Understanding Biblical Marriage
Much is said in evangelical and charismatic Protestant churches about marriage. We hear about wives submitting to and respecting their husbands, and husbands loving their wives sacrificially. These are themes taken from the New Testament, found mainly in the Pauline writings. Paul himself, however, was trained as a strict Pharisee under a famous teacher named Gamaliel. Much understanding about biblical marriage has been lost to the Church because we are no longer steeped in Rabbinic tradition. In fact, the teaching of the Church today has much more in common with the ungodly Gentile cultures of Paul’s day than it does with traditional Jewish understanding.
So what exactly is the teaching that Paul would have received about marriage? To understand it we have to go all the way back to the book of Genesis. Here we find the story of the creation of the very first married couple – Adam and Eve. Here is the rabbinic commentary on these verses from the Stone Edition Chumash.
“God knew that Adam needed a companion. Her purpose was not for reproduction, for Adam had been created with that function. Rather, God wanted Adam to have the companionship, support, and challenge that is present in good marriages, and He wanted the children who would be born to Adam and his future mate to be reared by both a father and a mother. The needs for such assets in human life are too obvious to require elaboration. But before creating Adam’s helpmate, God brought all the creatures to him so that he could see for himself that none was suited to his needs, and he would ask for a companion. Then he would appreciate his newly fashioned mate and not take her for granted.”
The commentary goes on to explain the significance of the Hebrew words used when Adam names Eve’s gender. Woman is Ishah, which is spelled with the three letters Aleph-Shin-Heh [אשּׁה] (woman) because she was taken from Ish (man), spelled Aleph-Yod-Shin [אישׁ]. The rabbinic teaching on the meaning of these letters is very illuminating. They taught that Man and Woman both start with Aleph in the same place, so the genders are one-third the same. They went on to observe that both genders have the letter Shin, but in different places. They taught this means that we are one-third similar but opposite. The remaining letter that is unique to each gender, when put together, spells Yah, the name of God. The rabbis taught this meant that God had embedded his own image in the two sexes, which could only be shown when they were joined in union as a married couple. And that is the meaning behind the statement in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh.” Interestingly, the rabbis also pointed out that when the name of God is removed from the two gender names, you are left in both cases with "esh" [אשׁ], a consuming, destructive fire.
The Chumash commentary on Genesis 2:18 is even more revealing of traditional Jewish thinking about the roles of the genders in marriage.
“A helper corresponding to him [lit. a helper against him]. If the man is worthy, the woman will be a helper; if he is unworthy she will be against him. Many have noted that the ideal marriage is not necessarily one of total agreement in all matters. Often it is the wife’s responsibility to oppose her husband and prevent him from acting rashly, or to help him achieve a common course by questioning, criticizing, and discussing. Thus, the verse means literally there are times a wife can best be a helper by being against him.”
Just in case there is any lingering doubt about the view of Husbands and Wives, here is the commentary on Genesis 1:22, when Eve is created from Adam’s rib.
“The side…into a woman. Unlike man’s, the woman’s body was not taken from the earth. God built one side of man into woman – so that the single human being became two, thereby demonstrating irrefutably the equality of man and woman.”
Is there any evidence that Paul was familiar with this teaching? After all, it is his writing that is most often quoted to support the leadership of the man over the woman. Actually, there is what appears to be a rather obscure reference to the teaching in Ephesians Chapter 3. These verses are not often quoted, and usually breezed over because we have lacked the traditional rabbinic viewpoint. But after what has been said above, the underlying teaching becomes obvious. In Ephesians 3:14-15 Paul writes, “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father; from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name…”
Now we turn to the more thorny issue of understanding in what spirit Paul writes that wives are submit to husbands since a husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church. We know that elsewhere he also taught that “in Christ there is neither male nor female”, and yet in Ephesians 5 we find a teaching that seems to say the opposite.
In order to put the scriptures that seem to subordinate women into proper context, we need to understand the household structure of biblical days. In the Roman world there were two classes of people: freeborn and slaves. The freeborn people were, by and large, the moneyed classes. They owned large households that resembled small corporations rather than the nuclear family of today. The business of the corporation was to manage the land holdings and the production of goods for both household consumption and for trade. These large household units contained many slaves, servants, and extended family members. There were a few unlucky freeborn people who did not have access to money. Often times these parents would sell their children into slavery in hopes of giving them a better economic situation, since masters were obligated to feed their households. The servant and slave classes most often lived in something like common dormitories, since none could afford houses and lands of their own.
It is also necessary to understand the family structure of Roman days. Men were the sole owners of all property in that era. Women and children were considered property, as were servants, slaves, animals, goods, land, and other possessions. It was lawful for a man to sell his wife and children into slavery if he so chose, since he owned them in the first place. A male slave, on the other hand, did not own his wife and children, if he had any, since he himself was property. They, like he, belonged to the master, and as with any property, had no rights of their own. A good master would not wear them down with abuse and neglect simply because that is foolish behavior for any property owner, but a bad master could do so and suffer no legal consequences. In fact, leading thinkers of the day were convinced that some classes of human being were inherently designed to be the property of others.
Into this culture comes ringing the words of the New Testament authors. Try to listen to them with the ears of that day.
1 Cor 7:4 “A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is.”
1 Cor 7:40 “[A single woman] will be happier, however, if she stays as she is. That is my opinion and I think that I too have God’s spirit.”
Galations 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
1 Peter 3:7-8 “In the same way you husbands must live with your wives with the proper understanding that they are more delicate than you. Treat them with respect, because they also will receive, together with you, God's gift of life. Do this so that nothing will interfere with your prayers. To conclude: you must all have the same attitude and the same feelings; love one another, and be kind and humble with one another.”
These words were a shocking declaration of the equality and brotherhood of all humankind in the context of Roman culture. But human institutions are resistant to change. It wasn’t until 1800 years had passed that devout Christians, understanding the spirit of the scriptures, put an end to slavery, although not one word of scripture can be found that describes it as an evil.
Since this was a manifesto of equality, why did the apostles tell slaves to obey their masters? The leaders of the early church were not concerned with overturning the social structure of the day. To encourage their followers to engage in open rebellion against the entrenched power structure of the day would have caused untold hardships for them as well as for the early church. Notice, however, that the passages enjoining obedience upon slaves are always right next to passages enjoining submission upon women. The apostles were saying, in other words, “Yes, we all know that there is no difference and you are equal in every way, but since society requires you to take a submissive role, do so without complaint because God’s ways are spiritual, not temporal. Jesus did not lead us in armed rebellion against Rome, and we are not leading you to a violent social rebellion either.”
The sad thing about most of the teaching on husbands and wives in today’s church is that they have twisted the words of the apostles around to mean exactly the opposite of what they were intended to say. Lacking historical understanding or context, proponents of male headship presume the scriptures prescribe submission of wives, when in fact, the original sense was just the opposite.
No doubt there are many who will be alarmed and indignant at what I write here. But what did Jesus say about the great test of ideas? He said that “by their fruits you will know them.” What is the fruit of the church teaching about submission of wives to the leadership of husbands? Does the church have healthy stable marriages, in contrast to the rest of society? No. In fact it has a higher rate of divorce than in the secular culture. The Baptist and non-denominational evangelical churches, which have hit this message the hardest, have the highest divorce rates of all. (Barna, 1999) Sounds like pretty rotten fruit to me. In fact, the Baptists have begun to beat a retreat from that position and encourage “mutual submission”. (Lundy, 2000)
The most grievous part of this wrong-headed teaching of the church is the loss of the incredible potential in marriage. God intended the world to get a glimpse of his own nature in the union of man and woman. The closeness, physical intimacy, mutual reverence, mutual submission, and shared life experience of a devoted married couple was to give us a dim earthly reflection of the life of the triune Godhead. It was God’s great plan to give us a taste of His eternal state of bliss here on earth. The tarnished and grubby thing it becomes when one is made master over the other would be laughable if it wasn’t so depressing.
For more biblical scholarship on this subject, see the website of Christians for Biblical Equality at http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/index.shtml .
posted by Susan Dutton Freund @ 11:47 AM
4 comments
