The bridegroom's friend (Jn 3^) must be dis- tinguished from • the children of the bride-cham- ber" (Mt 9"), who were simply the invited guests. In Jud;¥a there were two such • friends,' one acting for the bridegroom, the other for the bride. They conducted all the preliminary inquiries, made the bargains as to downy, etc., arrangeil the betrothal, and finallj- led the Wtrothetl couple to the bride- chamber. They were res])onsible for the legality of the whole proceedings, and were guarantors of the brides virgan chastity. The bridegrooms voice, in converse with the 'bride, assured them pleasantly that their work had been successful. The discharge of the ' friend's" functions was liable to gross abu.ses (see Mishnic tractate Middoth). There was no corresjxjnding functionary in Galilee, and so there is no allusion to him in the account of the marriage at Cana. Similar offices are dis- charged by the friends of would-l>e bridegrooms in Palestine to-day. An ardent .<uitor once sent to the ])resent writer a sum of £40, with the request that it be given to a friend, on condition that he should .<ecure the gootlwill of a certain maiden, and the consent of her parents to his suit.
138
MAKRIAGE
MARTHA
The bride-chamber is probably = Heb. heeler, ' the nuptial chamber' (Jg 15^), in -which stood the hvppah, the bridal ' bed with a canopy ' ( Jl 2^^ ; Gesenius, s.v.). In all the lands of their dispersion the Jews still apply this name, huppah, to the richly embroidered canopy under which the contracting parties stand during the marriage ceremony.
G. M. Mackie and W. Ewixg.
MARRIAGE (II.).— Jesus does not treat of the family from the point of view of the sociologist, but from that of the teacher of religion and morals. The high estimate which He places upon it is to be seen, not alone in His regard for His mother, but more particularly from His use of the institution as His most characteristic analogy for the Kingdom of God. As far as the condition of its future members in the present evil age is concerned. He describes the Kingdom as a social order in which the rela- tionship of men to God is analogous to that of sons to a father ; and tlieir relation to each other, there- fore, is like that existing between brothers. Jesus also fiequently uses hgures drawn from marriage customs to illustrate His teaching concerning the coming of the Kingdom. It would be a mistake to see in this use of the paternal and filial relations a sun'ival of that primitive religious concept which made members of a clan the sons of its gods. The usage of Jesus contains no reflexion of such a primi- tive thought, but rather springs from His high appreciation of marriage as it existed in the con- ventionalized civilization of the Jews of His day.
1, As an institution Jesus regards maiTiage as essentially physical, and intended only for the pre- sent age. Those who were to share in the blessings of the eschatological Kingdom would neither marry nor lie given in marriage, but Avould be jjossessed of the non-physical Ixjdy in the resurrection (Mt 2223-sn, Mic 12i«-25, Lk 20*-=*«). His teaching at this point is not an endorsement of the \aew that im- mortality is to be without i^ersonal relations, but is rather a relegation of physical relations to physical conditions.
The Sadducees, in their query which gave rise to this teaching of Jesus, raised the question of the levirate marriage. Jesus' answer does not touch upon that peculiar institution, but deals rather with the nature of marriage itself. He was no social reformer. In all the records of His teaching there is nothing to indicate that He gave to mar- riage any new social content or custom. Like His Apostles after Him, Jesus accepted marriage as an existing institution which gave rise to practical moral questions. His use of the customs of the time (cf. Mt 22-'^-, Jn 2^"-) was for the purpose of illustration rather than in the way of either approval or disapproval. It follows that Jesus did not look upon marriage as p.sychical or spiritual. Such transcendental teaching is foreign to the practical temper of Christianity. In its jjlace is the assumption that the family, like all other mem- bers of social life, comes within the region of the great commandment of love. Jesus assumes that the father loves the child, and that brothers love each other. Farther than this His discussions do not go, but the inference is imperative that the re- lations between husband and wife fall within the great teaching of ]\It 5^^^ quite as trulj' as other social relations of individuals. If quarrelsome brothers are to be reconciled, most assuredly should there be reconciliation between husband and wife.
2. Marriage as a social institution Jesus regards as of Dicine origin. It is one of the primal facts of humanity, established by God before the giving of the Law (Mt 19-'- «, Mk 10«-«). Jesus grants that because of the exigencies of social develojmient Moses modified the institution to the extent of per- mitting and regulating divorce ; but such modifica- tion Jesus evidently regarded as out of harmony
with the institution. According to the original Divine purpose, man and wife were no longer two persons but one flesh. That is, marriage was to be monogamous. Any form of polj'gamy is thus excluded from His ideal.