Biblical Understanding

Marriage normativity didn’t form overnight. It was a slow descent from the intentions of God to what is upheld today. In this essay, I seek to uncover the truth of Scripture which has been long buried beneath the dusty layers of patriarchy, bad translations, and even worse exegesis. Unless noted, the scholarship is my own.

Scholars agree that the term ezer kenegdo is used to describe the woman’s relationship to the first human upon her creation. The best-recognized translation is “partner”, but good ‘ole King Jimmy can’t be having a woman as equal to a man, and so the word was rendered as “help meet”, indicating that man could almost do the work by himself, he just needed a little help.

Here’s why that’s a bad translation. A detailed word study shows of the twenty-one uses of the word ezer in the Old Testament, the majority refer to God helping humanity. None of the uses of ezer, however, reduce the actor to a subordinate, as the traditional rendering does to Eve. Even the Miriam-Webster dictionary piles on by defining “helpmate” as “one who is a companion and helper, especially a wife.” It goes on to add that the helper is akin to “a relatively unskilled worker who assists a skilled worker usually by manual labor.”

The 1611 King James Bible (KJV) was authorized to fix perceived weaknesses in previous translations; however, the cultural impact was far greater. The editors used holy Scripture as a means to control the masses and continue to suppress lower class citizens and women. We see this keenly in its distorted translation of Genesis 2:18.

Eve of Eden was more than a helper, handing Adam tools as he did the work. Genesis is clear that she was created intentionally to partner with the first human. Not just as his equal in work and morality, but there was nothing else like the first human, no match, but everything else in creation had a sameness. The second human brought balance to creation because she was the same. But from the development of this foundation of woman as a subordinate “unskilled helper” to man, a pattern of doctrine emerges which teaches that women are incapable without a man and, thus, single women are less-than both married women and an intended partner.

Drawing on traditional wisdom of the times, the conclusion of Qoheleth’s proverbs found in Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 should be that “life in community is far superior in every way to a solitary existence.” Yes, two can “make a stand” against an assailant and stay warm in the cold, but “a three-fold cord cannot be torn quickly.” Sadly, this affirmation of communal living is most often referred to when misapplied at weddings.

At no point should we make the leap that married individuals are superior because they can stay warm, but the emphasis is on strength through community, a core message deficient in the modern Church. Community, more than wealth or material objects, is a core value in the books of Hebrew wisdom; marriage is not. The third cord was never meant to represent a Trinitarian Godhead or, perhaps, the role of Christian faith in relationship. It is intended to speak of the strength of community, not one’s dependence on a spouse.

Jesus is cornered (again) by some Pharisees, this time with questions about divorce. He offers a complicated teaching that is often incorrectly taught. He says there are three kinds of single people (eunuchs): some born to be single, some forced into singleness, and those who make the choice. Rather than hard-heartedly quitting a covenant where two become one, Jesus is telling men to understand their responsibility IN THAT AGE to be a good provider for his wife.

Jesus has already taught that there will not be marriage in heaven, as it is a human construct not needed in the eternal life to come. To the first century believer, it is better to be single than fail the responsibility of marriage; even if that means failing to “bear fruit” in the form of a family. The theological application today is much the same; however, we must remove patriarchal overlay.

In marriage, each gives themselves to the other; covenantal partnership. And then there are those not in a marital covenant. Jesus called them eunuchs as a way to frame his contemporary society. Today, we know some are called to singleness—the eunuch born this way. Those called to the gift of singleness (Paul calls it a gift, look at the next section) have it confirmed and are at peace with single life. There are very few Christians in this category; we either war against the single state or assign it to singlism.

Some choose to be unpartnered for a time—with or without celibacy. In women, this is often in reaction to a bad relationship or trauma, but it is always her choice and just as she embraced it she can also put it away and start a relationship.

Then there is the eunuch who chooses this life; the woman who decides to lay down a desire for romantic relationship and embrace a life dedicated to the Lord. (Think: nun.) This is a crude breakdown of the three types of eunuchs (singles), but appropriately descriptive.

This is a letter to a particular pastor. Would you want your email to a colleague to be taken out of context? I’m sure Paul would not like how his words have been twisted in the modern age. Timothy was leading a church in the age when some rabbis taught it was better to burn the Torah than to teach it to women. And given Paul’s comments elsewhere in the ENTIRE letter, Timothy had vapid, shallow women; pushy widows; men who used prayer time to make political speeches; and weak lay leadership. This church was a mess!

“I do not permit…” Paul used the verb epitrepo, which is rendered correctly in most translations; however, what is never noted is how to apply the verb. The Septuagint only ever uses this verb for specific instances, not a universal ban. A better translation would be “I am not presently permitting”, as suggested by Alice Mathews in her book, Gender Roles and the People of God.

The other question to ask is what the women were teaching that the men weren’t? Turns out, as stated earlier in the letter, the ladies were repeating the teachings of false teachers in Ephesus. If female teachers were a universal problem to the Church, why would Paul include praise and name-checking any women in any of his letters? (Certainly, he wouldn’t have commended Priscilla for teaching Apollos in Acts 18.)

“…Or have authority over a man.” Here we have another King Jimmy translation issue. The conundrum is how to translate Greek thought without becoming literal. The conjunction between “to teach” and “have authority” creates “a single idea out of two different actions,” writes Mathews. The word translated “or” isn’t suggesting two commands, rather that they go together. Also, the verb authentein appears nowhere else in the Bible, so there is no comparison for interpretation; however, it is interesting that he doesn’t use exousiazo to indicate the exercise of authority as he has done in several other places. The verb used here is in a form of extreme action, to grasp, grab, or seize. Therefore, a more authentic translation is “I do not permit women to seize authority from men.”

What does this have to do with marriage normativity in the Church? Paul’s justification in the reference to Adam and Eve is a mangled mess of mistranslation which has fueled the blasted patriarchy for millennia. At issue are the word for “woman” and the female pronoun. Without going into all the details, this is a better translation: For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but she was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet Eve will be saved through childbearing, and other women will be saved, too, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Writes Mathews, “Some ministers teach that women are saved spiritually through bearing children. But this would exclude all women who are single or are married but barren. And this would mean that all women must rear children in order to be saved, but men do not have this requirement for salvation–a strange requirement not borne out elsewhere in the New Testament.” Salvation comes through faith in Christ as Savior, not the childbirth experience, nor marriage. (For excellent scholarship on this subject of egalitarianism, I recommend Marg Mowczko’s work on her blog.)

Most single women have cataloged the bad (and often unsolicited) advice for happiness as an unmarried person. Within the Church, we are told, “The Bible says it is better to remain single.” This gross misappropriation of the text comes from not understanding the context of Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth. In a traditional Jewish background, the imperative of human endeavors is to marry and multiply (Genesis 1:28).

Modern translations stretch the translation of 1 Corinthians 7:8 beyond Paul’s intended scope. Despite the lack of adjectives to describe the state of Paul, the RSV and ESV translations render it “to remain single as I do” and both NRSVue and NIV go with “remain unmarried as I am.” The literal Greek should be rendered, “I say now to the unmarried and the widows, it is honorable for them if they should remain as even I.”

It should be noted here that Paul’s use of agamos (not married) is feminine and is the only use of this word in the New Testament. The only time single women are name-checked in the New Testament is to affirm the honorability of the state of Paul. The first rule of Pauline interpretation is to frame it within the culture, history, and context of the letter. Here, his statements are said to a certain culture at a certain time and should not be taken as a Pauline command to the 21st century, regardless of the topic.

Further, in 7:25-35, Paul’s preference for celibacy was more about the imminent return of Christ than a sexual lifestyle. For the apostle living at the height of Roman persecution, the world is dying and transforming into God’s kingdom come. Paul insists that it is the duty of all to keep their eyes on the prize and avoid all distractions of daily life as it is so mundane compared to the glory to come.

Learn more! Read my essay on Theological Reasoning for single-friendly churches.