A “Biblical Notion of Husband and Wife”
Honzo March 18th, 2008
A comment by Hank on The Way I need Jesus got me thinking: is there such a thing as a “biblical notion of husband and wife?” What notion are we talking about? Pre-Israel marriage? We gonna pattern it after the marriages in Genesis? Ancient Israel? 2nd Kings? Isn’t that what got us good US citizens up in arms against the Mormons a hundred or so years ago (poly-what?)? Are we gonna talk about the Jewish ideas of what marriage is in the time of Jesus? Are we gonna talk about marriage as it was practiced by the Romans (i.e. baby factories = wives)? Are we going to talk about those writing in the name of Paul when they are giving advice on how to be a couple of equality under the yoke of the empire?
The more I look at actual marriages in the Bible the less I am enamored with the monolithic notion of the so-called “biblical notion of husband and wife.” We need to realize that marriages in our Holy Scriptures are described (not prescribed) in different structures with different power realationships between the parties involved.
We see in the myth of Genesis 3 the consequences of the fall in marriages - women and men will try to dominate each other. This arrangement (both women looking to dominate their husbands and husband dominating their wives) is unnatural; God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.
It gives me great pleasure to see people attempt to justify our culture’s (or rather the 1950’s) version of marriage where one party dominates the other.
With the coming of the Kingdom of God, we must work to restore the equality inherent in the “two becoming one flesh” by means of our practice and our teachings. What we need to do is rediscover the the pre-fall power relations between husband and wife and make those relations real in our lives. It is up to us to enact the Kingdom of God on Earth - now.
- Women in Christianity
- Comments(8)
Two quick exegetical fallacies to point out:
1. In context of Galatians 3, verse 28 should not be taken as a call for an egalatarian proper Christian society, where men and woman enjoy freedom from those nasty inherent differences that exists in men and women respectively. Here, Paul (St. Paul that is) speaks of men and women being the same under the category of faith. Regardless of race/gender/social status, faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and the path to God is but one way. No exceptions for men or women. Thus, those in the same faith are the same in said context.
2. The curse given to the woman and her female progeny in Genesis 3 is given to the woman only. Her curse is her desire to rule over her husband, but she will fail at doing so. The man’s curse is not that he wishes to rule over his wife.
Travis (St. Travis, that is)
Coulda swore he was talking about the status of those who enter the Kingdom of God; they are able to break free of the cursed order and become as God intends - equal. We are all images of God - beings of equal worth and where two become one - of equal authority. Is slavery still cool? No, of course not - and neither is a man dominating a woman in marriage. It existed back then and exists today, but that is not because it is a good thing, but because we have not worked hard enough to bring about this aspect of the Kingdom of God, where we are all equals, because we have not worked hard enough to bring this about. Before God, are there slaves and masters? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Before God, are there Jews and Greeks? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Before God, are there males and females? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Why restrict the enaction of this equality in only two of the three cases?
What, praytell, are these nasty inherent differences that exists in men and women respectively? Furthermore, what is your justification for this?
Your interp of Gen 3 is off as well. You are right in that it is not a failing wish on man’s part to dominate woman (as is the case for woman), but a cursed reality, a result of the fall for women is that they will be unnatturally dominated by men - and we have roughly 8,000 years of human history showing that it has been the case.
But, are you going to address my larger point? Is there a monolithic biblical notion of marriage?
Henry (St. Henry)
To me, the main issue about point #2 in the comments is that a more general result of the fall is that sin creates a desire to be more than we are - which is certainly true of both men and women. The woman’s desire "to rule over her husband" may be wrong, but the default position is not that she’s inherently less than her husband. The pre-curse position is that they’re equal - bearing both the male and female attributes of God.
Jan,
I agree completely. I want to emphasize that first. Something else I often wonder about is if sin also creates a perception that we are less than we really are at the same time. We often see our selves as worthless creatures, totally wretched. And while it is true that we need Jesus to save us, we (I) need to remember that we are still God’s creation and that He is a wonderful and good creator that only creates good works. He is no demiurge. So, I wonder if sin is best described as something that gives rise to a false perception of ourselves.
Good thoughts Jan.
Travis
What if we look at Gal 3:28 in the context of baptism? After all, it was most likely a early christian baptism rite. If we do so, we see it (and Paul, who is employing it) as saying that before we enter into the community of Christ (through the rite of baptism) we have these power divisions that are given to us by the secular world. However, after we enter into our community (in real time, in real life - not some far off place and time) , these divisions are broke and no longer are.
Honzo,
On what basis is such an interpretation warranted in the context of Galatians 3? Time and time again I see Galatians 3:28 used to argue for the egalitarian position but to do so does not fit the context. This is part of a large argument about justification by faith. The reason why we are sons of Abraham and God is because we are united to Christ, which our baptism signifies. How does your comment about baptism have anything to do with justification by faith and not by law keeping and circumcision, with is the entire point of Galatians 2:15 through the end of chapter 4? I don’t see the textual warrant to make such statements as is being made.
Hank,
I don’t see how you can separate your point from Honzo’s. Galations 3:28 reflects the status of this new community, “justified by faith,” and signified by baptism. The old distinctions now fall away. Your point on circumcision is espcially helpful to Honzo actually, because by the set-up of the old covenant…women couldn’t participate. They were not part of the covenant because they could not be circumcised. Yet, if “faith” and “baptism” are now the covenental signifiers, women can participate. Circumcision long stood as a difference marker between men and women, but no longer. The law worked to perpetuate Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female dichotomies…this new system of faith (hopefully) no longer needs or reinscribes such destructive dualistic structures. Alas, it doesn’t take long to realize we’ve still not figured that one out.
I think that Honzo’s point is better addressed in Ephesians 2:11ff where this is more of the central theme. But the point still isn’t power divisions, it is that there is only one way to become sons’ of God and Abraham: faith. The nature of the community of Christ is not the point of the verse, although I do note that there are implications that arise from this. But to make the implications the primary focus of the text does not do justice to the text. I still do not see how Honzo’s point fits into Paul’s argument for justification by faith apart from works of the law. I just don’t. I see his point as a possible implication, but not the point. That is my point, and I believe Travis’ point as well in the above comment on Galatians 3:28.