On Biblical Marriage: Toward a Theology of Marriage

Part 1
Part 2

Now that I have briefly discussed some of the passages in the Old and New Testaments that deal with marriage and sexuality, I will tackle the deeper issue of what marriage signifies in the biblical text.  Here I go back to Genesis, Chapter 1, which bears looking at in some detail.

How it was meant to be

Genesis 1:26-28   ²⁶ Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."  ²⁷ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  ²⁸ God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

God makes humankind (literally adam) in God’s image; male and female together are in God’s image.  Now one way to read this is simply to say that both men and women are made in the image of God, and I certainly agree with that.  We are all image-bearers in that sense. However, I think a part of the sense of this is that both men and women are necessary to encompass the full image of God.  We see that affirmed in the New Testament as well: both men and women are necessary for the body of Christ to be complete. I would argue that the text suggests that we take this even further: that man and woman in relationship are reflective of the creative, generative, and governing aspects of God. We can only bring life into existence together; we can only be fruitful together; we can only appropriately care for the creation together.  The first of those statements is obvious to all – we need a sperm and an egg to make a new human being.  But the last two statements are just as important. In order to be truly fruitful in all ways, women and men must work together.  In order to rule creation wisely, men and women have to rule together.  This is the basis of the covenant of marriage – the fulfillment of the image of God.  

Does that mean that single people cannot be fully in the image of God? No!  Every person carries the image of God.  But we are created for relationship and the relationship that is expressed in  the marriage covenant is a sign of God’s covenant with God’s people.  Ideally, it reveals to the world how God cares for the world. 

In Genesis 2 we see another way of understanding the relationship between male and female. Here the adam (the Hebrew word for human, either male or female) is made from the adamah (the Hebrew word for “earth”).  When the breath of God turns this little “earthperson” into a nephesh, or a being full of passions and desires and “selfhood,” God looks at the person and realizes that there is a problem: the person is alone.  God says for the first time, “it is not good.” What God is wanting for the person is an ezer kenegdo—a fit helper.  In the King James version of the Bible this was translated as a “help meet” which conjured images of one who was subordinate. However, the word ezer  (whether as a noun or an adjective) is most often referring to God, as in   Psalm 30:10 Hear, O LORD, and be gracious to me! O LORD, be my helper!” A helper is one who encourages, protects and saves. A helper is life-giving. 

 When the story tells us that God took the person and used the rib or side of the person to make (or build, as the Hebrew says) a woman, the words now used are that God built an ishah  (Hebrew forwoman) out of the ish (Hebrew for man).  I think what we are to learn from this story is that men and women have a special relationship in the created order.  

Unfortunately, in the next chapter the woman fails in her job as helper when she gives the apple to the man who is standing with her.  The man fails in his job as helper by failing to speak up in her conversation with the snake.  But the failure in the story should not blind us to the intent in creation.

Marriage as a sign of God’s love for God’s people

The image of marriage as a fundamental sign of God’s love for God’s people is found throughout the Old and New Testaments. 

One way in which we are shown in the Old Testament the sacredness of marriage is that it is used as a metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel.

Jeremiah 2:1-2 The word of the LORD came to me, saying:  ² Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD: I remember the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, how you followed me in the wilderness, in a land not sown.

Isaiah 61:10  ¹⁰ I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Isaiah 62:4-5   ⁴ You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the LORD delights in you, and your land shall be married.  ⁵ For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your builder marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

The analogy becomes even more forceful when used to speak about the unfaithfulness of Israel.  The people of God are called adulterous; they are named whores when they follow after other gods. This is offensive language.  I think it is intended to be offensive to give an indication of the offensiveness of seeking other gods. 

Malachi 2:11   ¹¹ Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.

Jeremiah 3:1-3  ^NRS Jeremiah 3:1 If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me? says the LORD.  ² Look up to the bare heights, and see! Where have you not been lain with? By the waysides you have sat waiting for lovers, like a nomad in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your whoring and wickedness.  ³ Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have the forehead of a whore, you refuse to be ashamed.

If you want more see Ezekiel 16:23-49 and the whole book of Hosea.

When we get to the New Testament, we in the Gospel of John that Jesus is seen as the bridegroom explicitly:

John 3:26-29  ²⁶ They came to John and said to him, "Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him."  ²⁷ John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven.  ²⁸ You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, 'I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.'  ²⁹ He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled.

Jesus also uses this metaphor for himself:

Matthew 9:14-15   ¹⁴ Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?"  ¹⁵ And Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

In addition, Jesus uses the image of marriage in some of his parables to describe the kingdom:

Matthew 25:1-13  ^NRS Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.  ² Five of them were foolish, and five were wise.  ³ When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them;  ⁴ but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps.  ⁵ As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept.  ⁶ But at midnight there was a shout, 'Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.'  ⁷ Then all those bridesmaids got up and trimmed their lamps.  ⁸ The foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.'  ⁹ But the wise replied, 'No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.'  ¹⁰ And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut.  ¹¹ Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.'  ¹² But he replied, 'Truly I tell you, I do not know you.'  ¹³ Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

Finally, Revelation has extensive references to the bridegroom (Jesus) and the bride (the church). See for example: 

Revelation 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready;

Revelation 21:2 And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Now let’s look at that passage in Ephesians 5 that Baptists seem to love and United Methodists seem to hate:  

Ephesians 5:21 - 6:1  ²¹ Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.  ²² Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.  ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior.  ²⁴ Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.  ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,  ²⁶ in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word,  ²⁷ so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind-- yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.  ²⁸ In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.  ²⁹ For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church,  ³⁰ because we are members of his body.  ³¹ "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  ³² This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.  ³³ Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. 

First off, it is important to start reading in verse 21 where it says to be subject to one another. So what follows can be understood as a fuller explanation of how to be subject to one another, not how the woman should be subject to the man.  This is often read as saying that the woman should be “subordinate” to the man. But that would contradict both Genesis 1 and 2 and the rest of this passage. The job of the man, after all is to sacrifice himself for the woman and to encourage her sanctification.  [Full disclosure: I am blessed to be in a marriage where my husband has made a lot of sacrifices to enable me to be a pastor because he believes that is allowing me to be all that God made me to be.  He is fulfilling the role that Paul lays out here.] In fact, I would argue that the focus in this passage is on the relationship between Christ and the church.  The marriage, the relationship between the man and the woman is a sign of the much more important relationship.  

So why does only a male-female marital relationship reveal the relationship between Christ and the church?  Why wouldn’t any marital relationship—male/male, female/female or male/female—do this equally well?  I can understand how it possible to argue that they can, as a matter of fact. But I think a stronger argument is that only in the male/female relationship is there a relationship between those who are significantly “other.”  We’ve all heard lots of jokes about the difficulties in men and women understanding each other.  Most of those jokes are just silly; but there is some truth to them.  I will never completely understand the male perspective, because I am not male.  Some of you don’t think that matters; I do. 

One of the things that bothers me about Gay and Lesbian relationships has to do with the issue of leaving out the “other.” I don’t see relationships between two men or two women as a full expression of the relationship that God intended.  While two women or two men can love each other dearly and intimately, they can never be “one flesh.”  They can’t reflect the relationship between Creator and created who are very different but meant for one another.  

In Closing – A personal plea

This is a very brief overview of how I understand marriage on the basis of the Bible. I know this will not “convince” many people to change their stance.  But I deeply dislike simplistic views of scripture from both camps and I am trying to be faithful to a reasoned and faithful view of scripture. 

In all honesty, I would rather hold a different view of gay and lesbian relationships.  It would be simpler and people would not hate and ridicule me.  I could go along and get along. I could affirm the love that I know is very real in GL relationships without having a problem with certain aspects of those relationships, and therefore would not be in conflict with some wonderful people. I could present myself as modern and relevant and it would be a lot easier to reach out to the “nones.”  However, because I read the Bible as I do, and because I understand it to be authoritative for my life (see Excursus in Part1), it would be hypocritical of me to present myself as totally accepting of open marriage (and ordination) and I don’t think that would appeal to the “nones” either.   I maintain that I can love people with whom I disagree and I will keep trying to do that.  I hope that those who know me will try to love me back.   

On Biblical Marriage: Part 2, The New Testament

Part 1 
Part 3

(Note: Though these posts are on “Biblical Marriage,” I am addressing the issue of same-sex unions as well as traditional marriage because in today’s environment we can’t seem to talk about one without including the other.  I think that one problem the church has had is that it has failed to have a strong “theology of marriage.” These posts are a very small beginning on that task – one which I hope to do much more thoroughly over time.)

In the Gospels, Jesus doesn’t speak about marriage often. However, what he does say (first in the Sermon on the Mount and later to the Pharisees) affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman.  Interestingly, Jesus quotes both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 in the passage from Matthew 19, bringing together the two creation stories. He also adds that God has joined the man and woman,  and no one should separate them.

Matthew 5:31-32   ³¹"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' ³²But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:3-9  ³Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" ⁴He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' ⁵and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." ⁷They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" ⁸He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. ⁹And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

Jesus is not quoting law here; he is talking about the nature of God’s creation. He sees the creation of male and female and the marriage of the two as somehow at the heart of creation (a concept I will explore more fully in the next post).  The law provided for divorce because of the brokenness of the world, but that is not the way that God intends for the world to be.  

In addition, Jesus radically redefines adultery and thus redefines marriage. 

Matthew 5:27-28   ²⁷"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' ²⁸But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  

In the Gospel of Mark, in particular, we see that Jesus makes adultery a sin against a woman as well as a sin against a man and by doing so shows the woman is an equal partner in the marriage.  

Mark 10:10-12  ¹⁰Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. ¹¹He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her;  ¹² and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Though many argue that the silence of Jesus about same-sex unions means that he must not have disapproved, Robert Gagnon shows the foolishness of that position: “If Jesus had wanted to communicate affirmation of same-sex unions he would have had to state such a view clearly since first-century Judaism, so far as we know, had no dissenting voices on the matter. Without a clear statement none of his disciples would have made such a logical leap.”  Gagnon, Robert A (2010-10-01). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Kindle Locations 3829-3831). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

It isn’t just a leap, it is a huge jump across a chasm!  In a sense Jesus strengthened the laws having to do with sexual purity and marriage.  It makes little sense to say that he would have totally abrogated the one on homosexual unions.

It has also been argued that Jesus was interested in love; that the loving relationships between same-sex couples are equivalent to a faithful, committed marriage between a man and a woman. Once again, there is no evidence for that.  

This would probably be a good time to say something about divorce. I often hear the argument that “The church permits divorce; why not permit same-sex marriage? Are we not being hypocritical to allow one and not the other?”  Yes, we do permit divorce in the church; in fact, I have even counseled people to consider divorce, particularly in cases of abuse. No one should stay in a marriage where they are abused.  It is not the “Christian” thing to do. “Turn the other cheek” was not meant for abused spouses.  If your husband (or, for that matter, your wife) is abusing you, they have broken the marriage covenant already.  

However—and this is a large however—we do not teach that divorce is a happy and wonderful thing. We do not teach that divorce is a sign of the kingdom. We teach that divorce is the result of a broken world. And I don’t know anyone who has had a divorce that is proud and happy that their marriage failed. 

I suppose it would be possible to argue that same-sex marriages could be seen the same way. That it is better for a same-sex couple to marry than to “burn,” as Paul put it.  That, even though marriage would ideally be between a man and a woman, in some cases, due to our imperfect, broken world, some people are born with a “natural” same-sex attraction and should be able to be in the best relationship possible, even if it is not ideal.  Well, one might argue that—but, of course, that is not the argument.  What the LGBTQI coalition argues is that same-sex marriage is perfectly normal and acceptable. And the Christian side of the coalition wants to argue that same-sex marriage is just as representative of the kingdom as traditional marriage.  They want to say that same-sex marriage is all about love and faithful commitment and God smiles on their (sexual) relationships.  

Back to the Bible . . . 

When we look at the works of Paul we see a much more complete understanding of marriage.  Paul’s most extensive writing about marriage is found in 1 Corinthians 7.  Let’s look at it fairly carefully.  Paul is evidently writing in response to a question from the Corinthians about whether or not marriage is acceptable. He responds in the affirmative, believing that immorality would result from forbidding marriage.  What is fascinating about this passage is that Paul gives the same advice to the man as to the woman.  The man cannot deny his wife her “conjugal rights,” and the woman cannot deny her husband; unless, of course, they agree on it. And when Paul says “the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does,” a statement that sounds very patriarchal and traditional, he follows it with, “And the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does!!” (exclamation points are mine) The mutuality that Paul calls for really is extraordinary. Yes, Paul goes on to say that he wishes everyone were like him (celibate) because he is happy with his state and the fact that it allows him to focus on and serve the God that he adores. But he is fully aware that this is a gift from God.  

Paul continues his statement by insisting that believing spouses should not separate from unbelieving spouses if those unbelieving spouses wish to remain together.  Believers can “sanctify” the unbelievers, making them holy – presumably because they are “one flesh.”

I think I know what the response will be: all of these things could be true of same-sex couples as well as they could of male-female couples.  Isn’t it better for a same-sex couple to marry than to be involved in immorality? Doesn’t Paul acknowledge that marriage is itself a concession, so that same-sex marriage would just be another kind of concession?  I might agree except for the matter of Romans 1.

So let’s just address it now: what do we do with Romans 1:26-27?  I know the arguments here as well:

• Paul was not talking about a faithful, committed, monogamous same-sex relationship.
• Paul was talking about an exploitive relationship between men and boys.
• When Paul mentions “unnatural” intercourse he is failing to take into account same-sex orientation, which is natural for homosexuals. 

 All of these excuses assume that Paul was unaware of orientation and committed relationships. However, the scholarship that I have read (by LGBT supporters, I might add) insist that homosexuality was well-known in the Roman empire and that same-sex relationships (male-male) were well thought of in Greek society and at least tolerated in Roman society.  If this is true (and who am I to argue with the likes of John Boswell and Louis Crompton?) then Paul was in exactly the same situation that we are in currently and was very clear on where he stood.  

I have not used a number of the “clobber passages” (as they are called) in this essay, because I don’t think they are necessary to make the case.  (My readers are, of course, free to disagree with me.) I don’t think that it is necessary to talk about homosexuality as an abomination or to argue the point about what the Greek terms ‘really’ mean.  When we come at the issue of same-sex ‘marriage’ by first looking at what the Bible says about marriage, we don’t have to demonize. And, I might add, we don’t have to require that those outside the Christian faith abide by our understanding.  While I believe that Christians need to vote their consciences, we may not have the majority.  That should not stop us from holding to our own point of view and teaching and preaching what we believe.  If we are the ones demonized because we don’t agree with the views of the greater society, then so be it.  Our call is always to approach people with love and grace, especially those with whom we disagree.

On Biblical Marriage: Part 1

Sarah presenting Hagar to Abraham

(Please note: this is really a work in progress.  It does not say everything that I would want to say, but indicates the direction of my thinking. I expect to be expanding and refining this argument over time. I also highly recommend N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God, especially for an excellent discussion of monogamy in the last chapter.)

Those who complain about Christians citing “biblical marriage” as a reason for denying marriage to same-sex couples ostensibly have a good point.  A Facebook page called:  Traditional Biblical Marriage: Trading Women for Money and Other Goods, lists lots of quotes from the Bible (mainly the Old Testament) that show women being (as it says) traded for money and other goods.  It shows that the Old Testament men had multiple wives, evidently with God’s blessing.  So why would someone who accepts the Bible as somehow authoritative think that God-ordained marriage is one man-one woman? In order to answer that question, we will have to look at several things. In this post I will address how I think one should interpret the Old Testament passages that seem to validate polygamy and buying wives.  Next I will look at some of those texts to see what we can learn about marriage.  In future posts,  I will consider the New Testament texts and, finally, I will take a look at the broader understanding of marriage that we can draw out of the creation stories and the metaphor of God as the bridegroom. 

My thesis is this: Throughout the Old Testament, men are judged by how they treat women, in marriages and other relationships.  Whenever men break covenant, fail to trust God, etc. poor treatment of women follows.

First: An Excursus on How I Interpret the Bible

I have written elsewhere about my basic method of interpretation more extensively, so here I will only give a brief summary.  I take the bible to be “authoritative” in the rich sense laid out by N. T. Wright in Scripture and the Authority of God. I read the Bible to learn about God and the relationship that God has had with God’s people.  I read to learn about the mighty acts of God in salvation history, in renewing the world.  But I also read to know God and who I am in relationship to God. For me the bible conveys information, but it also allows God to work in and through me, by the power of the Holy Spirit; it allows me to be transformed and renewed.  I take the words of scripture very seriously because I believe that it is important to understand why a passage reads one way and not another.  Why was this word used and not that word?  Why were these stories that ones that were saved and not other stories? In the end, the story of God and God’s people becomes my story, with the climax of the story being the redemptive act of Jesus on the cross and through the resurrection.  That is the highlight of history for me. 

My job then, is to live in a way that is consistent with this story; to live a kingdom life. And to do that, I have to study the bible in its cultural context, I have to read it devotionally, I have to read it both privately and together with others in the community of faith, both current and historical, I have to use it for worship.  Above all I have to ask the Holy Spirit to be at work in me as I read and humbly beg for mercy when I am inevitably wrong about some things.

Leaving aside Genesis one and two for the moment, the model of marriage in Genesis is not one that I would hold up for anyone to imitate.  However, I don’t think the point of Genesis is to present heroes for our imitation, but to present fallible human beings to show us the grace of God.  Not one of those multiple marriages in Genesis turns out well.  Abraham tried to substitute Hagar for Sarah, because he did not trust God to fulfill God’s promise to him. But God made sure he knew that Sarah was just as important to the covenant as Abraham.  Then God cared for Hagar and her son.  The conflicts that arise out of the two sons – the son of Sarah as the forerunner of the Jewish people and the son of Hagar as the forerunner of the Arab people – are conflicts that have lasted for thousands of years.  As another example of how polygamous marriage grows out of the deceit of men and causes generational conflict, see the story of Jacob.  In the story of Jacob, the conflicts between Jacob’s four wives are at the root of the conflicts between the tribes of Israel.  

In addition to the problems with polygamous marriages, sexual “impurity” crops up as a sign (not a cause, but a sign) of other kinds of moral failure.  A passage that gets used and misused extensively is Genesis 19 – the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  I would argue that it is neither a passage about a group of homosexuals, nor just a passage about bad hospitality.  The desire of the men of the town to rape the angels is symptomatic of their desires to satisfy their lusts in other ways, indicated by the oppression of the surrounding people.  And Lot’s offer to give them his virgin daughters shows his own lack of righteousness (they get back at him later on when they get him drunk and have sex with their father in a cave). 

The poor treatment of women in Genesis in other passages – the story of Dinah and Shechem, the way that Laban tricks Jacob into taking both his daughters, and Judah’s treatment of Tamar all show problems with this family that is supposed to carry the covenant. Judah, in particular recognizes that even though Tamar has deceived him and acted as a prostitute, she is “more righteous” than he is because her ingenuity enables the family line that carries the covenant to continue.

Leviticus has several texts that the LGTB movement calls “clobber” passages, having to do with improper sexual relationships.  And many people argue that since we no longer follow all the laws in Leviticus, and these laws are culturally conditioned, we no longer need to uphold the laws that deal with sexual misconduct.  See for example Leviticus 18:4-24.  This passage begins with a list of all those relatives that you are not supposed to have sexual relations with: your father, your mother, your father’s wife, your sister, your father’s daughter, your mother’s daughter, your son’s daughter, your daughter’s daughter, your father’s sister, your mother’s sister, your father’s brother’s wife, your son’s wife, your brother’s wife, both a woman and her daughter, your wife’s sister (unless your wife dies), a menstruating women, your kinsman’s wife—all of this through verse 20.  Verse 21 forbids offering your children as a sacrifice to Molech, and then we have the famous passage in verse 22: You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.  Continuing in verse 23 the people are forbidden to have sexual relations with any animal. And verse 24 is the point of the whole thing: Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. In other words, these are the typical practices of those who are not the people of God, particularly the sacrifice of children, lying with a male as with a woman and having sexual relations with animals.

If we are going to say that Leviticus, and in particular the text prohibiting homosexual relationships, no longer has cultural relevance, instead of citing the laws having to do with what kind of cloth can be woven together, we should look at the actually literary context of the passage.  Do we tend to accept or throw out the other laws having to do with sexual relations?  Why or why not? Let’s look again: The list of sexual prohibitions in verses 4-20 are, in a sense, very practical for keeping the peace in families and tribes and for keeping genetic diversity within the community.   Actually, for the most part, we still see the validity of most of them. The list of prohibitions in 21-24 have to do with keeping yourselves separate from the nations around you.  You are called to be different. You are called to holiness, to be holy as God is holy.  The only one of those prohibitions that is currently being called into question is the one about lying with a man as with a woman.  We are still on board with prohibition of child sacrifice and sexual relations with animals.  In the context of Leviticus, in the context of being called to holiness, if we are going to take seriously sexual holiness, we might not want to totally discard Leviticus.  (I will discuss Jesus approach to this in the next post.)

In Deuteronomy we are introduced to the concept of Levirate marriage – a man must take his brother’s wife if his brother dies.  This is not a recipe for the normative view of marriage but a protection for the women who could not survive without a family.  Any children the brother had with the woman were technically children of the dead brother.  This meant that the child would inherit the dead man’s property and thus his mother would be cared for. We may not like this way of doing things but at the time it made sense. 

Probably the most atrocious example of women (and children) being abused is found in Judges 19-21.  I won’t go into it here, but please note that the final line of the book shows the cause of the abuse: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.”  If we want to know the consequences on society of doing what is right in our own eyes, this story from Judges tells us what to expect. 

On to the multiple marriages of the Kings . . . 

The women around David are foils in displaying parts of his character.  Michal, the daughter of Saul shows that David is taking not only the spirit and the Kingship from Saul, but has taken the love of his children as well.  David cares nothing for Michal as anything but the daughter of the king; someone he needed in order to further his political ambitions.  When David takes Bathsheba in adultery, once again this is indicative of his sinful nature, not a suggestion that taking multiple wives is a good thing. The wives and concubines of David become pawns in the succession narrative; when Absalom sleeps with the women, he is declaring that he is king, he is usurping the power of his father. Later on, Adonijah tries to take control of the throne by taking control of the last woman to sleep with David (at least that is how Solomon sees it!).  And certainly the multiple wives of Solomon are a bad influence on him, leading him astray by causing him to worship other gods.

In summary, alternatives to monogamous marriage do show up in the Hebrew Scriptures.  And even “monogamous” marriages are not always models for emulation. I know that some religious traditions argue that multiple wives are encouraged by the Hebrew Scriptures, but by my reading of them, they emphatically do not encourage us to think that multiple wives are a good thing.  The practice always leads to conflict.  And even further than that, both polygamy and poor treatment of women both in and out of marriage is almost always either a cause or a symptom of men straying from the covenant and straying from trust in and worship of God.

In the next installment – New Testament passages regarding marriage.