BIBLICAL THOUGHTS ON WOMEN’ S MARRIAGE AND DIVOCE

     The family is portrayed as the basic unit of society, and order within the family is the guarantor of social and political order. The vast provision of literature aims to ensure that individuals understand their integral roles within a smoothly functioning family and emphasizes the importance of marital and family stability for society and polity.  Fundamental to these considerations is religion, and particularly in Christianity, marriage is ordained by God and familiar relationships are prescribed by God.  Any behavior that runs counter to harmony in marriage or the family not only threatens social stability but is also regarded as contrary to the Divine Commandments.  However reconciling the apparently irreconcilable differences of the Biblical texts that allow divorce and those prohibit divorce.  Although, the New Testament references to divorce were ambiguous enough to prevent a rapid consensus within the church that divorce was wholly unacceptable, it is notable that the Christian debate for and against divorce drew on both texts from the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.  This study focuses on the Biblical thoughts on women’s marriage and divorce or forced divorce in the present scenario.

     The major objectives of this study will be focus on why the man has the right to divorce his wife and denial of rights for a woman.  To the present society being plunged into a state of moral disintegration as the number of divorces rises beyond expected and controllable levels affecting people of all race, caste, culture and religion.

     This study analyses the Christian thoughts on marriage and divorce is suitable for the present scenario or not.  Whether the age old Christian thoughts applicable to the entire world which has varied culture and tradition.  Moreover, this paper reveals the contradictory thoughts of Christian Philosophy on Divorce in Old Testament and New Testament. Because Indian Penal Code,  Christian Marriage Acts has written on the basis of Biblical thoughts, which is applicable to the present situation or not.

Institutions of Marriage in the Ancient Society:

Genesis 1 and 2, clearly stated that God’s original plan for humanity as one man to one woman for life.  However, there was no code of rules required until the standards of society had fallen. Hence, the law-code of King Hammurabi of Babylon came into practice about 1700 BC which stated that:  “A man would not take a second wife unless the first was unable to have children. The husband was allowed a secondary wife (a concubine), or his wife might give him a slave-girl, to have children by her.  The children of the slave-girl, shall not be sent away.”  The above statement make it clear that women is the sole responsible for infertility, so she has to allow her husband to marry another girl or give him a slave-girl to have children.  Further it stated that nothing to say about the position of a second wife, but ensure the protection to her children.  In modern scenario scientifically proved that male or female may have the problem of infertility.  It may curable or the girls may beget a child with the help of scientific approach or hiring mothers.  However, Indian Penal Code also favour to the law- code of King Hammurabi that Divorce a woman, if she is not fit for beget heir.

      Male had the right to marry a secondary wife or his wife allowed him to get children by the slave girl. Here again the denial of rights of the first wife but also a slave-girl.  Thus, two women’s life is a questionable one; they couldn’t raise voice against the male.  Slave – girl had no rights to claim as equal to the first wife.  The slave-girl’s position is very pitiable, dependable and economically, socially degraded by her own family. For instance, Abraham at first only had one wife, Sarah, since she was barren, he took her slave-girl, Haggar (Genesis 16:1-2). Genesis23:1-2 refers that When Sarah died Abraham  married Qeturah as his second wife. Nahor (Genesis22:20-24) had children by his wife Milkah, and a concubine, Remuah.  This seems to be against the law of King Hammurabi however, polygamy was becoming a custom of the time.’

Polygamy Practice:

     According to Roland de Vaux, “The husband can, however, himself take a concubine, even if his wife has borne him children, but the concubine never has the same rights as his wife and he may not take a second concubine unless the first is barren.”   In the Fifteenth Century BC, in the region of Kirkuk, the same customs were prevalent, but the barren wife was under an obligation to provide a concubine for her husband. In the midst of this polygamy, there was still a relative monogamy because there was only one lawful wife.  However, it seems as though the Patriarchs followed a less stringent code of conduct than that which prevailed in Mesopotamia.  In Genesis29:15-30 and 30:1-9, Jacob married the two sisters, Leah and Rachel, each of whom gave him her maid.  In Indian Society, polygamy was acceptable practices in royal patriarchal society (women of the harem), in which women were less privileged than male. Still this practice is prevailed among the people in certain villages, but the government executed law against them, but not yet completely eradicated.

      By the end of the Second Millennium BC, the Assyrian Code of Law, assigned an intermediary place between the wife and the concubine, who is a slave, to the esirtu (Woman of the harem).  A man may have several esirtu and they may be raised to the rank of a wife.  Later the Talmud fixed the number of wives at four for a subject, eighteen for a king.

     It is clearly stated in the books of Samuel and Kings that the most common form of marriage in the Israelite society was monogamy.  There is not a single case recorded of bigamy among the commoners, (except that of Samuel’s father, at the very beginning of the period).  Also, there is no reference about polygamy in the wisdom books.  Although the New Testament upholds the ideal of monogamy, it does not prohibit polygamy except in the case of a bishop or a deacon. It is clear that polygamy was rarely practiced by the people and by Christian kings without the disapproval of the Church.   Likewise in India, only royal families or economically high status people used to have bigamy or concubines.  But, they were considered as illegal wives.  They had no rights to claim property or hereditary rights like the children of the first wife.  Indian society based on monogamy form of marriage is acceptable by the commoners.

A Purchase Theory:

     According to Purchase Theory,  the married woman came under the authority of her husband.   Exodus 20:17 refers that legally man counts as being the owner of his wife, and the wife is considered as the husband’s possession.    In Deuteronomy 21:13, 24:1, to ‘marry a wife’ is expressed by the Hebrew verb Ba’al, the root meaning of which is to ‘become a master’.  However, the question that now arises is whether a wife is really the property of her husband, in other words, had he bought her?  Ethnographers have suggested that the Israelites practiced a form of ‘Marriage by Purchase’, i.e.  ‘A Purchase-Theory’.  This theory can be substantiated by the custom of the mohar (dowry/bride-price).   Still this practice is existed among the Indian Society.

The Mohar:

     The ‘mohar’ was a sum of money, which was paid to the father of the bride in exchange for the hand of his daughter in marriage.  The amount of the mohar varied and depended on the father of the girl and the social standing of the family.  Payment of the mohar could be compound by service, e.g. like Jacob did for both his wives (Genesis 29:15-30). In India also has the same practice, that either dowry paid by bride family or by bride –groom family.  In ancient period ‘Sheridan’ has given by the girls’ family to bride, now this practice cause for many evil practices like dowry death, persecution by the in-laws led the girl to commit suicide or divorce and forced divorce.  

     Alternatively, mohar was paid  by accomplishing an appointed task,  as David did for Michal (I Samuel 18:25-27).  David demonstrated a becoming modesty (I Samuel 18:18-23), which was intertwined with his inability to pay the mohar appropriate for a King’s daughter.  The Mohar was one hundred foreskins of the Philistines – The task in exchange for the hand of his daughter was to take vengeance on the King’s enemies.  This obligation to pay a sum of money, or its equivalent, to the girl’s family obviously gives the Israelite marriage the outward appearance of a ‘purchase.’  In Indian History, there are so many references available that through marriage alliance, the neighbouring king avoid war, or giving her daughter as compensation for the King’s victory.

      However, there is a difference between compensation given to the family of the bride and the price paid for a woman.  The difference becomes clear, if we compare the mohar marriage with purchase marriage, i.e. a girl could be sold by her father to another man who intended her to be his own, or his son’s concubine.  Thus, she was a slave, and could be resold.  Here, women were treated as commodity, not considered her as equal partner in life, inhuman attitude is encouraged by this activities.  Our Indian Constitution guaranteed that all are equal’ . However, in Indian society, there is a practice to give dowry in order to maintain their statuesque to bride or bride groom irrespective of religion.  According to the practice of their caste, bride or bride groom purchased their partners by giving dowry or in the name of gift.

Beena And Erebu Marriage:

     By marriage a woman left her parents and went to live with her husband and joined his clan.  This was the normal custom.  In Genesis 24:58-59, Rebecca left her father and mother, in Genesis 24:5-8, Abraham would not allow Isaac to go to Mesopotamia unless the wife chosen for him agreed to come to Canaan.  However, there are few cases in the Bible where there was an exception.  In Genesis 31:26, 43 Jacob, after marrying Leah and Rachel, continued to live with his father-in-law, Laban.  In Judge 8:31, Gideon had a concubine who continued to live with her family at Shechem, Samson married a Philistine woman of Timnah, he continued to live with her parents, where Samson visited her (Judges 14:8, 15:1-2).  This type of marriage where the wife does not leave her father’s house, the husband takes up residence in her home and relinquishes his connections with his own clan, is called “beena marriage”.   Assyrian  law also provided for a case where a married woman continued to live with her father, this type of marriage was called “erebu”.  In general  in India, they followed the normal customs like after marriage a woman left her parents and went to live with her husband or his family.  However, the girl is the only daughter or no son in the family means, the bride groom takes up residence in her home.

Arranged Marriage:

     The Bible stipulated no age at which a girl could be married.  However, for centuries the custom in the East was for boys and girls to be married while they were very young. In the later days, the Jewish Rabbis fixed the minimum age for marriage at twelve years for a girl and thirteen years for a boy.  As a result of this practice parents made all the decisions when a marriage was being arranged.  Genesis Chapter 29:15 says that once the proposal of marriage had been put to the girl’s parents, they discussed the conditions, especially the amount of the mohar.  Arranged marriage led to the discussion of the mohar, that led to the girl lost her independence to decide her future partner.  In India, Child marriage prevailed till 1829, when the Saradah Act passed by the British Government.  The Age of Consent rise the marriageable age to 10, then to 12.  The parent only decided and arranged the marriage.

         In Genesis 24:4, this research notes that Abraham sent his servant to find Isaac a wife among his own family in Mesopotamia.  Laban declared that he would rather give his daughter to Jacob than to a stranger.  Tobias also advised his son   to choose a wife within his tribe (Tobias 4:12).  This statement make it clear that inter caste or inter clan marriage was not practiced.  In Indian society, even after converted to Christianity also sticks on to marry within the caste (see impact of mixed marriages).

     Marriages  also took place between persons of different families and even with foreign women. Joseph married an Egyptian, Moses married a Midianite.  Naomi’s two daughter-in –laws were Moabites.  Israelite women were also married to foreigners Batsheba to a Kittite, and the mother of Hiram, the bronze worker to a Tyrian.   However, at present this is a common phenomena that marry  a foreign women is considered as cultural sharing in India.  Inter caste marriages also accepted unconditionally by the parents due to the economically independent son and daughter of the family. This is the main reason for the more number of divorce would happened in the society due to lack of knowledge about others culture and tradition cause for misunderstanding between the couple.

Impact of Mixed Marriages:

     These mixed marriages first started with Kings for political reasons. However, it later became common among the subjects after settlement in Canaan (Judges 3:6).  The results of these mixed marriages were firstly that they ‘tainted the purity’ of Israel’s blood, secondly that they ‘endangered its religious faith’ (I Kings 11:4).  And thirdly, they were ‘forbidden by law’ (Exodus 34:15-16, Deuteronomy 7:3-4).37  In Indian Society also have the same reasons for avoiding the mixed marriages and castes is the prime cause for avoiding mixed marriages and each caste people has some unique cultural practices.  In case of mixed marriages on the basis of caste or religion, that led to the misunderstanding between the couples to understand the cultural values on both the side, finally ended with divorce.  At the time of court cases dealing with the validity of a “Christian marriage,” as with cases involving inheritance, illustrate the role of the Indian judiciary in defining religious boundaries.   The Madras High Court’s application of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, had the effect of separating a “Christian community” from the domain of “Hindu caste society” recognisized by the courts.  By extricating Christians from the “little societies” of caste, the judiciary furthered the marginalization of Christians from larger construction of Hindu society.  A set of related cases involving at least one Christian marital partner reveals a pattern of regulation whereby the courts regarded Christian identity and Hindu identity as mutual exclusive. The Madras judiciary, discussed in three sections, while constructing a Christian community around marriage, falsely ascribed the Anglican notion of a “clandestine marriage” to Christian marrying according to local caste rites.  The next section explains how, in judging the validity of inter-religious marriages, the courts came to regard the marriage ceremony itself as a site for the public profession of religious faith.  The final section of the three addresses the interplay between categories of religious identity and notions of monogamy and desertion derived from divorce cases.

    For instance, the Nadars of Tinnevelly, retained their caste solidarity well after conversion to Christianity and continued to intermarry with Hindu Nadars.  Because marital preferences so strongly signified the identity of a particular caste, they often revealed the pre-eminence of caste identity  over the imagined Christian identity. The same practices prevailed among the Christian Maravar Community of Tinnevelly.     The Nadar and Maravar Christians, marrying outside of one’s caste was far more offensive than marrying a non-Christian.  Such privileging of caste over religion by Christians themselves stood at odds with the judiciary’s tendency to regulate marriage according to religion.  Thus, the enforcement of the Indian Christian Marriage Act of 1872, renamed as Christian Marriage Act was often encumbered by the multiple identities of Indian Christians.  The enforcement of the Indian Christian Marriage Act worked against the tendency of Christian converts, especially those coming from lower social strata, to participate in more than one set of social relationships.  So it is a difficult task for the law makers and imposed a higher degree of uniformity upon Christian practices in India.

Engagements or Betrothal Ceremonies:

     The Hebrew word ‘aras’ literally meaning ‘engagement’ or ‘betrothal’, was a promise of marriage made sometime before the celebration of the wedding, according to the custom of Israel.  The same custom is prevailed in Tamil Nadu also.  Legal texts show that engagements were a recognized custom with ‘Judicial consequences’.  According to Deuteronomy 20:7, a man who was engaged, though not yet married, was excused from going to war.  In I Samuel 18:21, this research see the formula that was probably spoken by the girl’s father to make the engagement valid: ‘Today you shall be my son-in-law’.

     According to Roland  de Vaux, ‘in Israel and Mesopotamia, marriage was a purely civil contract’.  It was not sanctioned by any religious act.  Whereas in The Hebrew analogy denotes that the marriage is a religious pact. In India, marriage is a religious pact, especially  Christian marriages is considered as the Covenant of God, man should not  break the bond between the relationship between husband and wife in the name of divorce.  It is clear that the Biblical thought strictly against divorce.  In Proverbs 2:17, marriage is called the ‘Covenant of God’.  The Madras High Court also acknowledge the same that Christian Marriage in terms of monogamy i.e. an exclusive, life-long bond between one man and one woman.     It was custom among the Jews that a contract of marriage had to be signed.  In Tobias 7:13, a written contract of marriage is mentioned.  According to the Code of Hammurabi,  a marriage concluded without a contract is invalid. The formula pronounced at marriage according to the Elephantine contract was:  ‘She is my wife and I am her husband, from this day forever.’

     In assessing the early Israelite sociology for marriage  note that it was originally better, in close contracts of life for every marriageable woman to be in proper relationship to some man, rather than that improper relationships should arise in which the children would suffer because no one would be responsible for them.

Provision for Divorce:

      In the Jewish law of divorce men have been given great rights whereas sheer injustice has been done to women as they have been deprived of this right and they cannot demand divorce despite the defects and tyranny and oppression of their husbands.   

      There was no provision for divorce in the Christian law, Marriage was a permanent relation between the husband and wife; they could not be separated due to any reason.  This strictness was based on Christ’s teaching: “He who God unites cannot be disunited (Bible)”.  Christ’s saying was wrongly interpreted by his followers as it implied a moral lesson that divorce should not be given without any genuine reason.  It has been mentioned as follows: “A person who forsakes his wife, except on account of adultery, and marries a second woman commits sin.”

     According to the motivation given in Deuteronomy 24:1, a man could divorce his wife if he had ‘found some unseemly thing in her’.    The school of Rabbi Shammai acknowledged only adultery and misconduct for the grounds of divorce.   In India, the Divorce Act of 1869 defined the terms by which either partner of a Christian marriage could petition for a divorce. If the relations of husband and wife become strained and the efforts to effect reconciliation between them fail so that it is not possible for them to pull on, the husband can divorce his wife. According to Part III of the Divorce Act of 1869, a husband could petition the District Court or the High Court for a divorce on the grounds of his wife’s adultery.  A wife could petition for divorce on the ground that her husband had:  .... exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion, and gone through a form of marriage with another woman; or has been guilty of incestuous adultery, or bigamy with adultery or of marriage with another woman with adultery; or or rape, sodomy, or bestiality, or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa at thoro; or of adultery coupled with descrtion, without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards.   But in the law of 1907, the ‘guilty’ was deleted and the court could now order the husband to pay the expenses of his wife despite complete separation between them.

Procedure of Divorce

     In the procedure of divorce, the husband made out a declaration contradicting that which had sealed the marriage, i.e. ‘she is no longer my wife and I am no longer her husband’.    In Assyria the formula for a divorce was : ‘I repudiate her’ or ‘ You are no more my wife’.  However, in Israel, Mesopotamia and Elephantine, they also practiced a custom in which the husband had to write his wife a certificate / bill/ writ of divorce, which allowed a woman to remarry.  According to IPC, in case of Christian Divorce, the judgment given after seven long years to get divorce. Almost all seven year, the mental agony of a girl or a man led them to take some wrong decision about their life and may commit suicide or had illegal life with someone.  Ultimately, it cause for cultural degradation in the name of religion.

Restrictions for Divorce:

     There were a few laws, which were laid to restrict the husband from the right of a divorce.  According to Deuteronomy 22:13-19, if a man had falsely accused his wife of not being a virgin when he married her, he could not divorce her.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 stipulates that if a man had violated a girl, he was compelled to marry her.   If a divorced wife remarried and later her second husband died or liberated her by a divorce, the first husband was forbidden to take her back. with David, then given to another man, and finally taken back by David, however, David had never divorced her (I Samuel 18:20-27, 25:44, 2Samuel 3:13-16)

     Women had no right to ask for a divorce.  At the beginning of the Christian era, when Solome, the sister of Herod sent her husband Kostabar a letter of divorce, her actions were held to be against Jewish law. If the Gospel made reference to a woman divorcing her husband, it was the influence of Gentile customs. Whereas in India, women had the right to ask for a divorce, which  is guaranteed by our Constituion.

     According to the Code of Hammurabi, a husband could divorce his wife by pronouncing the appropriate formula, but he had to pay her compensation.  In Assyrian law, the husband had the right to divorce his wife without any compensation.  However, this led to the Assyrian marriage being complicated, because they often stipulated more onerous conditions for the husband.  When the marriages were arranged, the wife’s parents might protect her interests by special clauses.   Likewise in India, A woman, in order to fulfill her part of the contract, must produce male children; if she fails to produce  such children then a de facto divorce may occur with the infertile woman returning and remaining throughout her life at the village of her father. If she does not have male heirs, then she has no claims to inheritance of her husband’s estate except maintenance during her lifetime.

Comparison between Women in Israel Society and In Indian Society:

        According to Exodus 21:7and Deuteronomy 24:14,  a man could sell his daughter but, a man could never sell his wife. Whereas in Indian contest, women were respected so not to sold  by her father or by her husband, which is considered as offence and punished by law.

     A husband had the right to divorce his wife, but she was protected by the certificate of divorce (get), which guaranteed her freedom.  Within the family, respect for a wife increased on the birth of her first child.  This respect was even greater if the child was a boy. In Indian society, if a woman begets a boy baby first also respected by the family members.  The wisdom literature Proverbs 19:26, 23:22, 30:17 emphasized that children should respect both mother and the father equally. 

     The ceremony of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery without proof is to take the woman before a priest.  She drinks the words of a curse mixed in water with the dust of the floor of the tabernacle.  If she is wrongly suspected, she goes away free.  The husband must then stop being jealous.  According to the book of Numbers tells the husband that without evidence he cannot take action against his wife.  Only the Lord knows and the question of guilt has to be left without the outcome of the ordeal.  If she is guilty, then the Lord will punish her by affliction.  In IPC (Indian Penal Code) ensure that the husband cannot take action against his wife without evidences, if he gave wrong information also punished by law.

          In Egypt it was custom that the wife was the head of the family, in Babylon, the wife could purchase property, take legal action, be a party to contracts, and she even had a share in her husband’s inheritance.  In the Colony of Elephantine, the Jewish wife acquired certain civil rights.  Since she owned property, she also became liable to taxation.

     When compare with other countries the Israelite and Indian woman had to do all the hard works at home.  Her role was to look after the flock, cook the food, do the spinning, etc. However, these tasks did not lower her status but rendered her sincere consideration, as a vital and important member in the family structure.  Many feminist theologians may argue that this picture of the Israelite and Indian woman, is a subordination to man, within a system of women oppression. However, one needs to take into consideration that it was custom in the Israelite society to be submissive to the authority of the man, who is the head of the family.

CONCLUSION

    Gottwald defined the society depicted in the Bible as a real historical society.  The Biblical literature is a product of that society, the literature’s form and ideas, as well as its descriptions of society and history, offer direct evidence of that society’s culture.  The encouragement of local religious and cultural identities was part of the imperial strategy.

       Israel had a unique family structure.  The several institutions of family such as the nature of the family, marriage, divorce, the role of women etc. differed from pagan societies.  These unique institutions and structures gave Israel its own family identity. Whereas in India, family is the basic unit of a society.  India has a unique family structure, bounded with caste and religion.  Each caste and religion has their own nature of institutions such as the nature of family, marriage, divorce, the role of women etc. differ from religion to religion and caste to caste.      

     Various Biblical passages depict that the family was an important component of the Israelite society, which has some unique family identity of the Israelite nation, solidarity to family and tribal organizations, together with family customs were of vital importance. Indian society also has a unique caste identity, with varied culture and tradition.  But, living with solidarity, communal harmony, united under the banner of Indians is the vital importance.

     The institutions of marriage was monogamous marriage with a polygamous nature.  The men had one lawful wife, but also several concubines.  The marriage was sanctioned by the payment of the mohar.  Choosing a bride was a very special occasion.  The link in the family bloodline was of vital importance.  Brides were the continuation of the family blood genealogy and also wealth circulated within the family.  Indian constitution allowed monogamy, which means one man  one wife as stated in the Bible, not allowed to live with concubines, which is the special feature of Indian society. If any man living with other woman without the permission of the first wife is considered as offence and adultery and all other practices alike Israelite society.

     With the institution of marriage, there was also the institution of divorce.  This right was granted to the man.  He had the right to discontinue his marriage.  However, there were certain restrictions.  The issuing of a ‘get’ (a certificate of divorce), guaranteed the woman her freedom to remarry.  In India, man and woman had the right to discontinue his or her marriage for a valued reason. After getting legal separation, both had the right to remarry.

     The women in the Israelite society also had a unique identity in comparison to the surrounding countries.  However, these family structures were soon to be challenged.  When the Israelites returned from exile in Babylon, several mixed marriages were contracted, i.e. marriages to foreign women.  The contracting of mixed marriages brought influences of mixed cultures, mixed religions, mixed morality, mixed family structure etc.  It also began to fragment the original unique family identity created within the Israelite society. In India the converted Christians mixed with other community or religious people, several mixed marriages were contracted, which began to fragment the original unique family identity.

      This study may conclude that religion played a vital role in reconstructing society and enhance the independence of a women based on religious thoughts, amendment required in code of law according to the requirement of changes in the society,  Williamson stated that ‘the treatment described in Ezra of how he tackled the problem of mixed marriages is among the least attractive parts of Ezra and Nehemiah, if not the whole of Old Testament’.   Similarly Clines was appalled by the personal misery brought into so many families by the compulsory divorce of foreign wives and outraged at Ezra’s insistence on racial purity, which is uncongenial to modern liberal thoughts. Mixed marriages, divorce are unavoidable, accept the reality and act positively by inculcating the moral values based on religion, which help to maintain gender equality and develop peaceful society.