Middle Ages. This would be a universal problem for anyone in recent history - reading something into a text. This has no bearing on what the words actually mean, especially in their original languages. Only rabbinic tradition might help lend weight to accurate historical understanding BCE, but I cannot locate Jewish commentaries on the passages.

[5] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2388 
[6] http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H8610

Marriage Myths, Part 4 - More Concubines, Please!

 

Just at the mere mention of the word concubine, I doubt many readers of this blog would conjure up an image other than that of a “sex slave” or “prostitute”. My guess is, at this minute, you may even be thinking about a large harem of girls that a king kept - for sex, of course! What other purpose could it serve for a man to have multiple women serving him?

The persistence of imagery like this associated with ancient culture is part of why ancient marriage like this seems repulsive when we first discover them in the Bible. We are left to imagine such a radically different world in the past, where men acted more like monkeys and women were innocent victims. But have you considered exactly where you got all these notions and stereotypes of ancient marriage from? You turned to the works of scholars, writing about ancient culture and history from the library - right?

Of course not. You barely had time to pass your civics course in High School, and saw little purpose in reading material any further. You weren't even interested in history. When it came to understanding it, you trusted what few resources you were exposed to. You assumed, whether for entertainment or other purposes, the stereotypes you received were rooted in some accurate portrayal of the past. You knew people making movies on historical matters worked hard to portray things more accurately than you could! You aren't to blame!

Unfortunately, the problem is you accepted a lie from a most egregious distorter of reality. You fell victim to the penultimate peddler of faux intellectualism. You listened to the media machine whose goal is to bring mankind further from what it sees as a brutish past, pushing everyone towards a perfectly polite future. For, like the elitists that thrive on such stereotypes, the version of concubinage you were presented projected modern values on this most ancient of cultural practices.

Would it surprise you to learn that there were other purposes to this kind of arrangement than sex? And at that, purposes that might even be more important? If you’ve read Part 3 of this series, maybe it's not too much a surprise to you that concubines might have served a non-sexual purpose. But I’m sure you’re still trying to figure things out in your mind. Unlike levirate marriage, after all, there is no blood or family relationship involved. How can something like concubines serve a positive purpose for society?

The answer is actually rather simple. Much like levirate marriage, concubinage served as a great system for surrogate motherhood. We see the best glimpse of this in Abraham’s story (the first name mentioned in the graphic) You see, Sarah had been unable to give children for some time - at least 10 years since having settled in Canaan! (Gen 16:3) Many people today would have simply given up! This was clearly not an easy decision, and even resulted in some turmoil between Sarah and Hagar (Gen 16:5-6).[1]

So, whether a desirable thing or not, being a concubine was a great way to honor a wife who could not bear children and provide husbands with descendants. As noted previously in this serious, having children was absolutely critical with high death rates (one reason why children became a sign of status). In this sense, concubinage was very practical. Remember there were no adoption agencies or sperm banks, and in-vitro fertilization had yet to be invented. It's hard to imagine a better system, in this author's humble opinion.

More than just considerations of motherhood, however, it’s important to consider why else women would accept this arrangement. Was there anything to gain but children? As a matter of fact, yes. For women who had nowhere to turn to for financial support, concubinage would be an honorable way to embed in a male and receive such support. In that sense, you might say being a concubine was better than the most likely alternative - prostitution. If you could find someone, you may not be offered marriage but would certainly fall under the male’s umbrella of responsibility to provide for.






 

So, considering that concubinage may have had some reasonable purpose, what about how concubines were treated? Aren’t the stereotypes ones of women being subject to mental abuse, slavery and a life of boredom and mindless servitude? Of course they are – after all, what could be worse than being forced to live with, have sex or be married to someone you don’t “love”? This sounds like a lifetime of trauma and suffering. But is it that simple?

As the information provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia bears out, the reality, at least as the Bible is concerned, is far less dramatic and may surprise you. In its entry on the word pilegesh, the Hebrew for concubine, it notes that concubines enjoyed the same rights and respect as a wife. [2]  Similarly, their children were treated as if they had been born from the wife. This is anything but barbaric or oppressive.

In fact, it turns out it was extremely dishonorable for the concubine to be mistreated. For instance, look at these examples from the Bible:

1. Reuben sleeps with Jacob’s concubine (Gen 35:22), and Jacob later assails him for the deed as he is giving blessings to the remainder of his sons (Gen 49:3-4).
2. After Gibeah raped a concubine (Judges 19:25-26) and left her for dead, 400,000 armed men from Israel took up swords (Judges 20:2) and plotted to punish him. A skirmish ensued and over 25,000 Benjamites (Gibeah was of this tribe) died (Gen 20:35).
3. Absalom took David’s concubines (2 Sam 16:20-22) as part of his attempt to usurp the throne from David. Let me repeat – stealing David’s concubines was seen as a sign of threatening his power and position.

Concubines were clearly a serious matter to Israel. This seems even more so as we get closer to the period of Israel’s kings, such as David and Solomon (who had over 300 concubines). While it seems absurd that kings would have so many concubines, it may also be another indicator that concubines were more than “sex slaves”. As Glen Miller points out from Jack Sasson’s Civilization of Ancient Near East, a harem could include "women of the king', who lived in their own building and who were assisted by a group of officials...These women were sometimes placed in charge of important sectors of palace work, especially the manufacture of textiles.'” [3]  In other words, concubines were often trusted to take care of the palace for the king. Implied by this is that such women were actually of significant reputation or class (or they would not be trusted to work for the king).

So, rather than seeing concubines as helpless female slaves, perhaps it is more prudent to see them as highly prized and important individuals. Whether they were women hired by the king for work (receiving special treatment), or surrogate mothers for ancient patriarchs, the record is clear. They were anything but helpless, neglected or abused.

In the West, of course, we have no need for such arrangements. Surrogate mothers rarely need or seek support from their partner families with modern wages and government systems. The hiring of labor is also a very formal process, governed by law, which ensures the right workers are used in a job regardless of background. We can achieve all these things without marriage, so to presume concubinage should remain in practice to keep consistent with living by the Bible's standards is to clearly miss the point.

None of what I write is to deny that concubines may have been used for sex, or that the practice itself didn’t degenerate into abuse for sexual purposes. But the reality is it was not a system setup for that purpose, and any abuse of this did not originally go unpunished. There is nothing to show that the Bible’s mention of concubines is something to be embarrassed about or looked down on. It was a fact of life then, as it was for many eastern cultures, and may have eventually become something honorable. Being a concubine may have eventually meant you were part of an elite class of kingdom workers. Is this really something that we should find so objectionable?

Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.

 

[1] Note in this saga that, in contrast to popular stereotypes about patriarchal society, it is Sarai (the female) who was given permission to treat Hagar as she saw fit,. Any harsh treatment towards Hagar was actually done by Sarai. It is many chapters later that Abraham, on seeking advice from God, cools the situation and releases Hagar. Clearly, as a man he was no pusher, but a peacemaker.

[2] "JewishEncyclopedia.com." PILEGESH -. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12148-pilegesh

[3] Sasson, Jack M. Civilization of Ancient Near East. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1995. 1224. Print.

Marriage Myths, Part 3 - Poor Widow?

 

For today’s post, we will tackle the next form of marriage portrayed in the graphic – levirate marriage. This is certainly one of the stranger forms of marriage to be presented by our graphic, and is sure to generate some good discussion. But as we ‘take every thought captive’ on this issue, we'll see that all is not as it appears. In the process,  a foundation will be laid that will help us more quickly explain and defend other types of ancient marriage.

First, what is levirate marriage? Simply put, levirate marriage occurred in ancient culture (and by the Bible’s prescription) when a woman was made a widow. It was incumbent on another male in the family (a brother of the widow’s husband) to take over the position as husband and fulfill the associated responsibilities. That includes procreation, obviously. But it is telling that one of the graphic’s 2 complaints has to do with sex - as if that is the most important objection or purpose of marriage. Even then, however, it is not a valid complaint - I am not aware of any requirement, Biblical or otherwise, that a wife through levirate marriage was required to submit sexually. (is this what the graphic was implying by its objection to “submission” in our prior look at traditional marriage?)

Let’s face it, though –there still seem to be legitimate reasons to be spooked by such an arrangement. If you have one, can you imagine copulating with your brother or sister-in-law? Or being required to marry them? Probably not – it hardly seems to be an ideal situation to us in modern America. So why would it have been so important – a duty, in fact – for people in ancient Israel to obey this mandate? (Gen 38:8) Why would Onan be punished, by God, for not having fulfilled this duty? (Gen 38:10) Why would women even be subject to the (perceived) torture of such an arrangement? 

The problem with such objections, as you will continue to see throughout this series, is they show complete ignorance of what ancient life was like. Regarding sex, what we value as ideals for marriage are based on modern concepts of romantic love. Some of those ideals include sex as something shared for mutual benefit of both partners. And this is seen to be an objectively better ideal for marriage. But this was not  so in the ancient world. Sex mainly served the purpose of procreation, and if you consider how high death rates were, you would know why! As much as 60% of children born would likely not even see puberty and be able to reproduce. [1].  Providing children to a family, then, was clearly much more vital than personal or individual pleasures!

Though we shudder to think of marriage in this way, relationships in general were not as personal to the ancients as they are to us. In fact, brothers and sisters often had closer relationships than husband and wife might! [2]  And this is for multiple reasons – one being that husbands were the labor force for a labor-intensive lifestyle. Second, psychology as we know it was not part of ancient thought. People did not dream about what could be, worry about what was or stress over what would be best for them. Rather, they accepted life as is, tried to make the most of it and were concerned with what was best for everyone. Arranged marriage, then, may not have been personal but it was extremely practical. This makes ancient marriage less glorious than our ideals in the West, but also not nearly as barbaric as skeptics like to think.

Aside from this, it is important to note that a woman without a husband in the ancient Near East was an outcast. Husbands were a guaranteed way to ensure descendants. Not just any children, but children that would maintain the family reputation (the core value of ancient people). And children born by a brother-in-law's involvement was believed to be the closest way to ensure children were genetically similar to the father. [3] And in this sense, levirate marriage served as an ideal equivalent to surrogate motherhood. 

Beyond that, however, marriage to the brother-in-law was needed for more practical reasons. A woman’s reputation was embedded in the husband's family. [4]  Once married, she became part of the husband’s family and lost all ties with her birth family. Any support she might receive in old age, or any land to be inherited (signs of security and status) came only from that family. So marrying within that family was the only guarantee to receive this support. 

Of course, while this explains the role or purpose of levirate marriage, it does nothing to address the full Biblical context. As much as it may be trendy to say “Look, this is in the Bible!” and decry it as an odd way to live, it is misguided to even do so to start with. Why? Many years after the events recorded in Genesis, the laws given by Moses (Lev 18:16) forbade a man to marry his brother’s wife. For this reason, rabbinic tradition shows us levirate marriage, in practice, only became required when the husband had no descendants. [5] And even then, a husband had the right to refuse levirate marriage (Deut 25:7-10). So it is not clear how widely practiced this form of marriage would have been (though it was not uncommon to end up a widow!)

In the end, it is tough to find levirate marriage objectionable. The benefits of it discussed so far may explain why it has been practiced by countless societies, and is still practiced in some parts of the world today. So we should be careful to judge these situations, as none of the concerns raised are things we need to worry about in the US. We have a tremendous ability to ensure births are successful, carrying family names on for generations. We also do not lose reputation or inheritance by being unable to provide children. And when people reach old age, we have social and government support for them.  But these remained real concerns in the ancient world, and levirate marriage addressed them – to the benefit of everyone.

Below is the TektonTV video on this subject.

[1] Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. 237. Print.

[2] ibid. 31

[3] "WOMEN AND THE LAW IN ANCIENT ISRAEL." WOMEN IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. James C. Thompson, B.A., M.Ed., July 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/index.htm>.

[4] Malina, Rohrbaugh. Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 30.

[5] "Levirate Marriage." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Feb. 2012. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage>.

Marriage Myths, Part 2 - Man and Woman

As our series continues, it is time to look at each of the types of marriage portrayed in the popular Facebook graphic. What are we to make of them? Why do they seem to create such controversy? Only the first, nuclear family, is akin to what our society sees as an acceptable form of marriage. The remaining types of marriage portrayed are nothing we would practice today, and in some cases can be illegal. They seem more reproachable than gay marriage should. And if the Bible appears to condone them, must we hold to them to remain consistent with our stance against gay marriage?

Of course, the answer is NO, but not for reasons you may think. It is questionable for us “enlightened” individuals to even be abhorred by these examples of marriage in the first place. As Gavin Rumney points out, “All these forms of marriage are implicitly endorsed in the context of the culture of those times.  I don't imagine that any other option was available when we consider that the Old Testament is a collection of ancient Near Eastern literature, not a hint of post-Enlightenment scruples to be found anywhere.” [1]

Unlike Gavin, however, I intend to show that these marriages served a purpose for society in their own cultural context.  As this point becomes clearer each week, you should be convinced that opponents of Biblical marriage must use less mental gymnastics to make a convincing case. If they cannot appeal to the same purpose for allowing gay marriage, there is little reason to insist anyone (let alone Christians) support the idea. That is, unless the benefit of society should no longer be a core cultural value.

So, if the nuclear family is acceptable to our society, why is it even covered by the graphic? And why is it equated with these other controversial forms of marriage? If you read the details provided underneath, you will see why. It is the standards set for this type of union that offends our modern sensibilities. These are specifically, as follows:

1. The concept of wives submitting to husbands
2. The prohibition of interfaith marriage
3. The aspect of arranged marriages that removes romantic love from serving as a foundation
4. The fact that brides had to prove virginity to avoid being killed

What I will do for this post, then, is look at each of these 4 aspects of marriage in Biblical culture. They are being presented, implicitly, as objections to Biblical standards. The intent appears to be encouraging others to abandon said standards when weighing their opinion, so I see this as pretty important to address. It should also be noted that no references are given as to where these concepts were found in the Bible, but I will do the work of the skeptic and provide the references usually given for each topic.

First, let’s look at the concept of wives submitting to husbands. It is often assumed that this implies women have no role, status or authority in Biblical marriage (or ancient culture). They must do anything and everything their husband demands – a type of powerless slavery, if you will. In reality, though, this view assumes much – that such must be the only thing implied by submission. But is that so? Does submission really mean one is denied equality with the one being submitted to? I must “submit” to my boss at work – does that also mean I have no choice in how I respond to his demands? Keep these thoughts in mind as we move on to the scriptures.

The passages appealed to regarding this topic are usually Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18 and 1 Peter 3:1. In the Genesis passage, God is giving out punishment to Eve for her rebellion and says “You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you” (NET).  And as anyone knows, this is certainly part of human nature. Men desire domination, not just over wives, but over anyone in their influence. The fact that God says this will be so is merely acknowledgement of that, however. It is a warning to Eve about the gender struggles for power that would follow ejection from Eden. In no way does God use language indicating this is a mandate, or that he is condoning such action.

If God does not condone abusiveness though, does he condemn it? Though the words do not always come directly from Him, we do find warnings in the Bible for rulers who would abuse their power (Proverbs 28:16).  Not only this, but the Bible is ripe with examples of leaders punished for being over-controlling (Saul comes to mind first, but there were kings like Hezekiah as well)  And even more examples of leaders being praised (honored) for having used their power for good (Josiah and David, to name 2).  Beyond this, however, there is a sense in which little would have had to be said. In ancient times, towns were small and everyone knew what was going on around them. A man suspected of misusing his power could face public shaming by his male peers. In honor-centric culture, this was to be avoided at all costs, as it meant you were perceived as having little value to society!

The passages from Paul’s letters are more complex, and have been the subject of much debate, by people far smarter than our graphic’s creator. (see here  for an overview of arguments that Paul is setting higher standards than the norm)  Theories abound about how to interpret the passages, and all of them are much more thought out than our skeptic’s objections. But these are even easily understood when taken with the larger context of Paul’s message. Immediately after asking wives to submit to husbands in Ephesians, Paul goes on to ask husbands to love their wives as Christ did for the church (Ephesians 5:25). He further compares this love to what we have for our bodies (Ephesians 5:28) Do these sound like easy tasks for men? Is this someone trying to oppress women and ask them to obey brutish thugs? Or is it asking both sexes to have mutual commitment to each other beyond what seems natural?

 It seems clear that Paul is commanding something mutual. And to that end, he is doing so with humility (serving God), not obedience, as a motivating factor. This seems even more likely when, in Ephesians 5:33, he summarizes the commands given to both husband and wife. What word does he use? Respect takes the place of ‘submission’ used earlier. Is asking a woman to show respect to men (in a culture where a man’s reputation was everything!) the same thing as being a mindless slave?

Moving on, let’s discuss the prohibition of interfaith marriage. For those who have read the Bible, you know the struggles Israel had with other faiths tempting them to serve false gods - ones “they had not known” (Deut 11:28, Deut 13:2, Deut 13:13, Deut 32:17, Jeremiah 7:9). It makes sense, then, that God would prohibit marriages that might further entice this kind of behavior. It not only threatened to throw Israel into idolatry, it also threatened the stability of the region. Just think of how ‘stable’ it is right now with only 2 religions fighting! But rewind the clock to Solomon’s day, and his numerous interfaith marriages and practices were responsible for the division of the entire Israelite kingdom. (1 Kings 11:31) Should we really think interfaith marriage should have been allowed more?

In a sense, interfaith marriage was a temptation to be avoided, and for reasons I stated in part 1 of the series. Religion permeated every part of your life – it was not a privately held belief or personal opinion. It was a lifestyle that dictated everything you do. You did not pick and choose certain parts to believe or adopt. If you were serious about a religion, you did as it prescribed. For Solomon, that involved sacrificing to other Gods (1 Kings 11:5-8) - something explicitly forbidden by his own God. (Exodus 20:3) 

If you’re not following in your Bible, allow me to give a modern scenario that is more likely to apply to you as a skeptic or atheist. Would you marry someone who is not only certain God exists, but is a “fundamentalist” from Westboro Baptist? No. At best, you would marry someone who believes but does not evangelize, convert or tempt you to believe as they do (whether or not  you would listen is beside the point). I know this is true because I know of such couples. But this is the heart of the issue – Israel was asked not to marry people that would tempt them to believe as they did. It’s simple and practical. I am not opposed to interfaith marriage myself, but knowing the difficulties of keeping a same-faith marriage (when both individuals are committed to that faith) I would certainly not desire an interfaith relationship.

The next objection presented towards Biblical ideas of marriage is that they were arranged – romantic love played no part in the choosing of marriage partner or, theoretically in maintaining the marriage. Therein lies one of the key points to acknowledge, however – that romantic love, by its very nature, does not and cannot maintain a marriage. It fails to do so today in America, and will always fail to do so. Why? Romantic love is built on emotions and chemical reactions whereas lifetime commitments aren’t. Emotions are tricky, chaotic and deceitful. They change from time to time. But commitments like marriage can only succeed on work and “tough” love, with romance the byproduct to be enjoyed.

Of course, this does not address the horror that enters one mind when they agree with the above assessment but try to consider having no choice in determining their lifetime partner. Having the freedom to choose is amazing and exhilarating. But I ask this – are we always able to make the best decisions for ourselves? Can you honestly say that about everyone you know? That includes the people who are struggling to succeed in marriage, being abused, or dealing with a 2^nd or 3^rd marriage?

Sure, it is best if such people can learn for themselves how to make better choices. But what if they refuse? Would it not, at times, be conceivable that someone else might have a better idea of who would make an appropriate and loyal companion? I am not saying this needs to be a modern standard, but it provides principles to consider how arranged marriage (still practiced in many parts of the world) may be less than the barbaric standard we make it out to be.

Beyond that, consider in ancient culture that reputation was everything for a family. It was fought for and maintained at all costs. Marriage was also the joining of 2 family reputations, not just 2 individuals. So does it make more sense for people to pick whoever they want to marry? Or for families to make sure they join with other families that will improve or maintain their reputation with the public?

The final objection raised against Biblical marriage by the graphic is that wives would be needed to prove their virginity or face death (Deut 22:13-21). This has much more to do with the terms of being in a marriage arrangement, than with the nature of such a marriage. But still, it certainly sounds barbaric to our modern sensibilities. Is it really worth killing someone over something that small?

To believe that such a matter was small is the first mistake. A woman who could not prove her virginity could safely be assumed to have been lying about it. Scientifically, it may be true that 100% of virgins do not produce blood after their 1^st experience, but ancient people needed some method of proof that was reliable (as gynecology was not available).  More than this, however, lying about something like this would bring shame and humiliation upon the victim (husband), the woman and her father, who was responsible for protecting and preserving her virginity.

To deceive so many people in this way, putting their reputations up for ruin can certainly be seen as evil, and deserving some punishment. “Okay, I agree”, you say, “but is stoning really warranted?” This is where it becomes important to more clearly understand ancient justice systems. When penalties are prescribed for a crime, they are done so as "maximum penalties", not mandates. In a sense, stoning was the maximum penalty possible, but the family of the victim (the husband) still had the final choice and could just as easily choose ransom. [2]  The goal, after all, was to eliminate the shame brought on the family. Anything restoring honoring would work, and money, a “limited good” in those days (not in endless supply) would do so very quickly.

Yes, the bride could still face stoning, but it was not a certainty. I imagine it was just as likely to happen as it would be today to see someone actually serve a full sentence. That aside, though, such punishments clearly serve as deterrents when people were concerned about public reputation. But law systems of the ancient near east were not as black and white as we like to think. This really isn't clear to most people, however, until they actually study what experts have to say and look at some of the challenges that come with seeing ancient law as rigid and barbaric.

At this point, we've looked at all 4 objections presented for Biblical standards of marriage. We've seen that some of them merely are distortions of the truth, or would not apply to us today. For instance, I am glad my wife didn't have to prove her virginity, and that I live in a society free enough to not have faith mandated by law. But I would never presume to judge the Bible, or the culture of its day, based on those standards. The Bible’s standards not only worked well then, but have served to influence countless societies in the centuries since. Only Roman law can claim to have a comparable influence on our justice system, so I’ll at least give the Bible respect in this regard, rather than attempt to insult it!

[1] Rumney, Gavin. "Biblical Marriage." Otagosh. 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. <http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2012/02/biblical-marriage.html>.

[2] Wells, Bruce. "Sex, Lies and Virginal Rape." Journal of Biblical Literature Spring (2005): 41. Print.