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.