Science in Christian Perspective
The Jewish Family
JOHN R. SNAREY
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Wheaton College Wheatan,
Illinois 60187
From: JASA 26 (June 1974): 64-69
Introduction
As North Americans we filter the Bible through the lens of our own culture. So
do Latin Americans, Nigerians, and all peoples of the world. This is
not "wrong;"
it just is not the necessary first step. We must first attempt to
view the Biblical
message in its original historical and sociocultural context if that
same message
is to be communicated to us in a very different sociocultural system.
This need to reconstruct the original setting is especially apparent
in the four
gospels with their many references to the first century Palestinian
Jewish family.
Conversely, an analysis of the gospels themselves is very fruitful in yielding
an understanding of the Jewish family system.
Selection of Spouse
One of the first couples mentioned in the gospels, of course, is
Joseph and Mary.
In Matthew's account of Jesus' birth we read,
and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary, by wham was barn Jesus, who
is called Christ. (Mt. 1:16).
How old was Mary when she gave birth to Jesus?
Based on the customs of Palestine, she was about fourteen years old. A Jewish
girl could be married upon reaching physical maturity which, as defined by the
law, was when she was at least twelve and a half years old. As for sons, many
Jews held that the best age for a man to marry was eighteen.1
Of course, a young man did not always choose his own wife. In ancient
Hebrew society
the arranged marriage form of mate choice had strongly predominated.
In the first
century family the arranged marriage was still prevalent, but free mate choice,
with parental approval, was also practiced. Obviously this differs
from the contemporary
North American pattern of free mate choice without necessary parental
approval.
The power of the Jewish parents either to choose or approve their
child's future
spouse functioned to allow them to prevent intermarriage and thus
maintain their
religious and ethnic cohesion. This endogamous process also was an attempt to
safeguard the patriarchal system. Of course, mixed marriages still took place,
but they were an exception to the customary practice. For instance, Timothy's
mother was a Jew and his father was a Greek.2
The Betrothal
After the choice of the future bride, the next phase was the
betrothal. This period
varied in length, but usually did not exceed twelve months. The most
common method
of becoming betrothed was for the bridegroom, in the presence of witnesses and
with varying formality, to say some solemn words and give the bride a piece or
pledge of money. The money was then received by the bride's father,
although part
of the mojar or bride price was maintained by the bride.3 It may be
debated whether
this was a purchase or a compensation.4 Yet neither concept is complete for the
mo/ar's main function was to seal the family line, make the children
legitimate,
and give the woman inherent worth as a woman. Without this indication
of "worth,"
the bride was "worthless."5
The background of the following passage from Luke likely relates to the mojar
mechanism.
Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one
coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she
finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends
and neighbors,
saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin (Lk. 15:8-9)
Because a divorced wife had the right to keep all of her wearing apparel, most
of her personal portion of mojar was in the form of coins worn on the forehead.
The woman in the parable who had ten coins and lost one was
understandably upset
because the coin had a value beyond the monetary. To suggest a
contemporary functional
equivalent imagine a North American wife who had just lost her engagement and
wedding rings. In this way, Jesus' illustration can have the same impact upon
us as it did upon the original hearers.
A festive meal or celebration may have accompanied the betrothal, especially in
Judea. After the betrothal, the couple was treated just as if they
were married,
except that they could not have sexual intercourse.6 It was during this interval
that Mary became pregnant.
We must first attempt to view the Biblical message in its original historical and sociocultural context if that same message is to be communicated to us in a very different sociocultural system.
Now the birth of Jesus was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed
to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy
Spirit. (Mt. 1:18)
Mary was not engaged to Joseph; she was betrothed. The Jewish
betrothal was much
more significant than the North American engagement. The two are form
equivalents,
but not functional equivalents. The betrothal could not be broken
without a divorce.
Also, in the legal areas of inheritance and adultery, the same laws applied to
the betrothed couple as applied to the couple who had also gone
through the less
important wedding. Thus, in a very real sense, "marriage"
followed the
betrothal and preceded the wedding. This contrasts with much of North America
where "marriage" follows the wedding and the engagement is simply a
tentative promise or an announcement of plans to wed.
Referring again to Joseph and Mary, the gospels give us some idea of what their
betrothal may have been like. Mary's childbirth or purification offering given
at the Temple is described by Luke as,
a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, 'A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.' (Lk. 2:24)
This was the sacrifice given by parents who could not afford a lamb.7
Being poor,
their bethrothal was probably simple and the mohar small.
The Wedding
When the time of the wedding arrived, everyone would come to take part in the
celebration. In this regard we read in John,
And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of
Jesus was there; and Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the wedding.
(Jn. 2:1-2)
Relatives, friends, and friends of relatives and friends were
welcome. Thus, Jesus
and His friends were in attendance. The North American may also give
an "open"
invitation to a wedding or reception. Yet the range of this openness is usually
limited to those directly interested in the couple and anyone else
asked to come
along by a friend is usually considered, and made to feel, unwanted.
In addition to the groom, bride, and guests, others participating in
the wedding
are also referred to in the gospels.
The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn, as long as the
bridegroom is with
them . . . (Mt. 9:15)
He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend
of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because
of the bridegroom's
voice. (Jo. 3:29)
The kingdom of heaven will be comparable to the ten
virgins, who took their lamps . . . (Mt. 25:1)
The attendants of the bridegroom or, literally, "sons of the
bridal chamber"
led the bride from her father's house to the home of the bridegroom.
This transfer
took the form of a procession which was directed by the friend of the
bridegroom
who was the highest status member of the attendants of the bridegroom
group. This
act seems to have symbolized the transfer of the woman from her father's house
to her husband's.8 During the wedding feast itself, the bride usually sat under
a canopy surrounded by virgins, traditionally ten in number. Part of their role
was to carry lighted lamps. Of course, the North American equivalents
of wedding
reception, bridemaids, best man, and groomsmen are obvious.
The exact day the wedding feast was served is not certain. However, the various
references to lamps, as well as the reference in Revelation to the
wedding feast
being a "supper," all seem to suggest that it took place in
the evening.9
At some point during the evening the couple either withdrew or were led by the
attendants of the bridegroom to the bridal chamber. The marriage was
then physically
consummated. Following this act, the couple returned and continued to take part
in the festival. Reflecting their tendency to be event oriented
rather than highly
"clock" conscious, the celebration continued on for a week
or more with
new guests arriving each day.
One such wedding feast is described for us in John's gospel:
And when the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, 'They
have no wine!
. . Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish
custom Of Purification,
containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, 'Fill
the waterpots
with water.' And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to
them, 'Draw some
not now, and take it to the headwaiter.' And they took it to him.
(Jo. 2:3, 6-8)
This account of Christ's first miracle is in complete harmony with
the customary
wedding feast. Everyone ate and drank a great deal and supplies sometimes would
run out. To perform His miracle, Christ used the stone waterpots
which contained
the water for the customary ritual purification washing that took place before
the feast. John, who may have been an eyewitness, even gives us the
size and number
of the stone waterpots. "The combined capacity of (them) was
about 150 gallons.
Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about
2,400 servings
of wine-enough to supply a large number of people for several
days."10 However,
John makes no reference to the friends of the bridegroom in his account. Why?
Caua is located in Galilee where it was not the custom to have these
special male
attendants as it was in the more elaborate Judean weddings. In Galilee, all the
guests attending the festivals were commonly called "the children of the
bridegroom."
The Family Unit
The end result of the bride choice, betrothal, and wedding was that
another family
unit was brought into existence. This unit, consisting of husband,
wife, and children,
seems to have been fairly independent. In the gospels there are references to
Joseph and Mary, Zaeharias and Elizabeth, Zebedee and Salome. These
were all nuclear
families which differed from the large extended families of the ancient Hebrews
that
also included relatives, slaves, foreigners, servants, and
concubines. It appears
that as Palestine developed from a nomadic pastoral culture to a more
agricultural
and urbanized culture the family was required to change and adjust.12 That is,
as the communities became less folk and more urban in terms of a
folk-urban continuum,
the extended family was put into a state
of disequihbrium and it automatically sought a new
state of balance. This new equilibrium was the nuclear family with
less emphasis
on the extended clan and tribal ties.
The synagogue was also involved in this re-equilibrating process.
During the Exile
the synagogue had taken the place of the Temple. In addition, it also gradually
tended to become a functional equivalent for the ancient Hebrew
extended family.
That is, "the nuclear families now moved into the synagogue
rather than into
an extended family."13 One of the social mechanisms supporting
this new balance
was the new group of religious officials, the rabbis. Without
directly challenging
the patriarchal extended family structure, the rabbi replaced the patriarch.14
Another structural unit that tended to function as an equivalent group for the
extended family was the protest or messiah group. These groups formed around a
leader and followed him in somewhat of a master/ apprentice relationship.
Of course, all of these adjustments did not mean that the family was completely
changed. It still remained true to its ancient Hebrew base. It was
still fathercentered
and characterized by a high degree of group cohesiveness. Illustrations of this
corporate solidarity can be seen in the following passages.
And when Jesus had come to Peter's home, lie saw his mother-in-law lying sick
in bed with a fever. (Mt. 8:14)
But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to
be sold,
along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made.
(Mt. 18:25)
The first illustration suggests that Peter's mother-in-law may have lived with
him and his wife. The second example, a parable, points out that in a financial
crisis the entire family unit could be sold in order to pay a
father's debt.
Men and the Family
As the family formed the core of the culture, the father ideally
formed the center
of the family. The father was responsible for the family and all its
possessions.
He also took special responsibility for the later socialization of
his sons. The
male children, especially the first born, were very important for they were the
vital links in the Jewish patrilineal form of descent. Through them
the preservation
of the family name was assured.16 This unique status and role of the
male child
is confirmed by Luke.
And when eight days were completed before His circumcision, His name was then
called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
And when the days for theft purification according to the law of
Moses were completed,
they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. (Lk. 2:21-22)
Here we see that Jesus, like other Jewish male infants, went through
the customary
rite of passage consisting of being named and circumcised on the
eighth day after
birth. This ceremony at the first great crisis point of life made explicit the
child's status as a member of the Jewish community. No corresponding ritual was
required for the female infant.
Luke also mentions a "purification" in the above excerpt.
It is interesting
to note that the purification period for a woman who had given birth to a male
child was seven days as compared to fourteen days for a female.17 This Jewish
dichotomy of male versus female is also reflected in the Talmud which states,
"Luckless is he whose children are daughters."18
Of course, even though sons were highly valued, they did not always
prove themselves
worthy. Matthew records one of Jesus' observations.
For God said, 'Honor your father and mother,' and 'He who speaks evil of father
or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever shall say
to his father
or mother, 'Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been
given to God,'
he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word
of God . . . (Mt. 15:4-6)
This passage illustrates that there was, as usual, a gap between the real and
ideal patterns of behavior. As Christ noted, some would avoid any
duty to assist
their parents by saying they had made an offering to God and couldn't afford to
help them. This seems to have been a common device used by the
Pharisces. An excerpt
from the Mishnah confirms the accuracy of Jesus' accusation: "He
that curseth
his father or his mother is not guilty, unless he curses them with
express mention
of Jehovah.'19
Growing up a Jew, Jesus was also socialized within the traditional
male patterns
of behavior.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and
Joses, and
Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us? (Mk. 6:3)
It seems that Joseph, like most Jewish fathers, gave his Son a course
in vocational
education by teaching Him his own trade. Thus, Jesus worked as a stone mason or
carpenter during his early years.20 An expression of the rabbis,
"Whosoever
doesn't teach his son a trade makes him a thief," exemplifies the Jewish
attitude.21
The above passage from Mark also suggests that his gospel was written
in or generated
from a maledominated social system. How is this apparent? The author gives the
names of Jesus' brothers but his sisters are not mentioned by name. This same
pattern is also followed in Matthew's parallel passage. In fact, a
similar pattern
is followed by the authors of all four gospels in their accounts of the feeding
of the four thousand and the feeding of the five thousand. That is,
they all record
only the approximate number of men in attendance, even though women
and children
were also present.
Women and the Family
The status and role of a woman was complementary to that of her
husband in terms
of a balanced family unit. For instance, if a wife was to find a true
social meaning
for her life, she had to give her husband a child, preferably male.
And after these days, Elizabeth his wife became pregnant; and she kept herself
in seclusion for five months, saying, 'This is the way the Lord has dealt with
me in the days when he looked with favor upon me, to take away my
disgrace among
men.' (Lk. 1:24-25)
Failing to have children was culturally defined as a great
misfortune; to become
pregnant was a result of God's blessing.
The following piece of recorded behavior further relates to the status and role
of women.
The Samaritan woman, therefore said to Him, 'How is it that You,
being a Jew (negative
voice tone) asked me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman (positive tone)?
(For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
And at this point His disciples came, and they marveled that He had
been speaking
with a woman; yet no one said, 'What do You seek?' or 'Why do You
speak with her?'
(In. 4:9, 27)
When Jesus asked the woman for a drink, she may be interpreted as giving Him a
rather sharp reply. The woman was a Samaritan and Samaritans, like all peoples
of the world, were ethnocentric. She probably didn't feel inferior to Jesus at
all. She didn't want to lower herself to interact with a Jew any more
than a typical
Jew wanted to interact with a Samaritan.22 Later, when the apostles returned,
they were astonished to see Jesus talking with the woman. Why? Not because of
her nationality or character, but because He had acted in excess of
their normal one
and in public, he had held a conversation with a woman!
The division of labor by sex is also evident in the gospels.
And Jesus sent two of his disciples and said to them, 'Go into the city, and a
man will meet you carrying a pitcher of water . . . .' (Mk. 14:13)
Christ, as He gave directions for the preparation of the Last Supper,
indirectly
alluded to the fact that it was the woman who was responsible for bringing the
water from the well to the house. It being uncommon for a man to carry a water
jar, this alone would make him recognizable. Jesus also alludes to
men's and women's
work in His discussion of the coming of the Son of Man.
Then there shall be two men in the field; one will be taken, and one
will be left.
Two women will he grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one
will be left.
(Mt. 24:40-41)
It was characteristic of Palestinian culture for women's work to be centered in
the home while men tended to work away from the house. Ironically, this allowed
the wife to exercise a great deal of power in her own sphere, the home.
It should also be noted that many Hebrew laws did view men and women as equal
and prescribed the same rewards and punishment. For example, the woman as well
as the man was put to death in the case of adultery where both were
already betrothed
or wed to another. Both men and women were also to obey the fond taboos and to
receive respect from their children.23
The Termination of a Marriage
The law applied to both men and women. Yet the law's primary function
was to protect
the family. When a man acted in excess of norm, the law was usually less severe
because his behavior had less effect upon the family. For instance, a
man's adultery
was defined as a major crime only if he seduced a married or betrothed woman,
because then he injured the family of another.24 The opposite was
true of a woman.
She was the one who biologically gave birth to the
family and was responsible for the family's honor, Thus, "the interest of
the family called for the severest punishment of adultery in a womao."25
Such a woman is referred to in John's gospel.
And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in the adultery, and
having set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this
woman has been
caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone
such women; what then do You say?" (Jo. 8:3-5)
The phrase, "in the very act," implies that the man must
have been discovered
with the woman. However, it is interesting to note that only the
woman was condemned
before Jesus. From this account it also appears that adulterous women
could still
be stoned during the time of Christ. Of course, some men, like Joseph, simply
wanted their (perceived) adulterous wife divorced.
In addition to adultery, another reason for divorce was sterility. Referring to
this particular threat to the family, Mace suggests:26
...
The Hebrew conception of marriage required either multiple marriage or divorce
as an expedient for the man who, desiring an heir, had found his wife barren.
In point of fact both were resorted to; but in all probability the emphasis in
the earlier period was upon polygamy; in the later period upon divorce.
In other words, as polygyny and the extended family became less
functional, divorce
increased in use as an adjustment mechanism. This was necessary if
the Jews were
to perpetuate their focus on first-born male dominance and preserve
their family
name. However, in addition to this functional nature, divorce was
also dysfunctional
to the extent that the system was abused. Even though there were restrictions,
a husband could generally divorce his wife if he simply felt like it. Josephus
illustrated the Jewish male point of view when he wrote :27
He who desires to be divorced from the wife who is living with him
for whatsoever
cause-and with mortals many such may arise-must certify in writing that he will
have no further intercourse with her; for thus will the woman obtain the right
to consort with another...
In addition to Josephus' statement, similar descriptions made by both
the Pharisees
and Jesus are recorded in the gospels.28 All three are referring to
the law recorded
in Deuteronomy which allowed a man to divorce his wife "because
he had found
some indecency in her."29 After giving her the certificate the
husband simply
sent her away and their marriage was ended. The woman lost her property rights,
but was free to marry again.
The rabbis, referred to earlier, did
attempt to function
as control mechanisms by adding or changing some restrictions. Their
interpretations
of Scripture tended to limit the power of husbands and increase the rights of
wives." For instance, when Christ referred to the customary
method of separation,
He also noted a change in the power of women.
And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
woman commits
adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and
marries another
man, she is commiting adultery.' (Mk. 10:11-12)
Wives were also divorcing their husbands during the time of Christ.
Although the
Mishnah did not take this power out of the hands of the husbands, the
rabbis did
gradually allow a woman to also sue for divorce.31
The Continuation of the Family
So far we have followed the family cycle from choosing a wife to divorcing her.
Under the obligation of the levirate or "husband's
brother," the cycle
was continued in a unique manner after the death of the husband. As described
in Deuteronomy, the widow was to be taken as a wife by the brother of her dead
husband in order to make sure that the deceased would have a male
child to continue
his name. It is certain that some form of the levirate was still
practiced during
the time of Christ. The Saddtseees, a group of Jews who did not believe in the
resurrection, made a direct allusion to the custom.
There were seven brothers; and the first one took a wife, and died, leaving no
offspring. And the second one took her, and died, leaving behind no offspring;
and the third likewise; and so all seven left no offspring. (Mk. 12:20-22)
This excerpt from Mark, as well as its parallel passages, indicates
that the Sadducees
were referring to a duty that could still be enforced.
Josephus also discusses the levirate and notes its main functions.32
...
for this will at once be profitable to the public welfare, houses not dying out
and property remaining with the relatives, and it will moreover bring the woman
an alleviation of their misfortunes to live with the nearest kinsman of their
former husbands.
The levirate, like polygyny and divorce, was another piece of
machinery designed
to maintain and perpetuate the vitally important family unit.
Conclusion
The Jewish family was one part of the total Palestinian sociocultural system.
Yet, we need to increase our understanding of the whole sociocultural setting
of the Bible. Only when we have first asked the question, "What
did the message
originally mean to them within the totality of their sociocultural
setting?"
are we then really able to ask, "What impact is it now to have upon us who
are part of a very different sociocultural system?" The Christian message
is not that we are to become Jewish Palestinians, but rather that we are to be
Christ-like North Americans.
REFERENCES
1Heori Daniel-Rops. Daily Life in Palestine at the Time of Christ. Weidenfeld and Nieolson, London, 1962, 118.
2See Acts 16:1.
30. J. Baab. "Divorce." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible. Abingdon Press, New York, 1962, Vol. I, 859. See
also Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Longmau's, Green, and Company, New York, Vol. I, 354.
4Historically, Genesis 31:14, 15 seems to indicate a purchase but it obviously
also had additional functions.
5Marvin K. Mayers. "Sociocultural Setting of the Bible." Unpublished
manuscript, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois. Compare also Robert Briffault.
The Mothers. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1931, 242-243.
Briffault notes that
even in early Christian Europe the main factor determining the legitimacy of a
marriage was the "proper payment of the bride price."
6Edersheim., 354.
7See Leviticus 12:8.
8Briffault., 240.
9David R. Mace. Hebrew Marriage. Philosophical Library, New York,
1953, 181. Compare
also Revelation 19:9 and Luke 12:35-36.
10Merrill C. Tenney. John: The Gospel of Belief. Wm. B, Eerdmans
Publishing Company,
Grand Rapids, 1948, 83.
11Edersheim., Vol. 1, 355. See also Matthew 9:15.
12Compare 0. J. Baab). "Family." The Interpreter's Dictionary
of the Bible. Abingdon Press, New York, 1962, Vol. III, 240.
13Mayers.
l4ibid. Note also Gerald B. Leslie. The Family in Social Context. Oxford University Press, New York, 1967, 163-164.
15Cnmpare Matthew 11:2,3,12; Acts 5:36,37; and M. Borrows, More Light
on the Dead
Sea Scrolls, Viking, N.Y., 1958.
16Although it was still of primary importance for a Jew to marry and assure the
preservation of his family name, evidence seems to suggest a slightly increased
tendency toward celibacy. For instance, the Manual of Discipline of the Qumran
Dead Sea community indicates that within the sect were same members who did not
marry. Compare also Matthew 19:12.
15See Leviticus 12:1-5.
18Panos U. Bardis. "Main Features of the Ancient Hebrew
Family." Social
Science. June, 1963, 178.
19Alfred Edersheim. Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days
of Christ. James Clarke and Co., Ltd., London, 1961, 101.
20The Greek word for "carpenter" may also mean
"masterbuilder"
or "mason." In addition, Palestinian homes were made of
stone, not wood
and Jesus also uses several figures of speech taken from masonry but
almost none
from carpentry. See Merrill C. Tenney. New Testament Survey.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1961, 100-101.
21Ibid,, 100.
22G. H. Waterman. Hermeneutics lecture delivered at the Whcaton College Graduate
School, Wheaton, Ill. 1971.
230. J. Baab. "Woman." The Interpreter's Dictionary of the
Bible. Abingdon Press, New York, 1962, Vol. IV, 866.
24Daniel-Rops., 133.
25ibid.
26Mace., 251.
27Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Loebs Classical Library,
Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts, IV, VII, 23, p. 597.
28Nate also Matthew 5:31 and 19:3, 7.
29The interpretation of the phrase "some indecency" (Dent. 24:1-5) to
mean any insignificant reason by the Hillel school may also reflect
the influence
of Rome where, ever since the Punic wars, divorce had become
increasingly common.
Seneca stated, "Women no longer measure time in terms of the
administrations
of Roman consuls, but in terms of the number of their husbands."
Tertullian
was even more concise, "The fruit of marriage is divorce."
30Leslie., 163-164.
31This may again reflect Roman influence. Roman law limitedly permitted a wife
to divorce her husband. Compare Edward Westermarck. The History of
Human Marriage.
The Allerton Book Company New York, 1922, Vol. III, 307-308 and Mace., 258.
32Josephus., IV, VIII, 23, p. 599.