I think it would be very easy to start a new religious cult. You could just pick up your Bible and locate some verse that sounds like what you want to teach; then insist that is exactly what it means, ignoring all other biblical evidence to the contrary. Be rigid and dogmatic about it, and you would soon have followers. If anyone challenged your ideas, you could point to the passage and say, "But that is what it says!"
It. is almost as easy to be a quickie Bible interpreter. And sometimes almost as damaging. Most of the material in the Bible is easy to understand and poses no problem for the average Christian. You read it and you know how to live it. But there are areas in Scripture where it is necessary to have more interpretive skill than just common sense, though that is an extremely helpful commodity for a Bible interpreter to possess.
In keeping with this, we will look first at some basic principles of Bible interpretation upon which almost everyone who seriously studies the Bible can agree. Then we will look at additional data that will help us understand what marriage was like for people who lived during the time the New Testament was written. If we know what marriage was like for them, we can better understand the advice and instruction written to them by the New Testament writers. We will then be able to apply that instruction for our own benefit.
Principles of Bible Interpretation
In school the subject is called hermeneutics. Without a knowledge of good hermeneutics you can go pretty far afield in Bible interpretation. We looked at the hermeneutics of the medieval theologians in the last chapter. Fortunately, there have been some improvements in hermeneutical principles since then. Unfortunately, they are not always used even by those who know good hermeneutics. But you can use them yourselves to study the Bible. I'll be using them in later chapters when we examine Bible passages on marriage.
Bible Interpretation (Hermeneutical) Principles
--Always interpret a passage in agreement with its context.
This is probably the most frequently violated and ignored principle of interpretation. The context of a passage is its surrounding verses and chapters. If we take a verse out of context, as though neatly clipping it out with scissors, it can sound as though it means something (sometimes several things) that it does not mean at all.
Supporting a view by using verses that have been ripped from their contexts is called prooftexting. That sounds nasty and deliberate, but it is a common, innocent enough occurrence. For example, a person studying for a Sunday school lesson might get the Bible, turn to the concordance in the back, look up all the references to a certain word, read all the verses listed, and draw conclusions based upon reading those verses (totally ignoring their individual contexts). This method is much like the one the medieval church scholars used to determine that the earth did not move. Most of the time people will not draw such far-out conclusions, nor are they apt to send anyone to the Inquisition for disagreeing with them. However, they are still in danger of misinterpreting what God was actually saying in those verses. And to do so is to miss what He would say to them, and possibly lead both themselves and others to a wrong conclusion on the matter.
This context-ignoring, or prooftexting, is also the way of the cultist, as I mentioned earlier. We must take into account the surrounding verses and chapters to be sure we have enough information to insist a verse means what we think it means at first glance.
--Interpret a passage in the light of its probable meaning to the persons for whom it was originally written.
This principle helps us understand that just because Jesus washed the disciples' feet doesn't mean we have to do that too. In those days, washing a guest's feet was a social custom of welcome and hospitality. Therefore, we apply the spirit of their custom to our own time and show our willingness to do humble service for each other in ways that would be meaningful to us now.
It also makes a holy kiss unnecessary as a greeting. As a teen-ager, I once embarrassed myself in front of a whole gathering by quoting "greet the brethren with a holy kiss" as the admittance requirement to a youth meeting. The fellow at the door asking for a verse was tolerant, and I thought it would be a clever response. (And he was handsome.) But I didn't know all those in the next room could hear my quote. I didn't get my kiss, holy or otherwise (didn't expect I would,) but I didn't forget the experience either. My welcomer and I both knew that a holy kiss was the way the brethren greeted each other with Christian love in the first century, but now we in the U.S. shake hands.
--When interpreting a passage, consider the customs and events taking place when it was written.
This principle overlaps the one just mentioned. Knowledge of customs of the first century is often the key to explaining difficult verses, while acquaintance with historical events in the first century world can be important in helping extract the full meaning from many passages. For example, in I Peter we read that believers were to obey those who ruled over them. What must be known to accurately apply that passage is that the people to whom that was written were under Roman rule, a fundamentally just rule, if harsh. The instruction was to a people who had a government they could in good conscience obey; they were not living under an evil regime like that of Nazi Germany. Therefore, to apply that passage to all governments for all time and bind the Christian to mindless, conscienceless civil obedience is to violate this interpretive principle, for knowing the events of the first century limits the application of this passage to governments that are also just.
To use another example, it helps us understand Paul's instructions in I Corinthians on abstaining from marriage if we know about the persecutions Christians were beginning to experience at that time. Paul was not saying he was against marriage, but he was saying that marriage would make believers' lives more complicated, with more dependents and family members to leave fatherless, motherless, husbandless, or wifeless if they were killed. Thus, he advised against marrying because of the times in which they lived.
--Interpret a passage in the light of all other Scripture.
When I was in high school, I had a friend who belonged to a denomination which believed baptism was necessary for salvation. I, being of Baptist background and conviction, was sure that salvation was by faith alone and that baptism was only the outward testimony to the inward change. But my friend would have none of that. He opened his Bible to Mark 16:16 and read, or rather had me read for myself, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
"See," he said, "that's what it says and that's what it means. You have to be baptized to be saved."
I proceeded to try to reason with him about it, bringing in other Bible verses that talked about belief and grace, not works. No use. He was steadfast. Every scriptural proof I cited was met with his Bible thrust before me and, "What does it say?" It was that same verse over and over again.
I remember leaving the conversation puzzled and wondering why all my proofs were of no interest to him. Years later I learned about Bible interpretation and identified the principle that was at issue.
--Do not use an obscure passage to disprove one with clear and obvious meaning.
This principle also overlaps somewhat with the previous one. There are instances when we come upon a passage that is extremely difficult to understand. For these rare passages we may have to conclude that we lack data (that we may yet unearth) to completely unlock the meaning. With some other passages we can pose several possibilities as to what they may mean.
The careful Bible student does not just toss these difficult passages away as useless, but he or she does use them with an awareness of their difficulties. And one thing the careful student does not do is use a difficult, obscure passage to overturn or contradict another passage with clear and problem-free interpretation.
First Timothy 2:11-15 is one of those difficult passages. It says,
"Let a woman learn quietly with complete submission. I do
not allow a woman to teach, neither to domineer over a man; instead, she is to keep still.. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, since she was deceived, experienced the transgression. She will, however, be kept safe through the childbearing, if with self-control she continues in faith and love and consecration."(MLB)
A few days ago I sat and listened to a man insist that this passage must be used to interpret Genesis 2 as creating an "order of command" even though the Genesis passage contains no hint of such a thing in itself. He also used this passage to limit the meaning of other passages of Scripture that show women participating freely in the early church.
The question, of course, is what do you do with a passage like this? It seems to say that women cannot teach because of Adam and Eve, that women are saved through bearing children, or that women are kept alive during childbirth because they have lived a particular kind of holy life. These ideas are all contrary to much of what the Bible teaches elsewhere.
The principle stated at the beginning of this section should cause us to look upon passages such as this as portions we should study carefully and refuse to use dogmatically. We do not ignore them or toss them out; we interpret them carefully with full awareness that we do not have enough data to completely unravel their meaning--at least not at this point. So rather than use them to change what is obviously taught elsewhere, we will look for more information. But that is not all we can do with such a problem passage. We can use the available data and pose possible interpretations that do not violate sound interpretive principles. Allowing for more than one meaning for such a passage can often shed light and help us understand the passage even though we cannot be certain what its exact meaning is.
In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 there are at least four, possibly more, interpretations that do not violate sound Bible study principles. 1
1. This portion may refer to women disrupting the public meetings, as they did in Corinth (1 Cor. 14:34-35), to carry on discussions or argue with their husbands. Paul may be citing a commonly accepted Jewish saying, "Adam was first formed," to remind them that this behavior was considered disrespectful and therefore unacceptable. The last part of the passage may be saying that women are exonerated from Eve's part in the fall by the "birth of the child" (Christ).
2. There may have been two kinds of services in the early church--one was public where unbelievers could observe and another was private for believers only. Women may have been prevented from participating in the public meetings because for them to do so would have been scandalous to Greek pagan observers. In the private meetings women would have been allowed full participation and use of their gifts of preaching and teaching (as indicated by other passages).
3. There may have been two kinds of teaching at that time. One kind of teaching may have involved the argumentation that was common in synagogue worship. For women to argue with their husbands in public would have been as outrageous in both Greek and Jewish society as a man's slave arguing with him. So women would have been barred from that type of teaching ministry for propriety's sake.
4. Another possibility which is more involved but perhaps the most likely meaning of the passage is that this was a local situation in which Paul was limiting the participation of women for a time until they had learned Christian doctrine. Then they would not be so prone to being led astray by false teachers and subsequently using the believers' assembly to perpetuate these false teachings.
Ephesian women had a problem along these lines (2 Tim. 3:5-7). Rather than making a ruling for all time, Paul was saying, "I am not now allowing a woman to teach" (this is also an accurate translation of the Greek text). He points out that Eve became a transgressor; that is, she was not created inferior (as was commonly believed then). His "let them learn" could have been a plea that women be taken seriously and allowed to learn correct doctrine (teaching women was considered a waste of time among both Greeks and Jews of that day). According to literature of the time, to "learn in quietness" was a mark of good breeding, so Paul would have wanted women to refrain from teaching until they had learned the basics.
But all of these are interpretive possibilities. The important thing is that this passage not be skimmed over so quickly that its difficulty is minimized and its "first impression" meaning used to overturn the clear teaching of other Scripture. Certainly it should never be used as some sort of restrictive instrument to shrink the service of female believers for all time.
--Interpret a passage according to the best use of the original language.
When I was a student at Los Angeles Baptist College, we who knew little about Greek still prided ourselves in finding out "what the Greek meant" in any Bible study we had. Sometimes pastors too will throw around their knowledge of Greek or Hebrew as though it makes them a cut above those in the pew.
Undoubtedly it helps to know the original languages, but even then one's presuppositions can cause a forced use that obscures or distorts the meaning of the text. Bible translators do not have as easy a time at their job as it would seem to the casual observer. Some interpretation is often necessarily mixed in with their translation. As one man has said, if the same word can mean "he kissed her" or "he spit on her" it makes a real difference which meaning is intended. But then, of course, it could be some of both.
Because of my work on a previous book, I am most familiar with errors in translation occuring because of translators' presuppositions regarding the restriction of women. 2 There is a good example of this type of problem in the way translators have often dealt with Romans 16:1-2 where Phoebe is called "servant" and "helper" or similar words in most translations. Unfortunately, the original language is not accurately translated by those words. The word "servant" (KJV) in verse 1 translates the Greek word diakonos. This Greek word appears twenty two times in Paul's writing, and in every other passage translators accurately render it "minister" or its transliteration "deacon." Only in the case of Phoebe is it translated "servant." In verse 2 the word "helper" (KJV) translates the Greek word prostatis. This word actually means "one who presides," "the chief of a party," and is used in the sense of leadership in its verb form elsewhere in the New Testament. Here it is translated in noun form, the only such occurence in the New Testament.
Probably these words describing Phoebe's position in the church were not accurately translated because the translators believed women were not allowed to hold such positions in the early church, so they said in effect, "It must mean something less." Their personal bias colored their translation work.
You can see by this example that it is important to have access to accurate information on the original language when interpreting Bible passages. In the case of Scripture about marriage, some passages have been neglected for such a long time by interpreters that the use of language is an essential area for us to investigate.
--Interpret social teaching in line with doctrinal teaching.
If we are all priests and kings before God (the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer 1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6, 5:.10) and adopted sons (Gal. 4:4-7), it is not reasonable to ignore those equalizing positions and insist on a social practice (for example, segregation by race) that teaches by its example that some of us are better or more important than others.
--Apply principles in a passage in harmony with their original use.
It is possible to apply a Bible passage in such a way as to deny the very principle taught in it by insisting on copying precisely the behavior described or encouraged without determining first what the actual principle is. For example, insisting that women wear hats in church (because 1 Corinthians 11:5ff. says that women should wear head coverings while praying or prophesying) can defeat the principle taught in the Corinthians passage. The principle in this passage is that women should behave in a socially acceptable manner, so as not to bring disrepute to the gospel. Insisting women wear hats to church in an area where women do not wear hats as a requirement for respectable appearance would serve no good purpose. In fact, it could look rather foolish. Rather than an evidence of respectability, it would display inappropriateness and preoccupation with trivialities.
These are just some of the principles used in the study called hermeneutics. You can see that they are reasonable tools used to determine the most accurate and likely meaning of any portion of the Bible.
Marriage Customs
In order to understand many of the New Testament passages that refer to marriage, we must have some knowledge of what marriage was like in the first century among the Jewish community and in Greece and Rome. If we know about the lives of the recipients of the original Bible letters and the types of relationships they had with their marriage partners, it will not only be easier for us to see what God was trying to tell them, but also what He would tell us. So let's take a look at marriage first-century style.
Jewish Marriage
It is a bit difficult to pin down precise customs among Jewish people throughout the East at the time the New Testament was written because the Talmud, which gave the "oral law" or, as Jesus called it, "the traditions of men," really was oral at that time. It was passed down from teacher or "rabbi" to pupil. This body of material was not written down until well after the New Testament era. It does contain rules and rabbinic opinions about marriage that reflect practice at the time the New Testament events were taking place, but we cannot be certain to what degree these customs were practiced at the time.
However, we do know that the Jews held marriage in high regard, and that they thought everyone should be married. Old Testament writings reveal the Jewish joy in marriage.
There were laws In the Old Testament to protect women; these had been diluted and made ineffective by the teachings of the rabbinate. That is why it was so easy for a man to divorce his wife, "for any cause," as Jesus said. A husband could divorce his wife for burning the dinner, for going out-doors with her head uncovered, for speaking negatively about his parents, or even if he saw a prettier woman he wanted to marry. But women could not divorce their husbands, and they had to leave their children with the ex-husband when they left his household.
Betrothals were contracted between consenting parties but were arranged by parents or others. A man was supposed to see his proposed wife at least once before the marriage in case he just couldn't stand the sight of her. A small coin was exchanged to seal the betrothal, perhaps a carry-over from the days of bride purchase, and a wedding document was drawn up stating the amount of money or property a woman was bringing to the marriage. Any other provisions to be agreed upon were included. Theoretically, this contract protected a wife from being cast out of her marriage penniless, but she was not really secure. Her husband had the right to keep the income from her dowry investments while they were married, and if she offended him by going out without her head covered or by committing any one of several other minor offenses (at least they seem so to us) she could be divorced without having her dowry returned to her at all.
A man was obligated to support his wife, and he had to ransom her if she were to be kidnapped. He also had to provide for her sexually by having intercourse with her regularly. This was not only for her sexual satisfaction, put to give her the children all Jewish women felt they had a right to. If a woman did not have children, it was a great shame to her.
The relationship between marriage partners was obviously an unequal one. Though love undoubtedly developed in many cases, it was not necessarily present. Women were considered inferior to men as evidenced in the prayer Jewish men recited, thanking God that they were not women. Women were considered unreliable witnesses, and their testimony was not admissible in legal matters. A rabbi would not even speak to his own wife in public.
Women had been exempted from many religious obligations under the law. The reason for this is now believed to be the need for mothers to be free to stay at home and care for their young children. But in New Testament times Jewish women simply were not seen as persons with special needs but as inferior persons. In the synagogue women were to be quiet out of respect for the congregation (the male members).
Not only were women considered to be inferior in status, but they were also believed to be inferior morally by nature.
The reason it was such a serious offense for a woman to go out with her head uncovered was that a woman, considered to be naturally sexually seductive, might seduce righteous men just by allowing them to see her hair. An extremely pious woman would not even uncover her hair in her own home except in the dark.
Greek Marriage
Middle and upper-class Greeks believed marriage to be a necessity in order to provide legitimate heirs to property but not particularly satisfying otherwise. As Menander said, "Marrying, to tell the truth, is an evil, but a necessary evil." 3
Ideally women. were to marry very young (around fourteen) while men were to be much older (thirty seven was the recommendation of one Greek writer). The reasoning behind this was that if a man could acquire his wife while she was young and impressionable, he could teach her how to manage his household the way he wanted it done. She would be easy to train and mold to fit his requirements.
The Greek man did not need a wife for companionship, love, or sexual fulfillment. It was socially acceptable for him to go to his own companions and paid entertainers for those things. Eroticism was part of Greek life to such an extent that it was not even considered immoral for the husband to have sexual relations with other women. However, there were severe penalties for an adulterous wife. And if a husband refused to repudiate his wife for her adultery, he also was punished. Adultery was seen more as a polluting of a man's right to a legitimate heir than as a violation of sexual trust. In some segments of Greek society there was no recognized crime of adultery, even for wives. This was for the simple reason that the Greeks felt it was impossible to prevent sexual contact when women (for example, merchant class or slave women) were allowed to move freely about in the company of men.
The Greek husband had legal responsibility for his wife's actions. Her legal position was much like that of a child or a slave: she went from the rule of her father to that of her husband. If her husband died, her son, if he was old enough, had legal authority over her and responsibility for her. If she had no qualifying son, she was given a male guardian to represent her.
Women from the upper and middle classes were kept at home in the women's quarters. These rooms were separate from the men's sleeping rooms, sometimes on a different floor. Wives worked at such things as spinning, weaving, and cooking; they also managed the household goods, kept the keys to the storerooms, directed the slaves, and oversaw the smooth operation of the home business of the family.
The upper and middle-class husband spent the majority of his time away from home where he was involved in his work, political activity, and evening entertainment. There was little common ground between husband and wife in Greek marriage. The wife was usually much younger, unschooled, and sheltered; the husband naturally found his companionship elsewhere.
Married Greeks in the merchant class worked together in the family business. (Priscilla and Aquila were tentmakers together.) Marriage between Greeks of this class must have involved much more day-to-day contact and comradeship.
There were also marriages between freed slaves and alliances between slaves and free men and women.
Roman Marriage
The Greek and Roman cultures were similar in that different classes of people contracted different types of marriage, and adultery with women who were slaves, merchants, or shopkeepers was nonpunishable because sexual contact with these women was seen as almost inevitable.
But there were also differences between the two cultures in the matter of marriage. In the Roman world, some types of marriage were more binding than others. In fact, the legal intricacies of what was marriage and what was not were so complicated that one wonders if even the Romans always knew whether they were legally married or not. Extensive dowries for wives sometimes gave them a larger part in the family finances than their husbands had, and Roman wives had more freedom to move about than did Greek wives. Many Roman women were well-educated. Some were even independently wealthy, owning large amounts of land.
"But emancipation entailed great danger for the civic and patrician woman. Not that a whole burden of responsibilities would fall on her, or that she would have to prove herself in profession and in public life to be the equal of man. On the contrary; boredom, leisure and wealth came to mold her character, and even the most careful education was not enough to help the girl come to grips with her actual social helplessness and inactivity. It is thus not surprising that the ancient standard of morals was turned on its head and excesses, including cruelty and crime, were to be numbered among the great lady's pastimes." 4
Ancient Romans had been under the law of patria potestas which gave the Roman father and husband absolute power (even of life and death) over his family. It is not clear to what extent this law still applied to the Roman family at the time the New Testament was written. But power over the family was still clearly in the hands of the husband and father even though some wives, especially in the upper classes, were able to find ways around both the law and their husbands and do as they wished with both their money and their persons.
Marriage Similarities in These Three Cultures
Before we end this chapter, I want to mention two areas that especially relate to our study. The first is the secular and private nature of marriage throughout the Mediterranean area at that time, and the second is the prevailing view that women were inferior to men.
In my research about first century marriage I have repeatedly encountered statements to the effect that marriage was a private family affair. This held true for the Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Though there were religious overtones to the marriage customs of these peoples, they were actually rites performed by the families of the couple to ensure the blessing of the household gods or to transfer the allegiance of the woman from the household gods of her father's home to those of her husband's home. There were also appeals for special help from gods who were in charge of a particular function or area. But all of this was a matter of personal or family participation. A professional religious leader did not marry the couple, nor was there a specific religious ceremony. The rites were a mixture of secular custom and family transfer. Even for the Jews it was a family matter, not a religious one needing the services of a rabbi.
It is important for us to realize the secular and private nature of marriage during the time when biblical instructions on marriage were given; marriage was a fact of life separate from the formal religious life of those people. Marriage was seen as a practical necessity contracted between families rather than a divine, eternal alliance needing the assistance of a priest or minister. Seen in this light, there is all the more reason to regard instructions in the Bible as practical instructions on how to live as Christians within the marriages already existent and likely to be contracted. We can see why God would give practical, down-to-earth information in this area rather than some kind of mystical order to follow to mirror a divine plan.
The other area I want to mention is the obvious attitude prevalent that women were inferior persons. It was not that they were thought to be positionally inferior; they were believed to be actually inferior to men. Undoubtedly the effects of the Fall had a part in the oppression of women down through history just as it has contributed toward the oppression of other groups of people. Those who have power tend to oppress those beneath them in the hierarchical ladder. But there is a further reason that will help us see the ancient attitude toward women in a more realistic and maybe even a kinder light.
In the ancient world procreation was viewed in a decidedly unscientific manner. Those people knew nothing of sperm and ova, so they drew their own conclusions. Plants grew from seeds. Seeds grew in fertile fields. Therefore, the seed planted in woman by man grew into a child. This simple explanation was so universally accepted as the truth that if someone had posed the idea that the woman and the man both contributed to the child's origin, that person would have been labeled a fool. As David and Vera Mace state in Marriage: East and West:
"To the Eastern mind, therefore, the difference between the man and the woman was a basic difference, a fundamental difference of function. The woman could never be as important as the man, any more than the soil could be as important as the seed. By her very nature she was secondary, auxiliary. This is the very root of all the discrimination between man and woman that has characterized the history of the East, and in earlier times, of the West as well." 5
Women were then, as they are even now in some places, considered to be the husband's fertile field. He sowed the seed; she grew it. This explains why it was acceptable and just in their eyes to send a mother away without her children in the case of divorce. After all, the children were products of the father. The mother merely nourished them to birth.
This attitude toward procreation also explains why women were often treated so much more harshly than men in matters of sexual offense. If only the man was responsible for the origin of the child, it was absolutely necessary for him to keep his wife from conceiving and producing some other man°Zs child and foisting it off as heir to his property. The man, however, could be generous with his procreative powers, spreading his children around as contributions from himself to whoever would nourish them.
The men and women who first received New Testament instructions on marriage were already caught up in the results of these ancient beliefs about women. Rather than trying to correct their views on biology, God sent them instructions about marriage. The New Testament presented a way for husbands and wives to relate to each other (as equal. persons) that could nullify the effects of prejudicial views about women.
But let's begin at the beginning. God was at work to equalize marriage long before New Testament times. Let's take a look at the first marriage.
Notes:
1. For a more extensive study of this passage see my book
Woman Be Free, Zondervan, 1977, Chapter 5.
2. Ibid.
3. Verena Zinserling, Women in Greece and Rome (New York:
Abner Schram, 1973), p. 26.
4. Ibid., p. 55.
5. David and Vera Mace, Marriage: East and West (Garden City:
Dophin Books, 1960), pp. 30-31.
----
Heirs Together, by Patricia Gundry, Published by Suitcase Books http://www.suitcasebooks.com Copyright Patricia Gundry