An Understanding of Family in the Old Testament: Maybe not as Di ferent

from Us as We Usually Think

Joel F. Drinkard, Jr.

[Dr. Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. is Professor of Old Testament at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Louisville, Kentucky]

Introduction
Our typical modern western understanding of family is predicated on the nuclear familyparents with their
sub-adult children living in a single domicile. Though this is our ideal, we nd this family type is less the norm at
the beginning of the 21st century. Furthermore, we nd that our understanding of nuclear family has required modication (often by the addition of adjectives) to express the realities of contemporary culture. We now have single
parent families, dual career families, empty nest families, blended families, etc. It seems that the term family has
to be modi ed by one or more adjectives in order to understand it in a given context. Even the common designation nuclear family employs an adjective to modify the noun family.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, most of these same patterns are also known from the Old Testament. While
this article will focus on the primary Old Testament usage of family as the extended or intergenerational family, we
must note the existence of other patterns as well. For example, the Book of Ruth apparently begins with a nuclear
family, that of Elimelech and his wife Naomi and their children Mahlon and Chilion, who leave their extended family in Bethlehem and immigrate to Moab because of famine in Judah (Ruth 1:12). After an undisclosed time, the
family becomes a single parent family with the death of Elimelech (Ruth 1:3). Then it becomes an extended family
as both Mahlon and Chilion take Moabite wives (Ruth 1:4). But then both sons die leaving three women, Naomi,
Orpah and Ruth (Ruth 1:5). Naomi returns to her deceased husbands home (the text doesnt tell us if Naomi was
also from Bethlehem). Orpah returns to her mothers house.1 Though also urged to return
V 98, p 486 V 98, N 4, p 486 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 486

to her mothers household, Ruth remains with Naomi and returns with Naomi to Bethlehem (Ruth 1:622), ultimately marrying a near kinsman of Elimelech (Boaz) by levirate marriage (Ruth 2:14:12). Their rst son is Obed,
the father of Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:1322).2 The term blended family would probably best describe
1

This reference to the mothers house (1:8) is rare. Apparently Naomi uses it to refer to Ruths and Orpahs kindred, their family of

birth (cf. 1:15). The term mothers house may also refer to the womens space in the householdthe separate tent of the women in
pastoral settings, the womens compound or harem in the palace complex, and perhaps a separate space even in a domicile. Often
in Bedouin culture, women have a separate tent or separate quarters. This would be the space for women, girls and young boys. It is
also possible that mothers household was another designation for the household. While men might refer to the household as the
fathers household, women might refer to the same household as the mothers household.
2

Note that although Obed is the o fspring of levirate marriage, and maintains Mahlons and Elimelechs name (i.e. inherits his

property, Ruth 4:910), the genealogy given at the end of the chapter that traces Davids ancestry from Perez, son of Judah and
Tamar (another levirate marriage to carry the name of Jacobs deceased son Er, Tamars husband [cf. Gen 38]) through Boaznot
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
1

Jacobs family in the book of Genesis: he has two wives, Leah and Rachel; each of the wives has a maidservant, Bilhah and Zilpah respectively, and all four of these women have sons by Jacob who are counted among the twelve
sons of Jacob/Israel, 3 and become the core of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen 2930).4 Although our usage of the
term blended family usually designates one where divorce or death and remarriage bring together family members who share only one or both parents, polygamy results in similar kinship patterns.
One might be more hard-pressed to discover many dual career families in the Old Testament, though Isaiahs
wife is designated as the prophetess, quite possibly indicating she had her own career as such (Isaiah 8). Also
Deborah judged Israel (Judg 4). In addition, the woman of valor (Hebrew

) of Proverbs 31 is clearly an

entrepreneurial woman/wife/mother described as having a full career alongside her husband. She purchases elds
(31:16), she produces and sells textiles (31:24), etc.
There are several examples of the empty-nest family, often due to barrenness rather than the departure of children from the parental home. Prior to the birth of Samson, Manoah and his wife have an empty nest (Judg 13).
Likewise, Jephthahs family was an empty nest family after his rash vow and the killing of his only child, his
unnamed daughter (Judg 11).

The Extended or Intergenerational Family

It has often been noted that the typical rural American family was the extended or intergenerational family
until the middle of the last century. In the case of my grandparents, both sets were farmers. On my mothers side,
four of their nine children (two of my maternal uncles and two aunts) lived on portions of the family farm, inherited from my grandparents and purchased from other relatives who chose not to farm. Each of these families raised
their own families of four to eight children on the farms. Currently over a dozen of my rst cousins (and several
more rst cousins once removed) live on the old family farm, though only a couple still farm the land. Even more to
the point, this land ownership goes back to a land grant made to my great-great-great-great grandfather in the early
1700s. The tract of land that was my grandparents has never been sold to other than descendants of the original
landholder. The same is true of the farm where my father was raised. It goes back to a land grant made in the
mid-1700s and currently belongs to a rst cousin of mine.
During the Great Depression, my parents were newlyweds. They established a nuclear family initially, but then
my father was laid from o f from his job. So my parents returned to the extended family and lived for two years
V 98, p 487 V 98, N 4, p 487 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 487

on the farms, rst with my fathers parents, then with my mothers parents. While they were living with her parents,
my older brother was born at the [extended] family home. Only after the worst of the Depression when my father
regained his former job did my parents reestablish a nuclear family. Even in my own family, my brother and his wife
lived with my parents for a short period of time after their marriage, and my wife and I lived with my parents sevthrough Elimelech or Mahlon.
3

Interestingly, although Laban covenants with Jacob that he take no other wives than Leah and Rachel (Gen 31:50), Jacob has

already fathered children by both handmaids, and all the sons will be equal among the sons of Jacob, the sons of Israel, the tribes
of Israel (Gen 2930).
4

There are several ways of numbering the tribes as twelve. In the Genesis account, Levi is one of the original twelve, but in the

allotment of land, Levi has no tribal allotment. The Joseph tribe is divided into two half-tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, to again
produce twelve tribes.
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
2

eral months after we returned from studies in England.

This depiction probably isnt very di ferent from what many of the Old Testament extended families would
have looked like: multiple generations living in the family household (Hebrew
(Hebrew

)on the family inheritance

) , either in a single household, or in a household compound, an extended family made up of sev-

eral separate, semi-nuclear families. Jacob lived for at least twenty years with his father-in-law (and uncle) Laban
(Gen 2931), during which he married and had at least eleven children. Later, after Jacob returned from Syria to
Canaan, Jacobs own married sons lived with him, and all of them immigrated to Egypt as a single extended family
unit (Gen 3547).

1. Family is the basic unit of society in the Old Testament, and basically family means extended
family.
The primary unit of society according to the Old Testament is the family. Quite in contrast to our western
emphasis on individuality, Hebrew thought focused on group identity, speci cally family identity. Saul, soon to be
king over Israel, is not primarily the individual Saul; he is Saul, son of Kish (his fathers household) of the Matrite
clan of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9:12, 10:2021). Likewise, Achan is identi ed as Achan, son of Carmi, son of
Zabdi son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah (Josh 7:1). When he sins following the capture of Jericho, he brings disaster
on all the people of Israel, not just himself. And his sin more speci cally brings death and destruction to his entire
household. As an aftermath to his sin, the people of Israel bring Achan, his sons and daughters, his oxen and donkeys and sheep, all in his householdeven his tentand burn and stone them all (Josh 7:2425).
Women and men alike are usually introduced with their patronym and often with a fuller genealogy. Rebekah is
the daughter of Bethuel (Gen 24:15, 24); Rachel and Leah are daughters of Laban (Gen 29:16), Bathsheba is the
daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11:3), and Gomer is the daughter of Diblaim (Hosea 1:3).
Thus for men and women alike, much more than as an individual, one is de ned by the family to which she or he
belongs. The numerous genealogies found in the Old Testament (and also in Matthew and Luke) are intended to
indicate the connectedness of later generations to earlier ones, but also to indicate a sense of belonging, of group
identity, and of kinship. 1 Chronicles tells the history of Israel before the monarchy in terms of lengthy
V 98, p 488 V 98, N 4, p 488 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 488

genealogies (1 Chr 19). Those returning from exile and listed in Ezra 2, 8, and Nehemiah 7, 2, 12 provide the postexilic community with a connection to Israel-Judah of the monarchy. In e fect, the genealogies show that all Israel
is one large extended family.
That family is preeminent can be seen in creation itself. The creation account shows that the human species
was created as a social animal, not a solitary animal:
And then God said,
Let us make humankind, , in our image,
according to our likeness
And let them5 rule over the sh of the sea and over the fowl of the sky,
and over the domesticated beast, and over all the earth,
and over every creepy-crawly that creeps/crawls upon the earth. (Gen 1:26)
5

Emphasis mine to show the plural verb in Hebrew. Unless speci ed otherwise, all Scripture translations are my own.

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.

3

The Hebrew text in Genesis 1 makes clear that humankind is plural, them, rather than singular. Clearly a solitary
individual person is not indicated. Already in this rst reference to their creation humankind is described as a
social being. A few verses later a second aspect of humankind is made evident:
So then God created the humankind in His image,
in the image of God He created him (singular, humankind);
male and female He created them (plural).
(Gen 1:27)
Not only is humankind,

understood as a plural, but also humankind is inclusive of males and females. So

Genesis 1 depicts the creation of humanity as both a social and a sexual species. The plural aspect is emphasized
even more in the next verse:
Then God blessed them,
and then God said to them:
[Yall6 ] Be fruitful, and [yall] multiply, and
[yall] ll the earth, and
[yall] subdue it;
[yall] rule over the sh of the sea, and over the fowl of the sky, and over every wild animal/living
thing that creeps/crawls upon the earth.
(Gen 1:28)
All humankind is to be fruitful and multiply and ll and subdue and rule over creation. In e fect humankind is to be
Gods steward of creation, His caretaker. But also the sexual aspect (and I would argue the family aspect) is indicated in verses 27 and 28. How can humankind be fruitful and multiply and ll except by procreation?
The Genesis 2 account of creation expresses the social and sexual aspects of humankind in a slightly di ferent
manner. It is not good for the human to be alone, states God in Genesis 2:18. The statement is stark following the
repeated
V 98, p 489 V 98, N 4, p 489 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 489

formulaic statement in the Genesis 1 account of creation, that God saw (some aspect of Gods creation) that it was
good (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). After God had created humankind, God looked over all the creation and saw that it
was very good (Gen 1:31). The statement in Genesis 2:18 is the rst time anything is said to be not good. Solitude
for the human is not good. So God proposes to make a help-corresponding-to,
6

,7

the human. In 2:19 God

I deliberately choose the colloquialism yall to show that this imperative form, and the succeeding ones are plurals. Standard

English lacks a second person singular-plural distinction with the loss of the singular thou, thee, thy, thine. I put the forms in
brackets to show they are imperatives, so we usually omit the pronoun entirely; however, Hebrew indicates the plural number
clearly.
7

I deliberately distinguish between helper for the animals, and help-corresponding-to for the woman. Our English term helper

usually implies a subordinate: a plumber or a carpenter may have a helper, usually an apprentice or less skilled person to assist
them. But the Hebrew term clearly does not indicate a subordinate status. From a concordance study of every occurrence of ;
it is clear that most frequently Hebrew uses the term in reference to God as the for humans. Surely no one would say God is a
subordinate helper for humans! So woman is a help-corresponding-to the man, and the emphasis implies that she corresponds to
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
4

makes the animals and brings them to the human. But the solitude isnt addressed by thse creation of all the animals (Gen 2:1920). Animals may make wonderful pets and helpers for humans, but animals arent the help-corresponding-to,

, whom the human needs (Gen 2:18). So God makes the woman out of the manthey are

therefore made of identical stu f8 -and woman is the complement, the companion, the help-corresponding-to
needed. In the Genesis 2 account of creation both social and sexual aspects are placed together. It is certainly not
accidental that immediately after the creation of the woman, the family unit is presupposed.
For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother
and cleave to his wife
and they shall be one esh.9
(Gen 2:24).
The depiction here is not necessarily the nuclear family, but may indicate the establishment of a separate
household attached to or adjacent to the mans paternal home.10
Even in death the Hebrew ideal placed one with their family. One common Old Testament expression for death
is to lie down with ones ancestors (1 Kgs 1:21, 2:10, and frequently in Kings and Chronicles). Another common
phrase is to be gathered to ones people (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; etc.). Both these phrases and archaeological
and Biblical records indicate that family tombs were common. At Sarahs death, Abraham purchased a cave and
eld at Machpelah to use for a burial cave or family tomb. Later Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah were
also buried in the same family tomb.
Archaeologically speaking, numerous family tombs have been found, especially from Judah in the Iron Age, ca.
1200587 BCE. And not coincidentally, most of the references to lying with ones ancestors refer to the period of
the monarchy, the Iron Age. Typically these tombs have a number of individual burial chambers that can be
blocked when needed. In these family tombs, the deceased would be buried shortly after death in one of the chambers; the chamber would then be blocked. After approximately a year, the family would return to the tomb, remove
the bones from the chamber and place them in a bone repository often cut as a chamber the oor of the tomb.
Here would be gathered the bones of the family members over multiple generations. The individual tomb chamber
would then be ready for the next primary burial when needed. And the bones of the deceased would literally be
gathered to his/her ancestors or lie down with his/her ancestors. To return again to my own family, my parents
are buried in a small family cemetery on my fathers family farm. There all his
the manshe is bone of his bone and esh of his esh.
8

The explicit statement of the text that woman is made out of a part of the man shows that woman is identical in the stu f of her

creation. Had God used some di ferent clods of clay from the ground (Hebrew

), one might be tempted to sug-

gest there was some di ference between the man and the woman, that the stu f used wasnt identical, that no two clods of clay
from the ground could be precisely identical, that the two were only similar. But since God used a part of what had already been
used in forming the man, the two are composed of identical stu f. The text makes clear that woman is literally bone of his bone
and esh of his esh (Gen 2:23).
9

The term

, one

esh in Gen 2:24 clearly refers back to Gen 1:23, bone of my bone and esh of my esh. The two

in uence one another in the fuller connotation of the passage; man and woman are of identical stu f, woman is made out of man,
and completes man, the human species is not solitary but is social from creation onward, and the social aspect is rst and best indicated by the rst institutionthe family.
10

See more on this possibility below.

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.

5

V 98, p 490 V 98, N 4, p 490 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 490

brothers and sisters are buried as are several of my rst cousins. There also are buried my grandparents and my
great-grandparents. The family cemetery still lives in many rural communities today! There is a church cemetery
where my maternal grandparents are buried as are several of her brothers and sisters. In that one cemetery I can
nd two sets of great-grandparents, and can trace one line back six generations. For years, every October a family
reunion was held at that church at which time several hundred of my relatives would gather. The extended family
still lives in America; it may be weakened in many areas, but it hasnt disappeared.

2. Primary family terms:

There are two primary kinship terms in the Old Testament that are often understood as the extended family.
The terms are

, usually translated as fathers house and , usually translated as family or clan.

These two terms represent the primary kinship groups in the Old Testament. The other terms, which we will not
discuss here include:

and , both words meaning tribe, and people or nation.

A. The basic unit of the family was

which should be understood as the fathers household. This term

occurs almost fty times in the Old Testament. The term refers speci cally to the family unit we would designate
as extended family. Although

could merely refer to a physical structure, a house, it more often refers to

those dwelling within the house, the household. And this household even went beyond the kinship group to
include servants and sojourners. A clear example of this use of
ments: You shall not covet your neighbors household,

, as household is found in the Ten Command-

(Exod 20:17a). This commandment is then

explained in the last half of the verse in a kind of prose parallelism, You shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor
his male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.11
House, , here clearly means everything from a physical residence or domicile, to the household including
all the persons and even property belonging to the household. The same understanding was noted above in the
example of Achan. Also can refer to a persons descendants, or even a monarchs dynasty as the following indicates:12
Now there was a long war between

the house/dynasty of Saul, and

the

house/dynasty of David;13 and David was continuing to become stronger but the house/dynasty of
Saul, was continuing to become weaker. (2 Sam 3:1)
11

Similarly the Sabbath Commandment requires all the household to cease from work on Sabbath: You and your son and your

daughter and your male servant and your maid servant, your domesticated animals, and the sojourner in your gate (Exod 20:10).
However, the Sabbath Commandment doesnt use the speci c word , household, but instead uses
12

, your gates.

David and Yahweh use the term , in di ferent senses in 2 Sam 7 showing the narrators skill in word play. David wants to build

a , house for Yahweh (2 Sam 7:2, 5) because he [David] has a ne cedar house for his domicile. But the ark, i.e., Yahweh, lives
in a tent. Here David means a permanent domicile or structure rather than a portable tent. But Yahweh responds through Nathan
that He has not desired to dwell in a permanent domicile. From the time of the Exodus he has dwelt in a tent (2 Sam 7:67). Instead
he will build David a , housea dynasty, and this house will be made sure forever before Yahweh (2 Sam 7:11, 16).
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
6

Clearly the terminology in 2 Samuel refers to the dynasties of Saul and David. Saul is already dead; only his one
son Ishbaal remains to hold the throne or dynasty of his father.
V 98, p 491 V 98, N 4, p 491 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 491

The phrase

refers

to all the people who made up the householdthe patriarch or father and his

spouse(s), their young unmarried children, their married children and their families, and servants, resident aliens,
and others who were a part of the household. The

was thus the multigenerational extended family and oth-

ers who comprised the household. It was a kinship term, but it also comprised ones who were attached to the family without necessarily being kin.
The archaeological equivalent of the
household compound represents the

is

the household compound. In small villages, the individual

both in a literal sense as well as a social unit. The common house of

Iron Age Israel is called either a four-room house or a pillared house. The name four-room refers to the four
spaces found in some of the larger of these structures which have typically three parallel living spaces and a broad
room along the back. But many of these structures have only two or three spaces. The term pillared house refers
to a feature many shareone or two rows of pillars or pillar bases to support the roof or upper story. This structure
is often pointed to as the example of the

. The central space is a reception area, and possibly unroofed, the

space for food preparation and the work or craft of the household. The house may have had a full or partial second
story, referred to in the Bible as an , upper room.14 The roof was also a space for storing goods, for drying
materials, and for sleeping during the hot summer months. In a number of cases the archaeologists have found a
compound composed of several of these four-room houses which share a common courtyard. This type compound
may well represent the extended family in which the father and mother live in the central unit and their married
children live in the other units surrounding the common courtyard. Clearly this structure would represent the
extended family and would indicate close kinship. Thus we can see here a correspondence between archaeological
nds and the Old Testament.
Four Room House Floor Plan Variations

V 98, p 492 V 98, N 4, p 492 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 492

13

In the Tel Dan Aramaic inscription dating to ca. 850 B.C., we have an extra-biblical use of this same phrase

house/dynasty of David, also providing us the earliest extra-biblical reference to Davids monarchy and dynasty.
14

See e.g. 1 Kgs 17:19, 2 Kgs 4:10. Even royal palaces had such upper rooms: 2 Kgs 1:2; Judg 3:20, etc.

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.

7

B. ,family or clan is the next larger family unit. The family or clan would be composed of a number of

, extended families, who were closely related. In most listings, for instance in the tribal allotments

and in genealogies, the , comes between the

, and the , or , tribe. The genealogies in Num-

bers 1:2043 readily shows this pattern:

The sons of Reuben, Israels rst-born, were: their generations/descendants (), by their
clans/families (), and by their fathers houses (

). Num 1:20

Using the same passage mentioned above in reference to the fathers household, we nd the , clan, in the
position between tribe and fathers household. Saul is identi ed as the son of Kish (his
of the Matrite

, clan, of

, fathers household)

the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 10:21). Similarly, when Joshua is commanded to

determine the one whose sin brought disaster on all Israel in the rst attack on Ai, he is to bring all the people near
to Yahweh rst by tribes ;when one tribe is taken, that tribe is to be brought near by clans, ;when one
clan is taken, that clan is to be brought near by households ; and when one household is taken that household
is to be brought near by the adult men, , (Josh 7:14).
The

, would be the preferred

level of kinship for marriage. It was distant enough kinship not to

involve the laws regarding incest, but was close enough to maintain the property within the kin group. In such an
arrangement any property or possessions brought to the marriage by the bride or groom (and their respective families), e.g., bride price or dowry, would stay within the
V 98, p 493 V 98, N 4, p 493 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 493

, so there would be no economic loss to the clan in the marriage. That ones family property was of great
importance is evident in the narrative of Naboths vineyard (1 Kgs 21). Naboth refuses to sell his vineyard to King
Ahab even for a healthy pro t, or in exchange for a better piece of property, because it is the inheritance, ,

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.

8

of/from his ancestors

, fathers (1 Kgs 21:3). It is his patrimony, his ancestral home. The property wasnt just

any piece of property to Naboth, and it wasnt just Naboths propertyit belonged to his family, to his clan and to
his tribe. And it would have been the property he handed on to his descendants. For these reasons Naboth wouldnt, couldnt, sell or trade his vineyard, not even to the king. The property belonged to Naboths

, and

. Johannes Pederson comments on this passage:

It is not that the king wants to deprive him of a material value. There is no question about that; the king is willing to pay the full value for the piece of ground, nay, more than that, and he leaves it to Naboth to x the sum of
compensation. But Naboth cannot part with the property which he has inherited from his fathers, without
committing sacrilege against himself and his kindred, so closely do kindred and property belong together. 15
There is a clear preference for endogamy in Israelmarriage within the clan or tribe, with preference to marriage within the , clan, as we have noted above. And the basis for such endogamy was primarily economic.
Having said this, it is also clear that exogamy often occurs. Esau marries Hittites as mentioned above. Judah marries a Canaanite named Shua (Gen 38:1), and Joseph marries an Egyptian, Asenath (Gen 41:45). Even Abraham takes
as wife Hagar, an Egyptian (Gen 16:13). Moses married a Cushite woman (Num. 12:1). And let us not forget that the
book of Ruth is predicated on marriages between ones of the tribe of Judah and Moabite women, rst Mahlon and
Chilion (Ruth 1:4) then Boaz (Ruth 4:913).

Love and Marriage

One instance where we usually see a major di ference between the Old Testament and our view of family is the
issue of love and marriage. We usually understand our modern idea of romantic love to be a recent development.
And we also assume that most marriages in the Old Testament were arranged by the parents.
Do you remember the lyrics of the song Frank Sinatra made famous, Love and Marriage?
V 98, p 494 V 98, N 4, p 494 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 494

Love and marriage, love and marriage

Go together like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You cant have one without the other
Try, try, try to separate them
Its an illusion
Try, try, try and you will only come
To this conclusion
Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
Dad was told by mother
You cant have one without the other16
15
16

Johs. Pederson, Israel, I-II, 8283.

Three of the 4 stanzas of Love and Marriage written by Cahn and van Heusen, from The Sinatra Songbook, found at the follow-

ing web address: http://www.vex.net/ ~bu f/sinatra/cgi/arch.cgi/Love and Marriage

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
9

Those lyrics re ect our understanding of marriage and romantic love. The two go together, and in the song
(and in our general understanding) love comes rst. But in other cultures marriages are arranged, even today. In
India, for example, arranged marriages are still quite common. See the interesting article entitled First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Love on the internet at http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/3321/win4a.htm. Traditional
Jewish marriages were often arranged until the last century. In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye has just learned that his
youngest daughter is getting married, and hasnt even asked his permission. Tevye is very upset because the times
are changing; not only are the younger generation getting married without their parents arranging the marriage,
they are also marrying for love. Then Tevye and His wife Golde have the following exchange:
TEVYE:

GOLDE:

Do you love me? Do

you love me?
Golde, Im asking you
a question
Do you love me? But
do you love me?

Do I what?
Do I love you?
Youre a fool!
Do I love you? For twenty- ve years Ive washed your clothes, Cooked your meals, Cleaned your house,
Given you children, Milked the cow. After twenty- ve years why talk about love right now?

V 98, p 495 V 98, N 4, p 495 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 495

Golde, the rst time I met you was on our wedding day. I was scared I was
nervous
But my father and my mother said wed learn to love each other and now Im
asking, Golde, do you love me? I know. But do you love me? Well?
Then you love me? And I suppose I love you too.

I was shy
So was I
Im your wife
Do I love him?
For twenty- ve years Ive lived with him,
Fought with Him, Starved with him,
Twenty- ve years my bed is his. If thats not
love, what is? I suppose I do.

BOTH:
It doesnt change a thing, But even so After twenty- ve years its nice to know.17
With arranged marriages such as Tevyes and Goldes, a couple would marry rst and then learn to love one
another. Love was not a prerequisite for marriage. Our typical understanding of marriage in the Old Testament is
that marriages were arranged by the families and that marriages were arranged while the two to be married were
still children. Interestingly, however, there are relatively few direct references to marriage in the Old Testament,
and no evidence of a marriage ceremony.
The one explicit reference to a wedding is found in the book of love songs, Song of Solomon. The verse speaks
of the day of Solomons marriage:
Please go out and look, daughters of Zion, on King Solomon, with the crown with which his mother
crowned him
on the day of his wedding,
on the day of the gladness of his heart.
(Cant 3:11)
Note that the day of his wedding is parallel to the day of the gladness of his heart. Whether a wedding was
arranged or not, the wedding day was seen as a joyous occasion.
In terms of parental arrangement of marriages, we can point to a number of cases, especially in the pre-monarchical books. In an example discussed more thoroughly below, the selection of a wife for Isaac clearly shows
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
10

parental involvement. The text doesnt indicate that Isaac was even consulted in the matter (Gen 24:24). The one
concern was that the wife be from Abrahams kin.
V 98, p 496 V 98, N 4, p 496 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 496

The text indicates Isaacs apparent approval of the arrangement (Gen 24:67). And while Isaac and Rebekah dont
directly make the arrangement for Jacobs marriage, they do agree that he go to Rebekahs brothers household and
take a wife from among his daughters (Gen 27:4628:2). Also Judah arranged for the marriage of his eldest son to
Tamar (Gen 38:6). And Hagar got an Egyptian wife for Ishmael (Gen 21:21). On the other hand, apparently the son
could either make the arrangements himself, or take the lead and have his parents nalize the arrangements he
desired. Samson tells his parents to arrange for his marriage to a Philistine woman (Judg 14:14). Jacob makes his
own marriage arrangements with Laban; Esau takes two Hittite wives, much to the displeasure of his parents (Gen
26:3435). He later marries one of Ishmaels daughters (Gen 28:89). There is no indication that Isaac and Rebekah
were consulted in any way concerning these marriages. Likewise Jacob was not involved in Josephs marriage to
Asenath, daughter of Potipher, priest of On (Gen 41:45). Furthermore, once we come to the period of the monarchy,
there is even less evidence of parental involvement in marriages. In terms of royal marriages, Jesse is not mentioned in reference to any of Davids marriages, from Abigail (1 Sam 25) to Bathsheba (2 Sam 7), although Saul did
arrange the marriage of his daughter Michal to David (1 Sam 18:2029). Nor is David mentioned as involved in the
marriage of Solomon to any of his 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Many marriages were arranged (whether by parents or the individual) for economic or political reasons.
Among royalty, many of the marriages cemented treaties or alliances between nations. Thus Solomons marriage to
pharaohs daughter established an alliance between the two countries:
Now Solomon made a marriage alliance ( ) with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he took the
daughter of Pharaoh [as wife]18
(1 Kgs 3:1).
Such a marriage lessens the likelihood of warfare or aggression between two nations since their royal families are
intermarried. Likewise, Ahabs marriage to Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon (1 Kgs 16:3132) established
close relations between Israel and the Phoenicians, as did the marriage between Athaliah, either daughter or sister
of Ahab, 19 and Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Kgs 8:18, 2627; 2 Chr 21:6). Among other families, it is
most likely that marriages were arranged for economic reasons. A primary concern was family property. Throughout the Old Testament, a concern raised is that property not be lost outside the family, clan or tribe. This concern is
one major factor in the practice of levirate marriagein which a brother or near kinsman of a deceased, childless
man marries the widow and fathers a son to inherit the deceased mans property and name. In this instance, ideally
the husband belongs to the same

, fathers household, so property would remain within the extended family.

If the levirate marriage involves a more distant relative, as in the case of Ruth and Boaz, the property at least
18

The Hebrew verb used here, literally, meaning to take when found in a context of marriage has the meaning

to take as wife.
19

2 Kgs 8:26 states that Athaliah is daughter of Omri. But 2 Kgs 8:18 states in reference to Athaliah that she is the daughter

of Ahab. Some scholars argue that Athaliah was indeed daughter of Omri. Others argue that just as the word son can mean
grandson or descendant (Gen 29:5; Gen 31:28, 43; Josh 22:24, etc.), so also daughter can mean granddaughter or (female)
descendant (see Gen 37:35). See also Gen. 34:17, where Dinahs brothers refer to her, their sister, as our daughter.
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
11

remains within the same , clan.

V 98, p 497 V 98, N 4, p 497 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 497

Normally a daughter did not inherit her fathers property. But if the father has no sons, then an exception is
made. However, even here, the daughter must marry within close kin circles to keep the property from leaving the

, clan (Num 27:111, cp. Num. 36:112).

At marriage, a woman left her family of birth, her fathers household, and became a part of her husbands
household. Thus Rebekah left her fathers household and returned with Abrahams servant to become Isaacs wife,
and become a part of Isaacs or actually (since Abraham was still alive) Abrahams household. Only if her husband
died childless would the woman return to her own fathers household. Such was the situation with Tamar, who had
married Er, Judahs eldest, and then Onan, Judahs second son (Gen 38:111). In a somewhat di ferent situation, the
nameless Levites concubine, became angry with her husband and left him and returned to her fathers household
(Judg 19:12). The Levite then traveled to her fathers household, stayed several days, and returned with his concubine.
Love between spouses is seldom mentioned, but it is mentioned often enough to identify love as a crucial element in cementing the family relationship. Even if one argues that romantic love wasnt always present before
arranged marriages, it was clearly present in other marriages. Before Jacob married Rachel, he loved her (Gen
29:18). Such love seems almost to be love at rst sight, for Jacob had only been with Laban a month. Nevertheless,
his love was so strong that he was willing to work for Laban as a hired hand for seven years for Rachel (Gen
29:1920). We are told nothing about the circumstances of Elkanahs marriage to Hannah and Peninnah, but we are
told that Elkanah loved Hannah (1 Sam 1:5). Whether he loved her before they were married, or came to love her
after they were married, we also are not told. Although Isaac had no part in the arrangements of his marriage to
Rebekah and had not even met her previously, the text tells us that he took her and she became his wife, and he
loved her (Gen 24:67). Love is also reported from the womans side. Sauls daughter, Michal loved David (1 Sam
18:20); Saul tries to use this as a way to kill David, but is unsuccessful and Michal becomes Davids wife (1 Sam
18:2129). The Song of Songs is a series of love songs. Within those songs, several times the woman speaks of seeking the one whom my being loves (Cant 1:7, 3:1, 3:2, 3:3, 3:4). In all various Hebrew words translated as love or
beloved occur 66 times in Song of Solomon.
Now one must also admit that the Hebrew word most often translated as love, , could refer to sexual
attraction or even lust as well as love.20 Thus when Amnon is said to have loved ( )Tamar his half-sister, the
love was certainly sexual attraction or mere lust (2 Sam 13:1). The case is less clear with Hamor son of Shechem
who loved ( )Dinah daughter of Jacob (Gen 34:3). The reason this case is less clear is that the text has just told
us Hamor had raped Dinah (34:2). But unlike Amnon who despised/hated ( 2 Sam 13:15) Tamar after he had
raped her; Hamor is only said to have loved Dinah after he had raped her. So Hamors was a di ferent response than
20

Samuel Terrien, has argued that the Hebrew , love, has two connotations depending on whether it vocalized as stative or

active. When it is an active form, Terrien argues, , means he made love to her with an erotic sense. But when the stative form
appears,

, means he was in love with her expressing a duration or continuity, a genuine lasting love. Samuel Terrien, Till the

Heart Sings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 32. I have been unable to nd any distinction in forms.
Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
12

Amnons. Perhaps Hamor genuinely loved Dinah.

V 98, p 498 V 98, N 4, p 498 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 498

Samsons relationship to Delilah is also not clear. When he told his father to arrange his marriage with the
unnamed Philistine woman from Timnah (Judg 14), he said: Take/get [her] for me, for she is right/pleasing
in my eyes (Judg 14:3). Samson never once uses the word love in reference to this woman who was to become his
wife. She uses the word love when she accuses him of not loving her but hating her because he wont tell her his
riddle Judg 14:16). But in reference to Delilah, we are told Samson loved her (, Judg 16:4). We cannot be sure
from the context whether he genuinely loved her, or merely had a sexual attraction/lust for her. But clearly Delilah
uses his love and his words, I love you, to get him to tell her the secret of his strength (Judg 16:15). Clearly Delilah
was more in love with the bribe money o fered (Judg 16:5) than by any love for Samson she might have had.

Old Testament Family, Some Undercurrents

The ideal or perfect family existed no more in the Old Testament than today. In that sense the Old Testament doesnt try to present an overly idealized picture of families; it presents them warts and all. The Old Testament is lled with examples of tensions, turmoil, and often tragedy surrounding family life. Often the family members themselves are the chief causes of the tensions and turmoil, and ultimately the cause of much of the tragedy.
One nds in the pages of the Old Testament a number of examples of polygamy, but every instance of multiple
wives with any details21 shows signi cant tensions in the family relations. Abraham has two wives, Sarah and
Hagar.22 As soon as Hagar becomes pregnant the tensions arise; Hagar belittles or looked with contempt on Sarah
her mistress. Sarah then abuses Hagar (Gen 16:46). But the tensions are even stronger after Sarah gives birth to
Isaac. Now Sarah has concerns over inheritance and wants to assure Isaac is the only heir of Abraham. So Hagar
and Ishmael are sent away (Gen 21).
Jacob also has two wives, Leah and Rachel, and they each have a hand-maid, Bilhah and Zilpah. Jacob has children by all four of these. The tensions are evident from the beginning; Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah (Gen
29:30). God saw that Leah was hated; Leah had a son and said surely now my husband will love me (Gen
29:3132). These tensions over ow into the next generation when Jacob loves Joseph more than his other children;
this favoritism leads to the brothers jealousy and Joseph being sold to the caravan heading to Egypt (Gen 37). Elkanah, Samuels father, has two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Elkanah loves Hannah, but Peninnah provokes Hannah
because Hannah is barren (1 Sam 1:17). One could multiply these examples readily.
Polygamy is much less an issue in our culture today (except in some Muslim contexts and a small number of
Mormon cases). But divorce is de nitely a grave concern today. While divorce is seldom mentioned in the Old Testament, it apparently did occur. A few passages refer to a bill of divorcement and sending away ones wife (Deut
24:14; cp. Jer 3:1, and Deut 22:19, 29). In two instances, Yahwehs sending Israel into exile is described as her being
sent away with a bill
V 98, p 499 V 98, N 4, p 499 RevExp 98:4 (Fall 2001) p. 499

of divorcement (Isa 50:1; Jer 3:8). Women who are divorced are ones who have been driven out (Lev 21:7, 14; 22:13;
21

We are told that Lamech had two wives, and even given their names, Adah and Zillah, but we have no details of the family

beyond this (Gen 4:23).

22

Although Hagar is presented as Sarahs hand-maid, Sarah gave her to Abraham as wife (Gen 16:3)

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.

13

Num 30:10 [9 Eng.]; Ezek 44:22). The prophet Malachi says that God hates divorce (sending away, Mal 2:16). The
existence of these laws, and the references to divorced women shows that divorce must have occurred, yet we dont
have a clear example in the Old Testament. The very fact that the prophets could use the metaphor of God divorcing Israel shows that divorce was known among the prophets hearers. In at least a few instances a woman leaves
her husband: Gomer leaves Hosea, possibly to become a part of the cultic prostitution of the Baal cult (Hos 3:12).
Also the unnamed concubine of the Levite in Judges 19 left him and returned to her fathers house (Judg 19:12).
David, the king after Gods own heart, the man chosen by God to be king, the one who would be in our Lords
genealogy was not a perfect husband and father. The so-called Succession Narrative (2 Sam 920, 1 Kgs 12), depicts
how Solomon, who was neither Davids oldest son nor his oldest surviving son, came to succeed David. The narrative shows his family was lled with tragedy, most of which is placed by the narrative in such a manner as to be
traced back to Davids own sin (2 Sam 12:712). He has an adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. Bathsheba
becomes pregnant from this relationship; David has Bathshebas husband brought back from the battle-front so he
can be with her and appear to be the father. In other words, David tries a cover-up. When the cover-up fails, David
sends Uriah, the husband, back to the front carrying his own death sentence written by Davids hand. David himself becomes a murderer responsible for the death of Bathshebas husband so that he can marry her (2 Sam 11). The
child Bathsheba carries dies shortly after birth (2 Sam 11:2712:23). Some time later, Amnon rapes his half-sister,
Tamar, after which Absalom, Tamars brother kills Amnon (2 Sam 13). Absalom at rst ees from David, but is later
reconciled in part. However, after several years23 Absalom leads a rebellion against David. In the aftermath of the
rebellion, Absalom is killed (2 Sam 1318).
The Old Testament clearly depicts the darker side of family life and family relationships, by no means as Gods
will, but as a depiction of human sinfulness. In this way, the Old Testament depiction of the family is also very
much like the contemporary family.

Summary
Our title and beginning point was that the Old Testament description of family isnt so di ferent from our contemporary view. We have noted many similarities between the two. One di ference probably most notable in the
last generation or two is the decline in the extended family in the U. S., at least in urban culture. Certainly divorce
and family breakups are much more common today than in the Old Testament. But they were not unknown in the
Old Testament. Our contemporary emphasis on the individual is certainly not an Old Testament pattern. Yet in
most respects we nd remarkable stability in the family across the millennia from the Old Testament until today.
The institution of family has survived and even thrived. And while there is certainly signi cant change in our
understanding of family, much remains remarkably unchanged over that same span.

23

The Hebrew says forty years, but this is surely too long. Davids entire reign is only forty years (1 Kgs 2:11); most translations follow

the Septuagint and Syriac which say four years.

Review and Expositor 98 (2001): n. pag. Print.
14