14
MARRIAGE
JVLARRIAGE
crowned (cf. above), and the bride veiled (Gn 29^ ^ : this is why Jacob ilid not discover Lahan's fraud).
'Vlie frieiiri of the bridftj room (o i^iXos toO mfi^lov, .In 3'-^) is the same as the irapavu^tpio^ or irdpoxos yd/iwy (Aristoplianes, A». 1740) of ancient Greece; lie accompanied the bridegroom to fetch the bride — in Palestine, no doul)t, tlien as now, on horseback, but formerly among the Greeks in a chariot, for Tra'poxos means 'one who sits beside another in a chariot' {Sx"')- T''e corresponding feminine is Trapa.iivti.(poi, the 'bridesmaid' (in Latin parcmym- phus is a ' bridesman,' while paranympha is a ' bridesmaid '). The ' friend of the bridegroom,' then, was the best man ; according to Edersheim (i. 148, 354 f.) his office was well known in Judaea, but did not exist in Galilee, and therefore he is not mentioned in Jn 2. But who, then, was the ' ruler of the feast ' (a.pxi.Tp\.K\i.vai) in Jn 2'"- ? Souter (DCG ii. 540) supposes that he was a steward or head waiter ; but his language to the bridegroom is too familiar for this. More probably he was one of the guests (so apparently also in Sir 32'), who was entrusted with the management of the feast, but did not in any way provide it himself ; he compliments the bridegroom on doing this go successfully.
The sons of the bridechamber (Mt 9", Mk 2", Lk 5") are the bridegroom's companions (cf. Jg 14" — Samson had thirty of them), or probably (Eder- sheim) all the guests. They may even include the bridesmaids(cf. Ps45'''andtheTenVirginsofMt25).
After the marriage the bridegroom was excused military service for a year (Dt 24* ; cf. Lk 14-"), and also between the betrothal and the marriage ( Dt 20'). For bride and bridegroom see also Family.
i. Monogamy, polygamy, and bigamy. — The two last are not directly forbidden in the NT, but their unlawfulness for Christians is assumed. Among the Jews polygamj' had greatly decreased since the time of the patriarchs, and at the commence- ment of the Christian era was little practised. This was perhaps largely in consequence of Roman inHuence. Josephus says, indeed, that it was sometimes found among the later Jews (BJ I. xxiv. 2, Ant. xvil. i. 2f.). He is speaking of Herod and his sons, who were not pure Jews ; yet their polygamy was not condemned by public opinion. In both passages it is implied that, though an old Jewish custom, it was uncommon. In Josephus' account of the laws of Moses (Ant. IV. viii. 23) two wives (at a time) are mentioned ; but this throws no light on the custom of the later Jews. Polygamy among Jews in the 2nd cent. A.D. is, however, mentioned by Justin Martyr (Dial. 134). For Christians it was inconsistent with Jesus' elevated teaching about marriage, which assumes monogamy. W. P. Paterson points out (HDB iii. 265^) that in the OT itself the polygamy of the patriarchs is spoken of apologetically. Noah was monogamous (Gn 7') : and monogamy was held to be symbolical of God's union with Israel (Hos 2"^-), while polygamy was symbolical of idolatry. We may also notice that spiritual monogamy is emphasized by St. Paul in 2 Co 11", where ' to one husband' is emphatic ; he is speak- ing of God's union with His Church. It should be remembered that in most or all countries where polygamy is allowed, it is not in practice very common, because only the rich can afford more than one wife. Thus at the present day the great majority of Muslims are monogamous, though their law allows them four wives and an unlimited number of concubines.*
• In the 3rd and 4th centa. the Church had some difficulty with regard to the reception of heathens who had concubines. The Church Orders do not allow Christians to Iteep concubines ; if a man has one and desires to become a Christian he must marry her or leave her (Eqyptian Church Order, § 41, Ap. Const, viii. 32 [ed. Funk), Testament of our Lard, ii. 2) ; and
5. Digamy. — The rem.arriage of widows and widowers stands on an entirely different basis from polj'gamy, and, though it was disliked by many Christians in the early ages of the Church, it was regarded by all, or almost all, as permi.ssible. St. Paul allows it to widows (llo 7-'', 1 Co 7'"), and no reproach attaches to those who practise it, though the Apostle thinks that widowhood will give greater happiness than re-marriage (1 Co 7''°; see above, 2). If with KV we render fii^r^pas in 1 Ti 5'* 'younger widows '(AV and KVm 'younger women'), he encourages or commands digamy in some cases. ' I desire that ' they ' marry, bear children, rule the household.' But it seems probable that he did not apjirove of 'digamy' for his local clergy, or the 'widows' who are on the Church roll, supported by the Church (1 Ti 5'- '"). These widows must be over threescore years old, ' having been the wife of one man '(v."). This phrase, at least, is unambigu- ous (the participle 7e7oi'wa applies both to this and to the preceding clau.se) ; it excludes bigamy, digamy, and marriage after divorce alike. The meaning of the qualification of the ' bishop ' or ' presbyter,' that he 'must be . . . the husband of one wife' (1 Ti 3'-, so Tit 1"), a qualification re- peated in the case of deacons in 1 Ti 3'°, is on the negative side less clear ; for the qualification on the positive side, see above, 2. It has been variously interpreted as forbidding, in the case of the Chris- tian minister, polygamy, digamy, or marriage entered upon after a divorce — which for simplicity, and so as not to complicate the issue, we may sup- pose to have taken place in the clergyman's heathen days — or after a separation such as that contem- plated in 1 Co 7"* (see below, 6 (b)). In favour of the phrase referring to polygamy, it has been said that as the Jews sometimes practised it in the apostolic period (above, 4), probably some Christians followed their example. But there is no evidence of Christian polygamy ; and the very fact that the apostles did not find it necessary to forbid it ex- plicitly prevents us from thinking that St. Paul merely meant that a ' bishop ' or deacon must not be a polygamist. If this were the meaning, the prohibition of polygamy to the clergy would imply that it was not uncommon among the laity. We may therefore safely dismiss this view. No Chris- tian would be allowed to be a polygamist. The other two interpretations may well be joined together, and that they give the true meaning of the phrase * is confirmed by the injunction about widows ( 1 Ti 5'°). This clearly forbids the recep- tion on the roll of a widow who at any time of her life has had, by divorce, or death, or otherwise, more than one husband. It is true that a widow, and a fortiori a widower, may lawfully marry again (above) after the death of their spouses ; but a higher standard is required in the case of the clergy. It is necessary here again to remark that a disciplinary regulation, even of St. Paul, is not intended to be a cast-iron law for all time. But that it was a desirable regulation in the Apostolic Age we can well understand, for there was a con- siderable prejudice against digamy ; and, however