An Old-Fashioned Kind of Love

Something to keep in mind when reading biblical passages about marriage, love, and sex:  for most of human history, consent was a foreign concept, and love was an afterthought.  Women were effectively their father’s property, and were “given away” to the husband upon marriage (often in exchange for a “bride-price” or to seal a treaty or agreement).

But it wasn’t all wine and roses for the groom, either: husbands-to-be often had as little choice in the matter as their brides.  The parents arranged the marriage, usually for monetary or political reasons, and the people getting married basically had to deal with it.  Of course there were exceptions (Ruth and Boaz, for example), and of course the practice varied over time, culture, and geography.  But the pattern was pervasive.

One thing the groom did have going for him was the definition of adultery. Adultery didn’t mean cheating on your spouse. It meant sleeping with another man’s wife. A married man could visit prostitutes or any other unmarried non-virgin he could bed, and it was a-okay, even in the first century. The legal double standard persisted into the reformation (King Henry the VIII of England killed two wives for adultery, but always kept a mistress on the side. Funny, that). The societal double standard exists to this day.

This only started to change in the last two or three hundred years.  We’ve all read Jane Austen (or at least seen the movies).  But Austen wasn’t writing safe, posh romances. She used the romance novel to criticize arranged marriage, hypocrisy, and materialism in early nineteenth-century Britain. She wasn’t the first or only person to speak out, but it took a long time to get from arranged exchanges of property to what we currently think of as marriage.

And eighteen hundred years earlier, when the Apostle Paul was writing?  Or twenty-five hundred years earlier, when Queen Esther would have been alive? Forget about it. The wife was the husband’s property.  So were the kids and the slaves.

Nobody cared whether the bride wanted to get married. Nobody cared whether the slave wanted to become the husband’s mistress.  Nobody cared whether the male slave wanted to become the husband’s ‘lover.’ And though they weren’t slaves, nobody cared whether the 12 year old boys in ancient Greece and Rome wanted to have adult ‘mentors’ with a side order of pederasty.

So why does that matter today? Because it affects how we interpret the Bible. If we see marriage in our modern, 21st century light, or even in an idealized 1950’s light (as the complementarian movement does), we don’t see the reality. Biblical marriage, biblical adultery, biblical homosexuality – these things are all fundamentally different than their 21st century counterparts.

That’s not to say the Bible doesn’t speak to us today on these issues. It absolutely does. But if we ignorantly superimpose our own culture on the biblical text, we will fail to understand. We have ears, but if we cover them and sing 21st (or mid-20th) century love-songs, we will not hear. And as Christians, we must hear what the Bible says. We simply must.

Advertisements

3 comments on “An Old-Fashioned Kind of Love

  1. Paul Mayhan says:

    I’ve always found it interesting that when the Bible gives instructions to wives and husbands, love is presented primarily as doing, not feeling. Obviously feelings are implied in the actions described, but love in its essence is about giving and sacrificing, not needing or wanting.

  2. Tim Dedeaux says:

    I agree 100%. I think that a lot of the problems we have in our modern dating scene come from thinking of love as a feeling first, and a doing second, instead of the other way around.

    For most of human history, if love was going to exist between the average married couple, it had to be doing first, and feeling second, because they may have hardly even met prior to the wedding day.

    I think that may unlock Jesus’s instructions to love all people. I can’t FEEL love for everyone I meet, even on the shallowest “friendly acquaintance” level, but I can act out of love, if I’m willing to put in the effort and put aside my pride and irritability.

  3. Paul Mayhan says:

    And how much would it change the dating experience if young men and women were intentionally setting out to find that person they could do those things for? Instead of setting out to find the one who pushes all the right buttons (although with a little bit of maturity someone who looks out for you and whom you can trust completely is often a very sexy thing) you instead look for someone that you can partner with, you could commit to making sacrifices for, and that you could build a life together with. I would hypothesize that everyone would wind up having far fewer dating relationships in total, and marriages would start lasting a whole lot longer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s