Marriage & the Bible. So… it seems that a Big
Question on many minds at this moment concerns Marriage. How often do we
hear the term, the “biblical view of marriage,” in the various media?
Is Marriage really only for one man and one women? It just seems that among all
the variety of interesting social possibilities for Human Coupling, there
should be more than just this one single possible biblical marital model that
we Moderns might consider.
Other
possible cultural and religious models abound – among which is polygamy or
polygyny (multiple wives); polyandry (more than one husband—really! …imagine
the dirty socks! This is apparently something of a Buddhist thing, practiced in
India, Bhutan, and Tibet, and legally recognized in Thailand until 2010); then
there is always bigamy (two distinct marriages at the same time… count them
both!); polyamory or group arrangements; endogamy, which
might sometimes begin to look like incest, but which some might think of as simply
keeping a close-knit family (cf. Egyptian pharaohs) -- this was the conception of marriage, in fact, that frames the Jesus parable
(Matthew 22:25ff, Mark 12:20ff, & Luke 20:27-40) concerning the one woman married to the guy who had seven brothers, her husband dies, etc., etc., etc., etc.); and then, finally, there is of course the really hip “open marriage.”
Or, alternatively, there are also social Coupling practices taken from the world of Pure Nature, which we might consider adopting for our Human societies. Consider, for example, the bonobo ape, which, it seems, “is the closest extant relative to humans.” Just think, the Wiki-god suggests that there may actually be some advantages for humans seeking to couple if they would imitate the Coupling Culture of their more remote, native bonobo cousins, for whom “Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions.” What is not to like in this model from Nature?
That said, however, this little reflection is not especially about the bonobo
or Left Bank Ape; but I cannot resist one last little
thought -- our “extant relatives” in Nature also have been seen to do all the
good stuff that humans seem to obsess about sexually, if pornography (for
humans) and empirical observation (for bonobos) is any indication; but these
latter also use sexuality socially, as a form of greeting, as a “means of
forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation.”
I personally think sex as a form of social greeting has special comedic
promise… but I must not let my imagination stray around loose in Nature’s
playground.
Western Society could be simply reeling with the
multi-dimensional diversity of possible expressions of Social Coupling and
Uncoupling, if, of course, it were not so fixated on what the biblical
narrative has to say about Marriage. So… what does the Bible “say” about
marriage? Is there any actual biblical “teaching” that is particularly
meaningful in contextualizing the question of Human Coupling? And, of course
there is the entirely different question: Is there a Christian ideal for
marriage for which an argument could be made using the biblical texts?
First, before entering into le vif of our subject, it
seems to me that a caveat is in order: To use the Bible to substantiate any
type of argument at all, reasonable or other, is not terribly reasonable. If,
for example, we in the 21st century have questions concerning with
whom to “join” in the coupling act, and how the ceremonial ritual for that
Coupling might possibly be practiced in this modern social context, in what way
is it reasonable for us to limit our search for guidance and possible social
Coupling models to those that might be found in the Bible; for this Bible only
narrates the history of very specific and minor inhabitants of ancient Near
Eastern time and space, and does not allow us to open up our search to include
any, or all, of the other and diverse Coupling Models peppered around the
countless nooks and crannies of this planet of ours?
Did you notice what just happened? In a very slick logical move regularly used
by philosophers and other well-reasoning folks, I simply turned around the slippery slope charge, which is one of the
favorite arguments used by zealots protecting “the traditional institution of
marriage,” and I counter-charged the zealots with cherry-picking! Because why in the world should
we limit our search for possible Coupling Models to a single specific document
of antiquity, which is not even culturally relevant to us Westerners? This type
of zealotry argument is a nec plus ultra illustration of the fallacy of special pleading at its very best; for why not
pick the Sumerian culture for guidance instead, or the Bantu cultural
traditions, or even in a moment of complete desperation, heaven forbid, the
bonobo ape society?
All right… maybe not the bonobo ape society. Because despite all the interest
and social promise of their sexual-social interactions, it seems obvious that
the natural model provided by the bonobos must inevitably fail as a model for
their less sociosexually progressed human cousins (that would be Us), because
it seems that “Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships
with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual
behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual
activity between mothers and their adult sons.”
It goes without saying, of course, that with our ongoing proclivity for
moralizing and religious-ifying our Social Coupling practices, we 21st
century Western humans just will not stand for anything that smacks of
non-monogamous Coupling. Which brings us around full circle to our first little
caveat in this reflection: that using the Bible to justify any type of Cultural
Coupling is clearly special pleading and therefore unreasonable.
That first little caveat aside, though, perhaps we should
also explain that some biblical arguments might actually be better than others.
In general, if the intent is to win arguments instead of alienating every
reasoning person on the planet, then it is better to use the Bible with
contextual sensitivity, rather than to use it literally. For example, Pastor Guyton, a culturally contextualizing
reader of the Bible, recently reflected on another American pastor, a
literalist, who wrote a book in which he defended slavery in Civil War America,
because the Bible tells him so!
So goes the literalist argument: “the abolitionist movement was wrong and the
Civil War should never have happened, because if Southern slave-owners had been
allowed to implement the Bible's teachings on slavery, then a more humane
transition would have taken place through ‘gospel gradualism.’” And there you
have it, straight [almost] from the literalist’s mouth.
The point of this little distinction between a culturally contextualized and a
literalist reading of the Bible illustrates the problem one has when using the
Bible to defend or argue any given position—it is almost always impossible to
determine convincingly whether, in its capacity as historical witness, the
Bible simply contains illustrations of specific ancient cultural usage,
or whether, in its capacity as moral authority, the Bible is actually trying to
teach us, in a timeless here and now, also to go and to do likewise.
Do you want the good news first or the bad news? First,
there is just a little bit of bad news, which is that the good news about
sexuality and Coupling in the Bible is not all that good.
Bestiality & the Bible. Some good news is that
the Bible is not very positive toward bestiality. Germany can soon
rest easy, because its Agriculture minister is set, soon, to introduce a
new ban on bestiality, which will reverse a 1969 decision to legalize
zoophilia. I am not quite sure how best to respond to zoophiles, German or other, “who argue that they treat animals as
equals and never force them to do anything against their will.” I have also
just learned that it is not illegal to rape an animal in Denmark. Really?
Also noteworthy on the question of animal sex in the Bible is that men and
women are treated with absolute equality—everybody and anybody who does it with
an animal “must be put to death.” Perhaps it needs to be clarified that the
injunctions against animal love are only in the Hebrew Bible; the Christian
Testament is silent on this question. At this point, we are left to determine
whether the Bible’s attitude toward animal love is simply a reflection of
specific ancient cultural usage, or whether it is actually trying to teach
us also to go and to do likewise. This may not be good news for zoophilic
groups in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, and Sweden—user beware!
Incest & the Bible. More semi-good news is that
incest of one sort or another is generally frowned upon in the Bible, although
it is not always frowned upon. It seems clear, after all, that if things
really started from one man and one women, an Adam and Eve type of story, then
it could not have taken too long before the sociological situation evolved into
“family fun games” (an expression that I borrow from my grandmother).
So, on the question of incest and the Bible, as the tempus has fugited
[tempus fugit = times flies], so have definitions of incest—one man’s incest is
another man’s endogamy, and that sort of thing. Abraham, to name perhaps the
most famous/notorious example in the Bible (Genesis 12:10-20), marries his
half-sister, Sarai/h. So when famine drives Abraham, Sarai, et al into Egypt,
and the princes of Pharaoh see the very beautiful Sarai, Abraham had a really
nifty built-in excuse when the Egyptians threaten to kill him for the girl:
that he is willing to trade Sarai, his sister, to the Pharaoh in return for
safe-passage. Pharaoh, though, nobody’s fool, “Upon discovering that Sarai was
a married woman, Abram's wife as well as his sister, […] demanded that they and
their household leave immediately, along with all their goods.” Does this
narrative teach us about incest, or about badly lying about incest?
In the Deuteronomic texts, there is a rather straightforward list of forbidden
relationships, which forbids intercourse between male [implied] members of
family, and daughter/sister, father’s wife, and mother-in-law. However there
are also some notable exceptions in the Bible to this general rule of thumb,
such as, again, Abraham who shares a common father with his wife Sarai, and
Jacob, who married Rachel, the younger sister of his first wife, Leah.
More on Incest
& the Bible. (This information is derived from Wiki sources, but has
been verified for accuracy.)
·
Noah and his son Ham (Genesis 9:20-27), who was checking out his
father’s nakedness. The Babylonian Talmud suggests that the son may have
sodomized the father (Sanhedrin 70a).
·
Nahor, Abraham’s brother, marries one of his nieces (Genesis 11:29).
·
Lot’s two daughters (Genesis 19:32-35) got their father intoxicated in
order to sleep with him. Both girls conceived sons, who became sons/grandsons,
and half-brothers. This is certainly one-up on old Oedipus!
·
There are numerous examples of cousins, 1st, 2nd,
and so on, marrying in the Bible – Isaac to Rebekah, Esau to Mahalah, Jacob to
Leah and Rachel.
·
Reuben, eldest son to Jacob (Genesis 35:22), slept with Bilhah, Jacob’s
concubine/mistress.
·
Judah, another of Jacob’s sons, “went into” Tamar (Genesis 38), his
daughter-in-law.
·
Amnon, eldest son to King David, raped his half-sister Tamor (II Samuel
3).
Just a wee bit more on Incest & the Bible. I was comforted to learn
from a Christian website that incest in the Bible was
not wrong before God issued his command against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18.
“Until God commanded against it, it was not incest. It was just marrying a
close relative.” Nothing more need be said.
Perhaps it again needs to be clarified that when there
are injunctions against incest in the Bible, it is only in the Hebrew Bible,
and that the Christian Testament is again silent on the question. And that
again we are left with the interpretative question – which is how to determine
whether the Bible’s somewhat inconsistent attitude toward incest is simply a
reflection of specific ancient cultural usages, or whether the Bible is
actually trying to teach us also to go and to do (and/or not do)
likewise.
Polygamy & the Bible. Now the bad news for the Bible debate team on the question of Marriage &
the Bible: polygamy is the normative biblical relationship for the period.
Besides all the evidence from the Hebrew Bible, which is coming up in the
following little section, there is also New Testament evidence (finally) to
consider in the form of Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy. A first
comment: the consensus of most modern scholarship
is that the Letter to First Timothy is pseudepigraphical, which is to say that
most scholars are pretty sure that Paul did not write the letter. Make of this
what you wish.
The text of interest in First
Timothy is 3:1-13. The author, “Paul” if you will, is speaking to Timothy of
those who would aspire to the offices of church bishop (pastor) and church
deacon, both of which the author considers noble callings. For either of these
offices, Paul counsels Timothy that the candidate should be the husband of
(only) one wife (3:2 & 3:12), and that how the candidate rules his own
family is a reflection of how the candidate will rule the flock of faithful.
Again a caveat: some translations, such as the NRSV, translate our passage of
interest as “married only once.” But the Greek clearly reads for both
candidates that they should be a “man of one woman (mia◊ß gunaiko\ß a‡ndra).” Read and weep.
Two
conclusions are patent. Primo, the author’s recommendation that the candidates
should be men of only one woman
extends only to those seeking to
fill certain offices in the church, and is not in any way advanced as a general
or normative family standard for all men of that day. The author is not trying
to start any kind of social revolution in the family. Secondo, the reminder
that the candidate should have only One
woman (+ attendant children) clearly suggests the following hypothetical
situation: that church overseers with the more normative type of polygamous
families would have a much harder time keeping “order in the roost”; and it is
precisely this quality of orderliness in the roost which the candidate is
supposed to be able to demonstrate in order to qualify for the overseeing
offices of the church. Therefore only one woman.
This
is clearly one of those “oops” moments in modern and populist biblical
interpretation—sic transits the glorious “biblical” argument [sic
transit gloria mundi = thus passes the glory of the world], because the
“biblical” view of marriage that everyone is talking about, that the Bible
teaches a one man, one woman model of marriage, falls in the face of actual
textual evidence. The dominant model for Social Coupling in the ancient
biblical period, both Hebrew Bible and New Testament, is one man and many
women.
(Much of the following
information comes from www.biblicalpolygamy.com/)
·
Perhaps
a first occurrence of an extreme form of alternative Coupling in the Bible is
in Genesis 6, where sons of God, commonly thought to be angels, took human
wives to themselves. As you read further along in the story, you will see that
this did not do much to impress the Deity, and resulted in gigantic offspring,
floods and rainbows. It is not quite clear whether this Coupling was in fact
polygamous.
·
Abraham,
father of the Hebrew nation, had 3 wives.
·
Jacob,
father of the twelve patriarchs of the tribes of Israel, had 4 wives.
·
Esau
had 3 wives.
·
Moses,
of Pentateuch fame, had only 2 wives.
·
Saul,
king, had only 2 wives.
·
David,
king of Israel and man after God’s own heart, had 18 wives and 10 concubines.
·
Solomon,
son of King David, had 1,000 women at his disposal, which included “seven
hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned
away his heart." (1 Kings 11:3) Because Solomon was tolerant in his choice
of women, choosing from among Sidontans, Tyrians, Ammonites, and Edomites, it
appears that he began to wander from the religion of his Fathers, whence his
later problems.
·
Ezra,
of Ezra and Nehemiah fame, had only 2 wives.
·
Gideon
(Judges 6-8), one of the judges of Israel, "had threescore and ten sons of
his body begotten: for he had many wives." Case closed.
Other biblical illustrations of
ancient cultural usage.
Remember another one of the favorite arguments used by zealots protecting “the
traditional institution of marriage,” is that in Genesis God brings “them”
together, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The too-convenient-to-forget part
of that clever language rhyme is that Marriage was not part of the equation.
There was no ritual performed – Adam wakes up from the nap, naked Eve is
snoozing right next to him, and the rest is history.
There is also the biblical illustration from the life of Hosea, one of the
twelve minor prophets in the Hebrew Bible. In and of itself, the Book of Hosea
can rightly be read as a metaphor, which is certainly plausible; but the story
line is, nonetheless, that God commands the prophet Hosea to go out and marry a
“working girl,” which, in the metaphor, would represent the world gone whoring
after other gods. This is when biblical interpretation, and the
to-contextualize or to-literalize question becomes interesting. Because if the
biblical literalist is to take his sacred text seriously, then based on Hosea’s
story he should go out and marry a working girl, and advise others of their
moral imperative to do likewise. If, however, the Hosea story is simply to be
contextualized, because it seems clear that the story is not simply a
reflection of normative ancient cultural usage, nor is it to be interpreted as
some sort of moral imperative, then the story looses all meaning to today’s
world.
Which brings us to the question
of Gay Marriage & the Bible. I have written elsewhere in the Nonimprimatur blogspot about
homosexuality and the Bible. The biblical texts, both Hebrew Bible and New
Testament, are explicit, and seconded by a long and consistent interpretative
tradition in the Church Fathers. The answer is no. Get over it.
Fortunately, though, we have once again come full circle to the original caveat
of this essay – that using the Bible to justify any type of Cultural Coupling
is clearly special pleading and therefore unreasonable. The Enlightenment in
Europe, which oversaw the birth of a Land whose governing body is an Idea
called We the People, and whose governing principle is an Idea called Human
Reason, called this People out of Tyranny, both political and religious, and into
the public arena of reasoned debate and consensus. In this New World of
ours, the informed opinion is informed precisely by debate and reflection, and
not by religion. If this is to remain true about America, then the public conversation
about Gay Marriage, and any other type of social change that will occur in the
dynamic future of this Land of the Free, may only and ultimately hinge on the
question of guaranteeing for all citizens equal standing before the Law.
Religious opinions, although freely guaranteed to all men as part of their
inalienable rights in this Land, are inadmissible as evidence in the courts of American
Public Debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment