Super fascinating stuff…I love how you went deeper with Hellerman’s writing and brought about a new way of thinking about family. Thanks so much for sharing this.
This is still quite the case in parts of the middle east, especially in less urban, more traditional areas. Nuclear family exists but the bond between siblings is an important one. It is not unusual for a more traditional woman to visit her parents and siblings a few times per week if her husband's family are not preventing her
Thanks for reading! Hellerman talked about it a little bit with Edremit of course, but I didn’t know it was still a common thing in the broader Middle East. Thanks for sharing that info. Would you say they consider siblings more important than spouses?
I really can't say with confidence. I was born and raised in a very urban, very modernized part of the country that have been influenced by Western value systems significantly. I don't think in my circles spouses were less important than siblings for emotional support. But even there, the relationship with family of origin and siblings was very strong for many families. My cousins used to gather in their parents’ house almost every Friday with their spouses up until a few years ago.
It’s always helpful to try to step out of our own context of what we are used to and deem to be traditional (even though those “traditions” may only be a few hundred years old) and to see the context of these biblical narratives and see the deeper truer themes.
As I’ve mulled this article a bit, it made me wonder about the command in Gen 2:24
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Genesis 2:24 ESV
And then repeated by Jesus in Matt 19:4-6
“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.””
Matthew 19:4-6 ESV
Do you think he is just talking about sex and procreation there or is he seeking to elevate the institution of marriage in a countercultural way … especially against the backdrop of the patrilineal structure you described?
I haven't done a super deep dive yet into the Genesis 2 passage, but my current understanding is that here, Jesus is primarily bringing up Genesis to discuss the binding, lifelong nature of marriage—not to elevate it as such. He immediately goes on a few verses later to say "if you can be single, maybe you should be single".
Mark 10:29–30: Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life." (ESV)
Notably here, Jesus doesn't even *mention* spouses here as something worth talking about, nor are we promised spouses in the eschaton.
An idea I've heard in discussion with friends is that Genesis 2 exists to push back on the Babylonian culture that existed at the time Genesis was written, which valued marriage much less than God seems to. So, in that sense, it could be that Genesis was intended to serve as an elevation of marriage *up to* the highly valued bloodline relationships of their culture at the time. But that is, in my view, very different from the elevation that we've created today, wherein sexual romance is valued above every other form of relationship by a thousand-fold.
Super fascinating stuff…I love how you went deeper with Hellerman’s writing and brought about a new way of thinking about family. Thanks so much for sharing this.
This is still quite the case in parts of the middle east, especially in less urban, more traditional areas. Nuclear family exists but the bond between siblings is an important one. It is not unusual for a more traditional woman to visit her parents and siblings a few times per week if her husband's family are not preventing her
Thanks for reading! Hellerman talked about it a little bit with Edremit of course, but I didn’t know it was still a common thing in the broader Middle East. Thanks for sharing that info. Would you say they consider siblings more important than spouses?
I really can't say with confidence. I was born and raised in a very urban, very modernized part of the country that have been influenced by Western value systems significantly. I don't think in my circles spouses were less important than siblings for emotional support. But even there, the relationship with family of origin and siblings was very strong for many families. My cousins used to gather in their parents’ house almost every Friday with their spouses up until a few years ago.
What an enjoyable and challenging article… thank you for crafting it.
Thanks for reading! Did anything in particular stick out to you/challenge you?
It’s always helpful to try to step out of our own context of what we are used to and deem to be traditional (even though those “traditions” may only be a few hundred years old) and to see the context of these biblical narratives and see the deeper truer themes.
As I’ve mulled this article a bit, it made me wonder about the command in Gen 2:24
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Genesis 2:24 ESV
And then repeated by Jesus in Matt 19:4-6
“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.””
Matthew 19:4-6 ESV
Do you think he is just talking about sex and procreation there or is he seeking to elevate the institution of marriage in a countercultural way … especially against the backdrop of the patrilineal structure you described?
I haven't done a super deep dive yet into the Genesis 2 passage, but my current understanding is that here, Jesus is primarily bringing up Genesis to discuss the binding, lifelong nature of marriage—not to elevate it as such. He immediately goes on a few verses later to say "if you can be single, maybe you should be single".
Mark 10:29–30: Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life." (ESV)
Notably here, Jesus doesn't even *mention* spouses here as something worth talking about, nor are we promised spouses in the eschaton.
An idea I've heard in discussion with friends is that Genesis 2 exists to push back on the Babylonian culture that existed at the time Genesis was written, which valued marriage much less than God seems to. So, in that sense, it could be that Genesis was intended to serve as an elevation of marriage *up to* the highly valued bloodline relationships of their culture at the time. But that is, in my view, very different from the elevation that we've created today, wherein sexual romance is valued above every other form of relationship by a thousand-fold.