First Century marriages had unique rules all their own. Unlike depictions of matchmakers like Yenta in Fiddler on the Roof, matchmaking in Jesus’ day was controlled by fathers or the male head of the family. After a marriage deal was struck between the respective heads of the households, marriages then occurred in two stages. The first stage was the agreement to the match, sealed with dowry money paid to the father of the groom. Dowry money was determined in a particular time and place with the understanding that adding another woman to the family would cost the man’s family to keep her. After stage one the two children did not co-habit (which made Jesus’ mother’s pregnancy a major slipup, incidentally.) Today we would refer to stage one as a couple being engaged. The second part was the week-long party of the wedding celebration itself, as described in the wedding at Cana. The bride and groom then moved in together to the groom’s father’s home.
When a “this century” fundamentalist Christian boasts about the sanctity of marriage in Jesus’ time, he or she don’t know what they are talking about. First century marriages do not reflect the Leave it to Beaver family. They were continually trying to make good economic gains for their respective families and not let their money stray too far from them. Although young boys were often contracted to be married when the girl was still a pre-adolescent child, he usually took his bride home when he was about 18 after the second stage of the wedding. Girls were often promised in marriage when they were children and the second part of the celebration occurred whenever menstruation began. Incidentally, that form of arranged marriage (waiting to co-habit until she was old enough) has been implemented continually down through the ages. In our Canadian heritage, Samuel de Champlain married a 12 year old girl (Héléne Boullé) but he did not cohabit with her until she was an older teenager. In the meantime, she lived with the nuns in a convent in Quebec City. Back to the wedding ceremony - it must be understood that during the wedding celebration proper, all festivities were controlled by the mother of the groom; this opens the story of the wedding at Cana to some interesting speculation. For all intents and purposes, she was the wedding planner. That was her job! When looking at the wedding at Cana, judging by the reaction of Mary (aka “the wedding planner”) to the celebrants having run out of wine, the wedding may well have been for one of her own sons. Running out of wine at a first century Jewish wedding was a faux pas of gigantic proportions, especially if you were the groom’s family. Family honour was at stake. And there was an order to the quality of the wine served. Good wine was served first then followed by the plonk after the guests were tipsy. Was the wedding at Cana for one of Jesus’ brothers? He had four: James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, and Jude. Or could it have been for Jesus himself? What other evidence is there? In John 20: 17 Mary Magdalene is described as “clinging” to Jesus. In first century Jewish culture, women touching men was only done between married folk. But the most powerful evidence comes in two ways: in the first place, none of the gospels ever say Jesus was NOT married. In a day and age when most men were married, can we assume that he was by the silence from of the gospels? The second indicator can be seen the morning after his death. Mary Madeline is first at his tomb. Every one of the four gospels has her there. In the first century, it was the wife’s responsibility to prepare the body for burial. The body had to be washed, anointed with perfumes, and wrapped in linen cloth before it could be placed in a burial place. So why was Mary there on that first Easter morning? Could she have been his wife? Over the 20 centuries, much has been written and many theories have been developed as to the marital status of Jesus of Nazareth. These are, at best, theories. In the end, if I had to answer the question, “Was Jesus married?” my answer would be: “I don’t know.” Perhaps he was, and perhaps he wasn’t. That’s what makes this such an interesting question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI'm Rev. Dr. Pirie Mitchell and I live in Ontario, Canada. Archives
May 2023
Categories |
Home |
About |
Contact |
Copyright © 2023 Ask the Preacher