Today I would like to take some time to reacquaint the world with the Biblical View of Marriage.
TERMINOLOGY
Let’s begin with terminology, There is no single biblical view of marriage
and in fact, there’s not a single word in the Bible that corresponds to the English
word “marriage” as we know it.
How do we know then something like a “marriage” took place?
In most cases, men are the subjects and women are the objects of transactions that constitute
a marriage.
When the Holy Bible describes men “taking”, “giving,” and “bringing” women and
other goods to create, mediate, and strengthen alliances among men, that’s when we know!
The words typically translated as “husband” and “wife” are generally used elsewhere
in the Bible to refer to a “man” and “woman”.
Adam and Eve, who are usually understood to be the first example of a marriage never actually
got married in the Bible and the word “Wife” here is actually just “woman.”
In Gen 3:16 God explicitly says to the woman that her man “will rule over her.”
At that moment, man then names the woman, reducing her to the status of cattle which
serve as a functional utility in relation to a man.
The most common Hebrew term for a family or household literally translates to “the house
of the father.”
Two additional words that are sometimes translated into English as “husband”: ba’al (master)
and adon (lord).
So when translators use words like “marriage” and “husband”, they are doing so to suppress
the language of male rule, since these are the same words used to describe relations
between master and slave, and the relations between deities and their worshippers.
Here are some examples:
Didn't you ever wonder why in a traditional wedding ceremony the bride’s father walks his daughter
down the aisle towards the groom to be met with the question, “ “Who gives this woman
to be married to this man?”
Or even before that day, why a man traditionally asks on woman's father for permission to marry his daughter?
Because women were considered the property of men.
The exchange of daughters alongside animals and other property served to establish alliances
and obligations between kinship groups.
This is quite apparent when you examine the 9th and 10th commandments, when you see a
“wife” grouped alongside an ox and a slave.
In short, biblical marriage meant male ownership of women who existed solely for sexual pleasure
and productivity.
Upon marriage, a woman’s property and her body became the possession of her new husband.
As the head of the household, men usually between the ages of 18-24 years old had nearly
unlimited rights over wives and children.
A woman became available for men’s possession soon after she reached puberty (usually 11-13
years old), that is when she became physically able to produce children.
POLGYGYNY, PRODUCTIVITY, AND BARRENNESS
The family was crucial to the ancient world and the marital obligation of sexual intercourse
was best understood in agricultural terms with the male being the sower of the seed
and the female as the field in which the seed is transformed and from which it is brought forth.
In the patriarchal economy a woman’s value is determined by her productivity, her fertility,
her fieldship.
So you can imagine that one of the worst misfortunes that could bestow upon a woman was barrenness.
A woman who could not conceive was socially stigmatized as not truly a woman at all and
was likely suspected of being a grave sinner to have warranted such a punishment by God.
As with fields, men can increase their holdings with women.
A man can accumulate many fields, but the field can only have 1 owner and he must recognize
the proprietorial rights of other men over their fields.
This is known was “polygyny” (many women) rather than “polygamy” (many spouses).
To ensure that any offspring were the legitimate heirs, women were restricted to just one sex
partner, her husband.
However, the husband maintained the right to have multiple sex partners – wives, concubines,
war booty, sexual slaves, and even prostitutes.
And not all acquired women share the same status.
Some of the women who have been translated to “concubine” (pilegesh,) derive from
Latin term that was used to refer to individuals in a Roman system of non-marital but recognized
“friends with benefits” sexual relationships (both opposite-sex and same-sex).
But this may not be a perfect translation, for it could also refer to a “wife of secondary rank."
Acquiring wives, concubines, and siring sons reflect power and prestige.
A man’s sexual potency and his political power were often interrelated.
We see this illustrated in the The Story of King David --
During the period of political and military struggle between David and the house of Saul
(after his death), 2 Sam 3:1b states “David grew stronger and stronger, while the house
of Saul became weaker and weaker.”
The narrator immediately follows this political comment by indicating that David had six sons
by six different wives.
That is to say, the multiplication of wives and sons to David is understood to correspond
to and even demonstrate symbolically his increasing military strength.
In today’s culture numerous sexual conquests can increase a young man’s prestige in the
eyes other men.
Conversely, the consequences of sexual activity with multiple partners are usually quite different
for a woman’s reputation and status.
A man who is good at being a man, so far as acquiring wives and siring sons is concerned,
will probably be a capable military figure and will garner prestige and support from
other Israelite men.
Perhaps this is the reason why we always see the families of candidates during political
campaigns in the United States.
(Americans want to see that everything works).
Absalom, David’s son, engaged in public-sex with his father’s concubines to shame David’s
manliness and in turn his political power in order to earn respect in the eyes of his
fellow male Israelites.
(2 Sam 16:22) Absalom hoped to demonstrate that by the King’s inability to control
sexual access to the women of David’s household he’s not good at being a man, and hence
not good at being king, either.
Such a demonstration amounts to a kind of symbolic castration.
These types of sexual politics are frequent throughout First and Second Books of Samuel.
And we even find a commentary on political impotence at the beginning of First Kings,
when David was advanced in years fails to have sex with a virgin.
ADULTERY, RAPE, VIRGINITY, AND INTERMARRIAGE.
Rape and Adultery were considered crimes again men not women.
If a man rapes a virgin (Deut 22:28-29), he was required to marry her since her father
would now have a difficult time find her a suitable husband.
Woman’s consent meant nothing in the Biblical world.
Virginity was seen as purity, and subsequently valuable!
It’s not unheard of for newlyweds to be accompanied into the wedding chamber by their
parents to witness proof of the bride’s virginity upon consummation.
In fact, marriages weren’t considered valid until the act of consummation took place.
Sex is to marriage as water is to Baptism!
Ever wonder why we cling glasses at wedding receptions to get the newly weds to kiss?
Because historically, the act of consummation took place immediately following the ceremony,
while the guests waited in the other parts of the house.
To give the couple privacy, the party goers would clang and bang on pots and pans while
the couple banged in the bedroom.
The offense of adultery is against the man who is supposed to have authority over the
offended woman’s sexuality – be it her husband or her father.
If the adulterous man is married himself, the offense is not against his own wife.
The theme of adultery is a common one in Prophetic Literature.
The Book of Hosea describes God as husband who struggles to retain control over his wife, Israel.
The image of a woman’s free sexuality is used to describe the effects of apostasy and rebellion.
Sexual violence is used against women to signify divine punishment of a faithless Israel.
Feminists hate this book.
If a married man has sexual relations with an unmarried prostitute, there is no indication
in the Hebrew Bible that he has committed adultery even though he himself is married.
Adultery violates a man’s right to have exclusive sexual access to his woman, but
it does not violate a woman’s right to have exclusive sexual access to her husband.”
In regards to Prostitution, although it was a shameful and stigmatized occupation for
women, it was tolerated in ancient Israel.
Women who had no father, husband, or other male relative to take care of them in the
patriarchal societies of the Ancient Near East may have had few other options for survival.
Intermarriage – that is marriage between Jews and gentiles was against Mosaic law – but
not always followed.
The prohibition on marrying a non-Jew has less to do with race, but more out of fear
of idolatry and cultural contamination… what we see happen with King Solomon after
he marries foreign women.
JESUS’ TEACHINGS ON MARRIAGE
Now you all might be wondering, what Jesus had to say about marriage.
Not a whole lot although he did use marital imagery in parables every now and then.
He of course attended a wedding feast, but couldn’t get through it without having to
make more wine.
Conservatives like to point to this story in the Gospel of John that this is proof that
Jesus approves solely of heterosexual weddings since he attended one.
When asked about divorce, which comes from a word that means “to let go of” (again
think property rights here), Jesus says not to do it except in the case of “pornea,” which
refers to sexual immorality.
And finally, in attempting to resolve some questions surrounding reunification with spouses
after death, Jesus says that the point is moot since in the afterlife we are like angels
and therefore marriage no longer exists.
Since there’s no longer a need for procreation, there’s no longer a need for marriage.
And so the institution of marriage which in Jesus’ cultural context was primarily understood
as a property right is abolished.
Now for the homosexuals that may be watching, I will now talk about some biblical
stories about “alternative” families that you might find fascinating.
In the Book of Ruth, Naomi leaves Bethlehem as the wife of Elimelech and the mother of
two sons, but returns as a woman who has been joined by another woman, who cleaves to her
with a solemn declaration ‘before the Lord nothing will part me from you” (Ruth 1:17)
At the beginning of the Book’s first chapter, Naomi reflects a family under the traditional
patriarchal norm, but by the close of the first chapter finds a situation that is unique
in the entire Hebrew Bible: a close relationship between two women.
When Ruth ‘clings’ or “cleaves” to her mother-in-law (1:14) it echos Genesis
2:24, designating the passionate embrace of male and female in creation.
-Two verses later, there’s a proclamation by Ruth that is often used today as part of
sacred vows at wedding ceremonies.
There is nothing to prevent the reader from speculating that “the two become one.”
When the women return to Naomi’s hometown of Bethlehem, they are forced to find a
way to shelter their love within the patriarchal confines of Judean society.
So through the direction of Naomi, Ruth seduces Boaz, becomes pregnant, and thus marries him
ensuring economic stability.
In the homosexual lingo, you could say that Boaz serves as Ruth’s “beard”.
When Boaz and Ruth’s child is born, the village women rejoice NOT at a son being born
to BOAZ, but a son being given to Naomi (4:15).
Naomi literally takes the child from Ruth and lays him in her own lap while the women
of Bethlehem proclaim “Naomi has a son.” (4:17).
So not only was Boaz the economic provider and “beard” to these women, but also the
sperm donor to allow this lesbian couple to have a child.
Love is never referenced between Boaz and Ruth.
But there is jubilation among the women of Bethlehem when they talk of Ruth’s ‘devotion’
or ‘love’ for Naomi (4:15).
The story of Ruth not only ranks as the earliest, but also one of the most beautiful depictions
of female same-sex love in the Bible.
Although you may not agree with this interpretation, you must at the very least recognize that
the family dynamics of these two women, alongside Boaz is a queer one, that is out of the ordinary.
It’s also interesting to point out that Ruth & Naomi’s son is a distant ancestor
to Jesus Christ, who likewise is born into an alternative situation.
The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke say that Mary and Joseph were betrothed, that
is “engaged” or “promised to be married.”
When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant, Jewish law would’ve demanded her execution
for having shamed him by committing adultery.
She was pregnant with someone else’s child.
In society’s eyes, she was a grave sinner.
He was going to leave her quietly so that this fate would not befall on her, but chose
not to after an encounter with God.
In other words, his prayerful conscience allowed to defy church teaching.
Had Joseph been caught up in the traditional orthodox interpretation and practice of Jewish
law, Mary and her unborn child would’ve been put to death.
Matthew describes Joseph as a righteous man and in this case righteousness was adhering
to compassion over the law.
And through this compassion, Christ was made manifest!
Roman Catholic tradition goes on to say that Joseph never had marital relations with Mary.
This would’ve been very countercultural since the primary purpose of marriage was procreation.
This not only would’ve been against the so-called “natural function” of marriage,
but also traditional gender role of a husband and wife.
In addition, it’s worth mentioning that male-female genital activity does not bring
Christ into this world, but the actions of an “alternative family.”
A third alternative “family” story that takes place later in the New Testament again
in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke was when Jesus is approached by a Roman Centurion who
asks him to heal his servant.
The Greek word Matthew uses for the servant is, pais, a term regularly used in Hellenistic
literature to designate the “younger beloved of same-sex love.”
The fact that a Roman in this scene pleads to a Jew would’ve been seen an unconventional,
since as a soldier his role was to rule, control, and dominate.
This give us character insight into how little the centurion regards his social norms.
Jesus’ response is interesting, explaining that “in all Israel he has not seen such
faithfulness.”
(8:10).
Now at first glance, this response can easily be interpreted as Jesus approving of the soldier’s
faith in Jesus Christ to heal the servant.
But why not suggest that Jesus’ reply may have actually been about the soldier’s faithfulness
to his slave; remarking on a love for a beloved that risks humiliation and danger to restore
the beloved to wholeness.
I can certainly see Jesus relating to love in that manner.
Culturally, since marrying was forbidden while serving in the military, warriors were often accompanied
by younger male companions who shared in the adventures and the dangers of their “lovers”
(see Jud 9:54, 1 Sam 9, 1 Sam 14).
Similar accounts of love between older and younger warriors are found in later stories
of classical Greece, “flower” warriors in Korea, and Samurai love in Japan.
Here Jesus appears to approve of love that includes unswerving loyalty and care of lovers
for their beloveds.
He did not shun someone who possibly may be a homosexual believer, but instead affirmed
and aided him.
It’s not without a sense of irony that each time Roman Catholics go up to the alter to
receive the Holy Eucharist, an act that is forbidden for homosexuals to participate in,
they recite the words, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only
the say the word and my soul will be healed.”
Ironic because these are the words the gay centurion spoke to Jesus.
Could this be subliminal messaging of the homosexual agenda?
In conclusion, it’s interesting that it’s these three alternative family stories, not
the heterosexual ones, that best reflect the love and nurturing component that we think
of today when it comes to biblical marriage.
Perhaps they were just ahead of our time!