RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

Those kinky Hebrews: marriage in the Judeo-Christian scriptures

Print
Written by Alan Austin   
Thursday, 15 November 2012 15:32
When you have a ménage à trois, they must not include a woman and her daughter. “That is wickedness.” Says the Lord [Lev 18:17]. And when a man sells his daughter, he must refund the money if the buyer doesn’t enjoy the sex [Exodus 21:7-8].

Just two instructions in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures which suggest the God of Israel does not follow American family values.

Last month Rev Billy Graham wrote: “I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles” He urged votes for those who “support the biblical definition of marriage.”

Dr Graham defined marriage as “between a man and a woman”. Other religious leaders echoed this call, including Rev Mike Huckabee and the Catholic bishops.

The problem these venerable gentlemen have, however, is that their “biblical principles” are nowhere found in the Bible.

Abraham is one of the greatest heroes of the Judeo-Christian tradition. When he and wife Sarai found themselves childless they brought their slave girl Hagar into the bedroom. The resulting son became a great patriarch [Genesis 16:1-3].

Abraham took a second wife Keturah and had several more children [Genesis 25:1-6]. He also had children with an uncertain number of mistresses, or concubines.

Jacob’s sex life is more bizarre still. He purchased his first wife Leah from her father, then married her sister Rachel. Rachel’s servant girl Bilhah soon joined them “as a wife” for at least two children [Genesis 30:3-4]. Then Leah’s servant girl Zilpah made it a happy fivesome [Genesis 30:9-11].

Yes, a bit kinky perhaps. But there is no hint this was irregular. In fact, the opposite. Great rejoicing at God’s blessings [Genesis 30:12-13].

These lucky guys were not alone. Lamech took two wives. Esau had three. Gideon had many wives. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Rehoboam took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. Abijah had 14 wives. Caleb had children with at least two partners. David had eight wives, an unknown number of concubines and a relationship with Jonathan. There are others we know of and many we don’t.

This is not to suggest ancient Israel was Amsterdam in the swinging sixties. The opposite, in fact. Polygamy seems ordained by God to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Especially after famine or war had depleted male populations.

There were clear guidelines. First wives must be looked after when a man takes another [Exodus 21:10]. Inheritance must be divided among children of all wives [Deut 21:15-16]. Subsequent wives must not include your wife's sister while your wife is living [Lev 18:18. This came after Jacob’s threesome]. And a widow whose husband dies before they have had children must marry her brother-in-law after the funeral [Deut 25:5].

A man may assign one of his slave girls to a male slave for them to have children. When the male slave is redeemed, he is free to go. But his wife and children remain the property of the owner [Exodus 21:2-4].

A virgin who is raped must marry the rapist with no possibility of divorce. But the rapist must pay the father 50 shekels for his property loss [Deut 22:28-29]. A bride who is discovered after the wedding not to be a virgin must be killed [Deut 22:20-21].

Biblical marriage, anyone?

The argument that God disapproved of multiple partners but tolerated it, as with divorce, is unfounded. There is no suggestion anywhere that polygamous, same-sex or extramarital unions are intrinsically wrong. Some may be, but not all. Yes, Solomon was rebuked for taking too many foreign wives. But nationality was the problem there, not multiplicity. Although 700 does look a bit greedy [1 Kings 11:1-3].

God’s prophet told King David he could have had even more wives had he wanted [2 Samuel 12:7-8]. This is just not possible if polygamy was in any way sinful.

The New Testament, in contrast, teaches clearly against marriage, proclaiming celibacy as the preferred option for followers of Christ.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman”, Paul instructs [1 Cor 7:1]. And later, “He who marries does right, but he who does not marry does better.” [1 Cor 7:36-38]

Marriage is grudgingly permitted for the weak. There is one New Testament requirement for one wife. That applies to bishops or elders only [1 Timothy 3:2].

So where did the curious one-man-one-woman idea originate? It appears to have come from a poetic piece set in the Garden of Eden, a passage often read at weddings.

Genesis chapter 2 says: (24) “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Clearly, say conservatives, this has the words “a man” and “his wife”. End of argument.

Increasingly, however, scholars say this does not deal definitively with questions of number, or of gender, race or anything else regarding marital partners. Rather, it is snapshot of the first union between Adam and Eve affirming that partnerships should be permanent, and that newlyweds should not live with his parents. That’s about all.

Singular terms in Scripture, scholars advise, often imply plural. And vice versa. For example, the tenth commandment instructs us not to “covet thy neighbour’s house, thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass …”

These are all singular terms, but clearly imply plural. Similarly, instructions to fathers to “not provoke your children” apply to fathers with only one child.

Scholars note also that Genesis 2:24 uses the Hebrew word ‘dabaq’ for being joined, or cleaving. This word is also used for Solomon and his many wives [1 Kings 11:1-2] and for the relationship between two women, Ruth and Naomi [Ruth 1:14-18]. So on the face of it, whatever ‘dabaq’ means, it can apply to polygamous and same-sex unions.

So restricting Genesis 2:24 to just one spouse fails. Besides, how can we apply verse 24 rigidly today, but not verse 25?

Scholars ruefully admit Scripture offers no clear definition of marriage. Professor of New Testament William Loader at Australia’s Murdoch University suggests marriage in Biblical times was primarily to secure father to son inheritance.

“Men owned households,” he wrote in an influential submission to the Australian Senate in April. “That included sexual access to wives and slaves, but never incestuous relations. Men decided with other men whom their daughters would marry and so ‘gave them away’, a tradition which still survives at least in ceremony in many wedding liturgies.”

Loader concludes that “there appears to be no sound reason to exclude same-sex couples” from marriage.

So Christians are quite free to argue for a definition of marriage as the union for life of one man and one woman.

But they are not free to claim this is Biblical.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN