Genesis 24 is a passage beloved by many early Church fathers, and its interpretation is crucial for understanding the way the early Church thought about the role of marriage in Christianity. In order to gain some insight into this understanding of marriage, we shall analyze the interpretations of three important third- and fourth-century theologi- ans: Origen and two famous intellectual heirs of his, St. John Chrysostom in the East and St. Ambrose in the West.1
In his tenth homily on Genesis, Origen, as is his wont, spends precious little time dealing with practical issues (excepting a few comments on the importance of showing up to church and paying attention to the sermon). Rather, he spends most of the sermon revealing the mystical allegories he finds embedded in the text. However, there are a few passages that pertain to our present investigation. First of all, Origen considers there to be at least two different kinds of marriage: first, there is the physical marriage between man and woman, and second, there is the spiritual marriage between man and God.2 Four times he uses marriage as an analogy of the union between the soul and God.3 He writes: “Christ is said to be the husband of the soul, to whom the soul is married when it comes to faith,” and “I say that the marriages of the saints are the union of the soul with the word of God.”4 These passages are interesting because they demonstrate the extent to which Origen, himself a celibate clergyman, saw the Christian life as necessarily a married life.5 Not only does he argue that the act of faith is a spiritual marriage with God, but he also argues that monasticism itself, which these days we tend to see as an alternative to marriage, is in fact its own kind of marriage.6 The Christian life for Origen is inherently a married life, albeit the marriage of the soul is considered far more important than and superior to the marriage of the flesh. What is this marriage, though, and how does it come about? Let us look at one of his analogies. Origen interprets the significance of Rebecca's being found at a well, writing:
This union of the soul with the word cannot come about otherwise than through instruction in the divine books, which are figuratively called wells. If anyone should come to these and draw from these waters, that is by meditating on these words should perceive the deeper sense and meaning, he will find a marriage worthy of God; for his soul is united with God.7
Thus, spiritual marriage with God takes place through the action of reading and contemplating the divine scriptures. This does not mean that anyone who reads the scriptures unites himself with God, but rather that reading and contemplation are the path by which those who per- form the act of contemplation properly can become wedded to God. Those who do not perform the action of contemplation correctly and try to interpret the scriptures too literally, however, are "sensual" men and fail to unite themselves to God.8 The kind of contemplation that unites one in a spiritual marriage with God is that which discerns the hidden meaning that is present in the spirit of the text without being explicit in the most basic story. Anyone can read the scriptures and enjoy the stories, but proper understanding of the deeper meaning lying beneath the words can only come from a spiritual activity that unites the person with the one who inspired the writing of the words in the first place, namely God. Thus, marriage requires a) an act of will, b) proper preparation and knowledge, and c) a union between two persons/entities. Marriage is a union that deepens a relationship and brings one closer to God. While spiritual marriage is the focus, these requirements represent a more general way of thinking about marriage that can be applied to all kinds of marriage.
Interestingly enough, Origen’s alternative to marriage to God does not really involve bachelorhood but, rather, seems to be marriage to the devil. He writes, “He who is called ‘an enemy’...is called the husband to whom the soul is married when it turns away to faithless- ness...that most wicked man, the devil.”9 While he does not specifically say that there is no third state, the only states that he discusses are that of marriage to God and marriage to the devil. Unfortunately, Origen does not spend much time discussing the bad conditions but, rather, focuses on the good. It is only from this very brief mention that we can gain any insights into what Origen saw as the alternative to marriage to God.
The aspect of marriage that Origen and—as we shall see later— Chrysostom think most important, based on their interpretations of the Rebecca story, is the fitness of the persons involved. Thus, the concern in the story lavished on the subject of finding a fit bride for Isaac is sup- posed to be taken by us as representative of fitting our souls for marriage with God. Origen's understanding of marriage is rooted in the idea that it is the culmination of the preparation of virtue. Thus, he writes that the servant in the story “does not wish to take a bride for his master, Isaac, unless he find a virgin becoming and beautiful in appearance, and not only a virgin, but one whom a man has not touched, and except one whom he should discover drawing water.”10 Origen goes on to indicate the specific allegorical significance of each of these qualities, but the key point is that there are certain qualities that are necessary for a proper spouse. These qualities are important not so much because they indicate Rebecca’s individual fitness but more so because they represent the necessity for preparation and adequate suitability as prerequisites for marriage. Thus, it is important for him to analyze every one of Rebecca’s good qualities in order to derive benefit from understanding the process of preparing for marriage.
Particularly interesting is his commentary on the importance of virginity:
The meaning of the statement disturbs me: “She was a virgin; a virgin, a man had not known her.” (Genesis 24.16) It is, indeed, as if a virgin were something other than one whom a man has not touched. And what does the addition seem to mean in reference to a virgin that it should be said “A man had not known her"?... It is not sufficient, therefore, for the soul to be pure in body; it is necessary also that this most wicked man "has not known it.” For it can happen that someone may possess virginity in body, and knowing that most wicked man, the devil, and receiving darts of concupiscence from him in the heart destroy the purity of the soul. Because, therefore, Rebecca was a virgin “holy in body and spirit,” (I Corinthians 7.34) for this reason the Scripture doubles her praise and says: "She was a virgin; a man had not known her.”11
Somewhat surprisingly, Matthew 5:28 does not come up in this discussion, but it is significant that Origen, taking a more literal tack than is his wont, mentions that it is important that Rebecca was a virgin in both body and soul. Here, Origen comes as close to making a practical statement as he gets, claiming that virginity is an important quality for a woman before marriage. Not only is spiritual virginity necessary for the marriage of the soul to God, but it is a necessary prerequisite for a prop- er marriage of man and woman. This idea of spiritual virginity, however, raises serious problems: How can one be spiritually a virgin and at the same time married to God? Origen seems to assume that his audience will be able to distinguish between the different senses of spiritual and does not feel obliged to explain.
For Origen, spiritual marriage is the truer and more important kind of marriage than the physical. While in the physical realm one can be either married or single, in the spiritual realm marriage seems to be the only choice, either to God the Logos or to the devil. This marriage is consummated by faith and contemplation. This understanding is important in forming the early Christian understanding of marriage and is vital in making marriage into a sacred institution.
Chrysostom takes a somewhat different approach to Genesis 24 from Origen. He looks at each detail as providing useful insights even without the aid of allegorical interpretations.11 Like Origen, Chrysostom is primarily concerned with the fitness of the bride for marriage; how- ever, his concerns are just as much physical and practical as they are spiritual. He writes:
Note the servant's sagacity: he was aware of the patriarch's hospitality and the fact that the maiden destined to be brought there should have similar qualities to those of the good man; so, far from looking for any other indication, he was anxious to distinguish the maiden's hospitality from her attitude.13
Here, Chrysostom indicates the importance of finding a spouse who has the necessary qualities of marriage for someone in specific circumstances. Specifically, he discusses the importance of hospitality with the caveat that hospitality is the talent necessary for this particular case, implying that, while it is always important, it may not be the most important quality to look for in other circumstances. The point is not so much that Rebecca must be found to be hospitable as that she must be found to be fit for her specific role in the family of Abraham. Moreover, he goes on to indicate other important qualities she possesses. He writes:
Consider, I ask you, how very proper despite her tender years was her modesty, her surpassing humility, and the extremity of her hospitality. What riches, at any rate, are these qualities not superior to? This is the greatest gift; this constitutes countless blessings, a treasure never expended.14
Modesty and humility are here seen as some of the most important virtues befitting a bride. Wealth, social status, intelligence, personal charm, age, thriftiness in house management, and attributes that have to do with talent and ability are seen as lesser than virtues that emphasize the mitigation and suppression of talent and beauty.15 Chrysostom writes, “Their concern was not to look for abundance of possessions, not for great wealth, slaves, so many acres of land, not charm of external beauty—rather they looked for beauty of soul and nobility of manners.”16 In essence, virtue for a spouse is the same as virtue for a Christian: humility and care for others are at the center. Beauty of soul is seen in the avoidance of “empty display of luxury” and in the proper veiling of modesty.17 It is important that Chrysostom, in a way like Origen, sees fitness with respect to virtue as the key element of preparation for marriage. While he is not concerned with the metaphor of comparing physical and spiritual marriage in the way Origen is, Chrysostom insists that it is a person's virtue and spiritual state with respect to God which are more important for marriage than the physical attributes and abilities. Of course he does praise Rebecca for the work she does, carry- ing the water and providing hospitality; however, to suggest that it is her physical capabilities and water-carrying talent that he praises would be the mark of a “sensual man;” rather, it is her generosity and willing- ness to work that he intends to praise.
Chrysostom takes pains to note the importance of why Abraham sends his servant away from the land of Canaan to obtain a wife for his son. Chrysostom writes that Abraham acts “from concern for the soul's virtue and abhorrence of the wickedness of the inhabitants,” since for the Canaanites “their interest was in one thing only, the amount of their riches.”18 We see that Chrysostom takes for granted the role of the parents in arranging marriages and praises Abraham for protecting his child from a potentially wicked spouse. It is seen as important to protect one's child from a spouse who grew up in a materialistic society. Both E. W. G. Masterman and Michael Satlow note that in Jewish culture throughout the ages, marriage is very much considered a familial, rather than an individual, concern, and Chrysostom certainly agrees.19 While in the Roman society that Chrysostom lived in parents would also have played a very significant role in their children’s marriages, in this con- text Chrysostom’s praise for the religious motivations behind choosing one’s child’s wife seems to come from the Jewish scriptures, rather than any kind of Roman influence.20 While not all Jewish parents may have had the great concern for virtue that Abraham had, Chrysostom does seem here to be using what he would consider a Jewish tradition as an example of how Christians should act.
Note how Chrysostom attacks the Canaanites for their concern about material wealth. Whereas for Romans, dowries and inheritances were key factors in marriage planning, Chrysostom praises Abraham for avoiding money-seekers and seeking a virtuous woman for his son.21 Chrysostom here insists that marriage is not about preserving the wealth, rank, or social status of the family but about virtue and preserving the faith. Chrysostom also praises the simplicity of the marriage arrangements in the story. He writes:
Do you see how much care they took in olden times to obtain wives for their sons? How they looked for nobility ahead of money? None of the agreements, none of the contracts or other ridiculous things that happen these days, nor those terms committed to writing: If someone dies childless, one says, if this or that happens. Instead, amongst people of those times nothing of the kind, rather, only the most secure contract, the maid's behaviour—no pomp and circumstance.22
Honesty and mutual trust are considered to be of primary value in marriage preparation. For Chrysostom, prenuptial agreements are a sign of mistrust and concern for material wealth. Once again, he stresses that marriage is not about building family alliances for monetary gain and societal advancement but solely for the purpose of cultivating and preserving virtue.
The word translated as “nobility” (εὐγένεια) literally means “of a good family.”23 The usual context for this word in Classical Greek refers to being of a certain social status, although there could be in cer- tain contexts an assumption that families of that certain social status were more virtuous than others, especially in the way Aristotle used it in his Politics and Rhetoric. Even in a Jewish context, such as Philo's De Abrahamo, he talks about how the elders were concerned with intel- ligence, wisdom, righteousness, manliness, and all that concerns virtue, whereas the youth were concerned with wealth, glory, power, and good family, not the truth.24 However, by the time one gets to Clement of Alexandria, the word is given new meaning and refers to virtuous nobility of character.25 Chrysostom is here following in the tradition of Saints Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa in his usage of the word εὐγένεια. However, he is the first to make extensive use of the word.26 In fact, in his forty-fourth homily on Matthew he provides a definition of εὐγένεια, writing, “For there is one only nobleness (εὐγένεια), to do the will of God.”27 Along similar lines, in his De Laza- ro he writes, “Again, when I say εὐγένεια, I mean a kind of virtue, not the family reputation.”28 That he bothers to repeatedly specify what he means by the word εὐγένεια is clear evidence that he recognised that he was participating in a new development of a specifically Christian vocabulary to define specifically Christian ideas. While the word εὐγένεια traces its history back to Euripides or further, Chrysostom consciously changes its meaning to suit the needs of a new society that he is helping to build on an overtly Christian foundation
This digression on the use of language is important for helping us understand Chrysostom’s goals in his discussion of marriage. There are two levels of significance. First, we can draw a direct comparison between the way Chrysostom is changing an ancient word to suit a Christian context and the way he is taking an ancient social institution and developing it to suit a Christian context. Second, this word and the way he changes it have profound influence on understanding marriage and family. Whereas in the ancient sense the word had positive connotations of good reputation and high social status, in the innovative Christian sense it has the positive connotation of virtue. No longer is a family considered good because of material, political, or even intellectual success. Rather, it is judged according to goodness of soul. Moreover, coming from a good family no longer means that your parents are rich, successful, or even virtuous, but rather, that we identify you as part of the family of saints, or even of God’s family.29
Ambrose takes by far the most practical approach of the three. However, he in no wise refrains from allegory as he sees fit. In Ambrose we see most clearly the pastoral mind at work in the way he uses the story to relate specifically to how Christians should act. Robert Wilken writes of him, “Ambrose is less a philosopher interested in critical analysis than a teacher with an eye on what works.”30 He is, like Chrysostom, most interested in relating virtue to marriage. In comment- ing on Abraham's reluctance to find a Canaanite wife for his son, he does not go on praising Abraham for protecting his son from materialists but jumps right in to how his people and all Christians should act, writing:
[H]ow can love be suited if faith be different? Therefore, beware, Christian, to give your daughter to a Gentile or a Jew...do not take a wife who is an heretic, or any stranger to your Faith...If she worships idols whose adulteries are proclaimed, if she denies Christ...how can she love chastity? Even if she is a Christian, this does not suffice unless ye are both consecrated by the Sacrament of Baptism. Ye must rise together for worship, and God is to be entreated by your joint prayers...Godliness above all is required in marriage.31
Here, we see Ambrose applying Abraham's care for his son to the way parents should care for all their children, both sons and daughters. We also see him exhorting parents to marry their children to other Christians, so as to preserve their virtue. He insists on baptism and daily prayer as an essential grounding for a healthy marriage. These seem like obvious aspects of Christian life; however, the way Ambrose emphasizes these issues makes it sound like he is dealing with specific pastoral issues in his diocese. As a Christian parent, you have a duty not only to raise your children as Christians but also to try to pass down the faith to your grandchildren. This explains the injunction to avoid marrying your child to a heretic, pagan, or Jew. You can hear the bishop try- ing to fill the pews by drilling into people’s heads all the reasons why they need to show up to church and what they need to do to make sure their children do likewise. The likelihood that the children of those who do not pray at home will care enough to show up to church as they get older is relatively small. Moreover, if one of the spouses is unbaptized and does not receive the Eucharist, he may show up to church, but he is not really subject to the authority of the Church in the same way and is harder to keep within the fold. The attempt, however, is not merely to fill the pews, but it is also to get people to take their faith more seriously. Thus, Ambrose exhorts chastity, which he almost seems to take for granted as a good thing, and points out the dalliances of the Greek and Roman gods as a reason why Christianity, whose founder and God was celibate, is suited to the practice of chastity and good moral norms.
Like Chrysostom, Ambrose also sees the parents, rather than the spouses, as the primary agents in marriage arrangements. Interestingly enough, even more so than Chrysostom and certainly more so than the Genesis story, he is not so concerned with the role of the parents in arranging marriages for their sons as for their daughters. He notes that in the Genesis story “the girl is not consulted concerning the betrothal—she awaits the decision of her parents,” but seems to ignore the fact that the servant, under the orders of Abraham, and not Isaac, was the one making the arrangements for the son. He goes on to say:
It is not for a modest virgin to choose the husband...if any young maiden, having suddenly lost her husband, fear to fall into the trap of her own weakness, and if she wishes to marry, let her marry only in the Lord, so that she leave the choice of husband to her parents, lest it be thought a sign of shameless longing, if a girl claim for herself the decision concerning her own wedding. A virgin should be regarded as desired by a man, rather than herself to have desired a man. Let her show shyness before she marries, because shyness may grace the marriage more.32
Not only does Ambrose say that virgins should marry the husband of their parents’ choosing, but he even says that young widows should have their parents find husbands for them. Moreover, he implies that this is not the case, at least in the same way, for young men. Modesty and shyness are praised in a young woman, but he even all but says that men should actively desire women. This is not in any way obvious from the biblical story. There are two potential explanations for this: first, that he is reflecting Roman culture in Milan at the time, and second, that he is addressing a specific pastoral issue in his diocese that concerns women more than men. Perhaps this is a cultural tendency that is similar to (or perhaps a direct predecessor to) what we see today, in that women tend to get much more attention than men in matters concerning marriage. Most likely, I would say at least that both explanations con- tribute to Ambrose’s focus. While in Roman culture it was not necessarily the case that a young widow would return to her parents, Ambrose sees this as the best solution for the situation in Milan. Most curious to note is his citation from Euripides. Whereas earlier he had at- tacked pagans for the immorality of their gods, here he uses Greek tragedy as a model for Christian behaviour and even praises it. Ambrose writes:
The saying of Euripides, which very many admire, may be quoted. For he says in the character of a woman who wished to forsake her husband and was courted by another “Indeed, my father undertook the responsibility of my marriage; for this is not my will” [Andromache 987-988]. Therefore, virgins, preserve what the philosophers them- selves admired.33
It is interesting to note how he conflates Euripides with the Greek philosophers, but it is even more curious to see how he derives good from them. Insofar as pagan culture can be reconciled with Christianity, Ambrose seems to portray it as not only harmless but beneficial. We can see Ambrose using pop culture as a didactic tool. The Greeks are here portrayed as purveyors of morality, rather than the opposite as might be imagined. Moreover, Greek tragedy is included as part of the philosophical tradition that is viewed as wisdom from the ancients. While the Jewish tradition is still the primary one from which Ambrose draws his views on marriage, the Greek tradition also—insofar as it accords with the Jewish—can be valuable in certain circumstances. Wilken points out that:
Ambrose realised that Christians could not appropriate the Classical tradition without significant modification. Yet he saw the wisdom in the writings of the Roman [and some Greek] moralists and sought to adapt their thinking to Christian use. In his effort to reconcile the classical tradition with Christianity, Ambrose is not always successful. The language of the Scriptures, for example, faith and love, some- times pull him in another direction...34
Wilken is here noting the tension in Ambrose’s use of Euripides between the desire to engage people by appealing to pop culture and the necessity of prioritizing the scriptures. While he wants to incorporate the classics into his preaching, the incorporation is uncomfortable at best and necessitates considerable wariness.
One of the most curious and creative interpretive choices Ambrose makes is in his discussion of earrings and bracelets. He writes:
Perhaps when ye hear this, O daughters who seek the Lord’s favour, ye will challenge us, that ye may have earrings and bracelets, and say
“How, O Bishop, do ye forbid us to have what Rebecca received as a gift, yet exhort us to be like Rebecca?” But...Rebecca’s earrings are symbols of pious listening, and Rebecca’s bracelets are the adornment of deeds...And do ye take the earrings which Abraham bequeathed to you, take the bracelets which he handed down. Hearken to the words of the Lord your God, as he did; obey the commands as he hastened to fulfil them.35
Here is where Ambrose delivers his attack against the materialists. While Ambrose is more concerned about the religious differences and the sexual immorality of the Canaanites than their materialism, he is no less concerned than Chrysostom with emphasizing the dangers of materialism in this discussion of marriage. He is genuinely concerned that his people—the vast majority of whom are not educated theologians— could find materialist tendencies attractive and could easily come up with over-simplified and sinful interpretations of the Bible if not care- fully guided. Gold and silver and vain display are things to be shunned before and after marriage. He says that “earrings and bracelets are wont to sow strife in the Church.”36 Vain display is bad not only for the per- son but also for the entire community, as it provokes envy and resentment. Rather, he argues that the lesson to be learned from Rebecca’s earrings is that one needs to listen to his sermon. Listening to the Bible and following the injunctions of the teacher (in this case, Ambrose) is the way to prepare for marriage. Living according to the precepts of the Bible, as interpreted by the teacher, is the path to Christian marital virtue.
The third and fourth centuries were pivotal times in the formation of the Christian Church as we know it today. This was the time of definition and development that ultimately served to unify and—to a certain extent—standardize Church tradition and theology. Amongst the many traditions that were beginning their development into the forms that have been passed down to us are those of marriage. This paper has focused on one aspect of the formation of this tradition through the lens of biblical interpretation. While marriage has been an important aspect of every society in history, Christianity brought a distinctly unique view of marriage to the forefront of European life, and this understanding is rooted in the theology developed by the three theologians discussed here as well as many others. Whereas various societies have viewed marriage in terms of population control and child producing or in terms of wealth distribution, Christianity brings the idea of virtue and developing healthy relationships with God to bear on the understanding of marriage in a special and revolutionary way. Whether it be from the perspective of viewing marriage as a spiritual relationship with God or as an institution that brings people closer to God through the cultivation of virtue and avoidance of materialistic desires, Origen, Chrysostom, and Ambrose all find ways to use Jewish Scripture to develop an idea of marriage as primarily concerned with virtue. This paper focuses on the theoretical side of the very beginning of this development and sets the stage for a more thorough look into how this theology translates into practice.
