24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
This passage is not presented as “words spoken by G-d” within literal quotation marks. Unlike just prior, for example, Genesis 2:18
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Where else and how does the Bible provide context for the widely held believe that “G-d defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman” (in spite of the fact that G-d is not attributed to have spoken verse 24)?
I have this vague sense that culturally much less distinction was made at this time between marriage and sex. If two previously unmarried people had sex, this was generally looked upon as becoming married. Engaging in sex with someone who is married to someone else then obviously creates complications, which is part of why adultery was frowned upon so strongly. (Exceptions for prostitutes, rape, pillage and plunder &c.) In Ruth 3 we find this strange story in which she supposedly engages in some kind of foot fetish ritual with Boaz which he clearly understands as an offering of herself as his wife, without any kind of wedding or “marriage” event. (My understanding of this is that in fact the word “feet” would be more properly translated into English as “stones” and that this whole passage is basically saying that Naomi instructed Ruth to go sexually pleasure Boaz to create what amounts to a marriage bond between them as a means of securing financial security for both Ruth and Naomi, and that translators simply refuse to use the word “stones” on the grounds that this story would become far too shocking for contemporary Christians. This may be misinformation but it certainly seems to make a great deal more sense than “feet”.)
But of course the Bible is full of formal weddings, both old and new testament, both literal and allegorical. All involve a man and a woman. BUT in the Old Testament at the very least, they do not exclusively involve a man and ONE woman. Many men, many men generally labeled as being devoted followers of YHWH, have more than one wife. Interestingly enough then, this practice is never formally labeled as adultery (that I am aware of), yet in present day Christianity, most remain convinced that the Bible specifically defines a concept of “marriage” and that it restricts this concept to a joining of exactly one man and exactly one woman. Maybe I am mistaken on some of this, I am hoping for clarification.
Is the absence of any committed union between two men or two women purely cultural? Do the rest of these weddings and marriages in the Bible create re-enforcement for the penultimate verse of Genesis 2? Or is marriage purely a concept of man, born of habit, tradition and culture to which we have assigned holy significance because it “seems natural” and because our mythology backs up this notion that it is G-d’s plan that we be encoupled. Is all this just a back door attempt to add one more verse to the very small pile of verses which can be used to condemn homosexuality?
Re: What is Marriage?
But of course the Bible is full of formal weddings, both old and new testament, both literal and allegorical. All involve a man and a woman. BUT in the Old Testament at the very least, they do not exclusively involve a man and ONE woman. Many men, many men generally labeled as being devoted followers of YHWH, have more than one wife. Interestingly enough then, this practice is never formally labeled as adultery (that I am aware of), yet in present day Christianity, most remain convinced that the Bible specifically defines a concept of “marriage” and that it restricts this concept to a joining of exactly one man and exactly one woman. Maybe I am mistaken on some of this, I am hoping for clarification.
I’ve brought a similar point up in conversation with my father in law, whom is a Southern Baptist Preacher, especially with respect to the continued practice among some Mormons. I tried to show him that in the Bible marriage is not restricted to just one man and just one women. And I pointed to the Mormons as an exaple—importantly, as far as I’ve read, the Mormons that do practice polygomy justify their actions on scriptural grounds.
This is not a question of whether one necessarily agrees with polygomy, but I’m trying to draw out the fact that the Bible opens a number of possibilies up. Different traditions accept/deny different possibilities that have been made scripturally available. Polygomy is a fine exaple in this regard as well. Most Chritian traditions have closed the possibility of polygomy out of their way of living—but obviously not all of them have.
The Bible is immensly more complex and varied than any one single tradition can allow.
Re: What is Marriage?
Polygamy is an interesting puzzle. The official Mormon church has long sinced abandonned that practice, but it continues in some its lesser sects (you may have heard that the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of JC of Latter Day Saints was recently arrested for arranging certain shady marriages…).
The trick of course is not to find all the sexual behaviors prohibited in Scripture as if all others were thereby legitimated. No, the question is rather ‘how does the new Israel of God embody the reality of God’s good rule?’ That is, our answer needs to be answered from within our calling to be God’s people. As distasteful as it is to contemporary sensibilities, the Creation stories seem to me to be the most central ground of our picture of God’s intent for sexuality. The burden of proof then is on those who would seek to justify alternative sexual practices.
I say this as a former supporter of the GLBT-affirming position. Our ecclesiology MUST affect our sexuality.
My two cents.
-Daniel-
Re: What is Marriage?
Basing a theology on a single passage is, as far as I am aware, considered rather shaky ground. Which is why I posed the original question. I am curious if there are passages outside the Creation account which also shore up this notion of marriage.
I wasn’t aware that anything not explicitly approved of in scripture was assumed to be illegitimate. That’s certainly something I’ve never been taught.
I’m not trying to “prove” anything, so I don’t see as how I have to take on any particular burdens. I’m simply asking questions.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
on marriage
Jhimm you’re entirely correct. Basing a theology on a single passage is deeply problematic. However, when you consider that we’re looking for a theology of sexuality, and that the passage in question is the first chapter of the Bible… I think it’s less problematic. This is the case simply because this passage finds affirmative echoes all over the place, not least in the mouth of Jesus (in his discussion of divorce), and the mouth of Paul.
Saying that a certain passage is ‘normative’ is very difficult, but I think the difficulty is mostly removed once you realize I mean narrative normativity. That is, my claim is that the Creation story is one of the key revelations of God’s will for the world which Christians are called to appropriate and embody. Isaiah 11 seems to have a similar function. The questions Christians ask are therefore not "what is permissible?" or "what is morally wrong?" but rather "what story do God’s people tell about sex and gender?" and "how did God intend for the world to be?" Seeing the Church as the enfleshed answer to these questions helps frame a number of issues surrounding sexuality.
I readily acknowledge the oddness of narrative normativity. It’d be much easier to have a list of commandments, but perhaps it is best that we are left to imagine the practices and disciplines which are most faithful to Scripture’s deepest revelations of God’s character and ordering of our world.
Hope this was helpful.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: on marriage
However, when you consider that we’re looking for a theology of sexuality, and that the passage in question is the first chapter of the Bible… I think it’s less problematic.
This is revisionism, at best. The first chapters of Genesis were not written as the beginning of a long, complex, often disjointed book which starts with “In the beginning” and ends with “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.” It is even unlikely that the first chapters of Genesis were written as the first chapters of Genesis. The Creation myth presented there long predates the formalized people of Israel for whom Genesis was eventually codified and committed to the written word. I think we can conclude that both Jews and Christians put Genesis at the beginning of our collections of Scripture for chronological reasons and little else. To assume an additional weight of theological meaning from this seems highly problematic. If this were the case, we must also conclude that to believe anything other than a strict, literal, 7 day creation of the world would be not only heretical, but a more important heresy, than say a belief in Jesus’ divinity (which isn’t discussed until much, much later in the book).
I would suggest it is even highly shaky ground to believe that verse 24 of chapter 2 in Genesis wasn’t added into the text long after the rest was written. Everything around it is a narrative story about Adam and Eve. Suddenly, for one verse, we jump to a declaration of intentional theology, and then verse 25, the final verse in the chapter, returns to the narrative tale. To say that verse 24 is “out of place” is understatement. It is clearly not a part of the oral tradition which gave us chapters 2 and 3.
I am not suggesting this is a reason to ignore it, discount it, remove it or lessen the importance of it. I simply point it out as further evidence that we cannot take the coincidence of its location as somehow “meaningful”.
This is the case simply because this passage finds affirmative echoes all over the place, not least in the mouth of Jesus (in his discussion of divorce), and the mouth of Paul.
What? The bulk of the Old Testament shows us “marriage” as being a socio-financial-political union between a man and one or more women (including fathering children with hand-maidens of wives) which is often manipulated and violated and rarely treated as a holy, sacred union. Jesus’ words about divorce certainly would indicate he views marriage as sacred and takes the bond there very seriously, but says nothing about how broadly or narrowly he defines what a marriage is. Paul out and out tells us not to marry at all if we can keep our libidos in check!
My question is very narrow and clearly defined. Do other explicit passages exist or no? I am looking for detailed, specific information to determine if the conventional wisdom is rooted in explicit passages or not. If the answer is “no” that opens up one set of discussions, if the answer is “yes” that opens up another set of discussions. But we cannot have the discussions before the question is answered. A generalized defense of the conventional wisdom without specifics does not answer the question and is not helpful to me as it leaves my question unanswered.
~jhimm — nothing lasts. nothing is finished. nothing is perfect.
Re: on marriage
Why are so many people seeking Marriage Counseling if they need affection and a partner ?