{"id":474,"date":"2019-05-25T11:23:34","date_gmt":"2019-05-25T03:23:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jesus4lesbians.com\/?p=474"},"modified":"2019-05-25T17:49:04","modified_gmt":"2019-05-25T09:49:04","slug":"what-does-the-bible-declare-about-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/?p=474","title":{"rendered":"What does the Bible declare about marriage?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Arguments from Authority: The Bible and Church Tradition<\/strong><\/p>\n

3.2.1 Does the Bible support the contention that marriage must be limited to one man and one woman?<\/strong><\/p>\n

When public discourse first considered the possibility of giving legal protection to same-sex unions, most Christian communities were alarmed at this because they judged that the traditional ideal of marriage was under attack.\u00a0 Dr. Andreas J. Kostenberger<\/a>, a widely published Protestant theologian, took offense at the very fact that civil discourse was entertaining to give further recognition and protection to same-sex unions at a time when traditional marital unions were in decline.\u00a0 Here are the words of Dr. Kostenberger explaining himself:<\/p>\n

#1\u00a0 Marriage and the family are institutions under siege today, and only a return to the biblical foundation of these God-given institutions will reverse the decline of marriage and the family in our culture today.<\/p>\n

#2\u00a0 In the book of Genesis, we read that God in the beginning created first a man (Adam) to exercise dominion over his creation and subsequently a woman (Eve) as the man’s “suitable helper” (Gen 2:18, 20). Then, the inspired writer remarks, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 ESV). This verse sets forth the biblical pattern as it was instituted by God at the beginning: one man is united to one woman in matrimony, and the two form one new natural family.<\/p>\n

#3\u00a0 The Bible makes clear that, at the root, marriage and the family are not human conventions based merely on a temporary consensus and time-honored tradition. Instead, Scripture teaches that family was God’s idea and that marriage is a divine, not merely human, institution. The implication of this truth is significant indeed, for this means that humans are not free to renegotiate or redefine marriage and the family in any way they choose but that they are called to preserve and respect what has been divinely instituted ((https:\/\/www.frc.org\/brochure\/the-Bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family)<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The passion and the insights that are voiced by Dr. Andreas J. Kostenberger have, at first glance, a certain seductive simplicity and appeal.\u00a0 Gen 2, as Dr. Kostenberger interprets it, gives us God\u2019s original template for marriage that is binding at all times and in all places. Kostenberger firmly believes that the appeal of\u00a0 same-sex marriages will disappear as soon as civil society comes to recognize that marriage is a divine institution and that \u201chumans are not free to renegotiate or redefine marriage.\u201d\u00a0 Here Kostenberger is tacitly declaring that civil institutions are not free to ignore God\u2019s universal template for marriage.<\/p>\n

Pealing Back the Hidden Layers in Gen 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

The moment that one begins to examine the details of Gen 2, however, we immediately notice that God is not preoccupied with instituting \u201cmarriage.\u201d Rather, the Lord God is preoccupied with creating an extraordinary garden. Then, by way of getting a helper for this enterprise, he fashions out of the clay \u201cadam.\u201d\u00a0 Nowhere does it say that adam is a male or that \u201cAdam\u201d is his proper name. \u00a0The capitalization of \u201cAdam\u201d in English Bibles is thus misleading.\u00a0 Moreover, if adam was a proper name then we might have expected that this name would be used by others in the book of Genesis. This does not happen.\u00a0 Rather, the Hebrew term { \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u0599 } means simply \u201cout of the earth.\u201d This being the case, I would suggest that the Hebrew term might better be translated into English as \u201cearthling\u201d which nicely suggests \u201corigins from the earth,\u201d therefore certainly not an extraterrestrial being or an angel (as some have wrongly claimed).<\/p>\n

While adam (the earthling) is being trained as a gardener by the Lord God, adam is stricken with loneliness. Seemingly God is immune from \u201cloneliness.\u201d Hence, he doesn\u2019t know exactly how to help adam overcome his loneliness. So he begins to create \u201cfrom the earth\u201d various birds and animals. After each such creation, he has to bring his latest brainchild to adam to see \u201cwhat he would name it.\u201d\u00a0 Clearly here God is using a trial and error method.\u00a0 Adam names each falcon, lizard, wolf following his own experiences with them.\u00a0 It would make no sense for the Lord God to name them.\u00a0 From God\u2019s perspective, he is trying to make a \u201chelpmate for adam\u201d that will dispel his loneliness. This endeavor must go on for months and years. Without actually saying it, the inspired author is suggesting that God is clearly \u201cadam\u2019s servant\u201d in this prolonged enterprise.<\/p>\n

This is important here.\u00a0 In the Ancient Middle East, it is usual to find \u201cgods\u201d functioning as powerful tyrants. \u00a0It is normal to find \u201cgods\u201d bent upon thwarting the needs of humans. Gen 2, in contrast, presents the Lord God of Israel as engaged in an open-ended exploration alongside adam.\u00a0 Thus, while adam was originally created to serve God\u2019s enterprise of gardening, the onset of loneliness reveals that the Lord God is capable of harnessing his creative powers in the service of adam.\u00a0 From this we can also quickly see that the Baltimore Catechism begins on the wrong foot when it says that God created us \u201cto know him, to love him, and to serve him.\u201d Thus, Gen 2 can assist us in correcting our theology of God at the same time that it liberates us from thinking, along with Dr. Kostenberger, that God\u2019s purpose in Gen 2 is to define marriage.<\/p>\n

Reading between the lines of Genesis, one can imagine that only after several thousand failures does God slowly come to the realization that another novel animal or bird is not likely to resolve adam\u2019s loneliness.\u00a0 A Plan B is needed.\u00a0 So God puts adam into a deep sleep and pulls \u201cfrom his side\u201d the female while leaving behind the male.\u00a0 This demonstrates that adam was made originally as both male and female.\u00a0 If one looks at Gen 1:27<\/a>, one finds this:<\/p>\n

So God created humankind { \u05d4\u05b8\u05bd\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd\u0599 } in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them [NRSV].<\/p>\n

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them [KJV].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The English of both of these translations obscures the original Hebrew.\u00a0 In the Hebrew text, God is creating a single entity, the \u201cearthling\u201d adam found in Gen 2.\u00a0 The English suggests that God created a plurality (Adam and Eve or even a few thousand).\u00a0 Furthermore, the insertion of \u201cthem\u201d into the text at two places further enforces the notion that adam is a plurality. The literal Hebrew, however, reads: \u201cGod\u00a0 shaped adam in (his) image; in the image of God he created, male and female, he created.\u201d\u00a0 Once we recognize that adam is a single entity and that the image of God is a single entity, we do away with the problem of how Adam could be shaped in the image of God and then Eve could be shaped in the image of God without them being identical twins.\u00a0 What the Hebrew has in mind is that God\u2019s image is male-female; accordingly, adam\u2019s image is male-female.\u00a0 This is why I said earlier that adam is not identified as \u201cmale.\u201d Nor, as it turns out, is God \u201cmale.\u201d\u00a0 Both have an image which is female and male.\u00a0 An artistic rendition is found on this page.<\/p>\n

Notice also that Gen 1:27 does not find any conflict in speaking of the \u201cimage\u201d of God here even though God is sometimes thought of as entirely ethereal and consequently has no \u201cimage\u201d whatsoever.\u00a0 The rabbis discussed this question thoroughly.\u00a0 They even told the story that after God created adam, the angels could not tell the difference between adam and the Lord-God because they were identical twins.\u00a0 When God noticed their confusion, he put adam into a deep sleep. Then the angels immediately knew the difference and gave a sigh of relief at discovering that God is One.<\/p>\n

Notice also that this reading of Gen 1:27<\/a> also does away with the problem created when Gen 2 is read as indicating that Adam was created first and Eve was created much later (as an afterthought).\u00a0 If that were the case then Gen 1:27 would be inconsistent because Gen 2 makes plain that only Adam was created on the sixth day and only Adam was shaped in the image of God.\u00a0 You can see how this misreading of the text can easily be used by men to support their claim that Adam has a God-given superiority. Dr. Kostenberger falls into this trap: \u201cScripture is clear that wives are to submit to their husbands and to serve as their “suitable helpers,” while husbands are to bear the ultimate responsibility for the marriage before God (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18; see also Genesis 2:18, 20)\u201d ((https:\/\/www.frc.org\/brochure\/the-Bibles-teaching-on-marriage-and-family)<\/a>). Kostenberger illustrates how seemingly insignificant translation errors lend support to ideas of God and ideas of women that cannot be found in Gen 1-3.<\/p>\n

Once God separates the female and the male and their bodies are healed, God brings the newly shaped creature that he crafted for adam and presents her to adam.\u00a0 Adam has to take time to examine her and to get to know her–just as he did for all the other creatures that God presented to adam earlier.\u00a0 Adam then declares God\u2019s successful handiwork: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman {\u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u0594\u05d4}, for out of Man this one was taken” (2:23<\/a> NRSV).\u00a0 The precise meaning the text is not completely clear.\u00a0 However, I risk saying that it could mean, \u201cYahoo!\u00a0 You\u2019ve done it.\u00a0 Here at last is a creature like myself who entirely understands my loneliness and understands exactly what I have been suffering.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notice here that the new creature is not welcomed as a cook or a homemaker.\u00a0 Nor is she honored as someone to share the task of garden maintenance. Nor is she assessed as having lovely breasts and broad hips that will serve well for child-bearing. Companionship with this new creature may involve some or all of this in the future.\u00a0 For the moment, however, adam names her \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u0594\u05d4 which means \u201cout of man.\u201d\u00a0 Here again this is not her proper name but a descriptive name very much like adam which means \u201cout of the clay.\u201d\u00a0 The English rendering of \u05d0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b8\u05bc\u05c1\u0594\u05d4 as \u201cWoman\u201d entirely obscures the meaning of the Hebrew.<\/p>\n

The biblical author then inserts his own footnote: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24<\/a>).\u00a0 This, of course, is not adam\u2019s thought since, in effect, adam has never had any experience of a father or a mother. But the editor is thinking of his readers here and addressing their situation.\u00a0 Every man knows that his parents are not sufficient to satisfy his longing for human connectedness.\u00a0 That\u2019s why every man has to go out and find himself a suitable \u201cwife\u201d and to cling to her with all his might.\u00a0 And where does this longing come from?\u00a0 It comes from the experience of every male that he is missing his \u201cother half\u201d and has to find her and bond with her. Only when the two become \u201cone flesh\u201d does the longing for human connectedness get dispelled.<\/p>\n

Notice that the footnote does not say, \u201cThis is to make clear that God wants all marriages for all future generations to bring together one man and one woman.\u201d\u00a0 Dr. Kostenberger earnestly wants Gen 2 to say this, but, as we see from the text itself, the interests of the sacred text lie elsewhere.\u00a0 They don\u2019t talk about marriage at all.\u00a0 Rather they address the matter of loneliness and offer the notion that sexual attraction and the resulting bonding that comes from it can satisfy the human desire for bonding.<\/p>\n

The sexual bonding that Gen 2 has in mind cannot be crudely reduced to sexual intercourse, for intercourse, in and of itself, only occupies a small amount of time.\u00a0 Furthermore, some acts of sex create conflict, shame, or personal injury.\u00a0 So, Gen 2 never falls into the trap of thinking, as some teenagers are prone to do, that \u201clots of sex\u201d is able to satisfy loneliness. In the ancient world, sexual intercourse was quite often required of men and women purely due to family and tribal obligations (as we shall shortly illustrate). The same holds true for some partners even today.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gen 2 says nothing about God establishing a permanent template for marriage. What we know as \u201cmarriage\u201d has taken many forms and shapes in the course of history.\u00a0 This we will see in just a moment.\u00a0 For the moment, however, it is \u201cthe human longing for connectedness\u201d that is the source of all marriages.\u00a0 Gen 2 makes it clear that God did not deliberately create this longing in adam.\u00a0 When it shows up, even God is surprised that it should be this way.\u00a0 God uses his trial and error ingenuity, but it is adam who has to confirm what actually works for him<\/em>.<\/p>\n

So marriage is not exclusively a divine institution as scholars and pastors like Dr. Kostenberger want us to think.\u00a0 And nowhere does Gen 2 say it is.\u00a0 In fact, if one reads the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, there is not one single time or place where Gen 2 is held up as the model and the prototype for any or all of the hundreds of marriages described therein. Thus Kostenberger is sadly wrong when he believes that one size fits all and that marriages were entirely designed by God in Gen 2.\u00a0 Dr. Kostenberger goes completely haywire when he insists that \u201chumans are not free to renegotiate or redefine marriage and the family in any way.\u201d\u00a0 What a strange message this is!\u00a0 It is assuredly not the God speaking and acting in Gen 2 that says anything remotely like this.<\/p>\n

In fact, it is just the reverse.\u00a0 Adam takes the initiative by revealing his loneliness. God responds by taking his loneliness seriously. When God begins his trial and error approach, God brings each of his new creations to adam and counts on him to fairly evaluate each of them one by one. God honors adam\u2019s judgment at every point.\u00a0 He expects adam to inform him regarding what works and what does not work.\u00a0 Never, at any point, does God overwhelm adam by insisting that \u201cthe koalas I created are just what you need.\u201d \u00a0Nor does God downplay adam\u2019s distress.\u00a0 He never says, \u201cBe a man!\u00a0 Get a grip on yourself. Master your loneliness or it will master you!\u201d\u00a0 Furthermore, God does not pull rank and resort to threats by saying, \u201cGet this straight!\u00a0 I make the rules here.\u00a0 You don\u2019t. You have to do it my way or else I\u2019m going to give you a taste of my divine wrath.\u201d\u00a0 Rather, God speaking to me in Gen 2 appears to be saying, \u201cThanks for revealing your loneliness to me. It is certainly not good that you feel so alone. Let\u2019s see what we can work out together to help resolve this.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"All in all, I have no investment in personally correcting and embarrassing Dr. Kostenberger.\u00a0 Rather, I want to demonstrate to those Christians who are despairing and suffering from the well-meaning but ill-informed theological judgments of men like Dr. Kostenberger.\u00a0 And, to those who emphatically believe that Dr. Kostenberger has found the answer to the modern problem of failing marriages, I want to offer them an opportunity to imagine that just maybe the voice of God that they hear inside their heads is not the voice of Lord God that speaks out from the inspired and inspiring narratives of Gen 2.<\/p>\n

3.2.2 A Test Case: Matthew Vines, a Fervent Believer Wrestling with Loneliness<\/strong><\/p>\n

Matthew Vines grew up in an Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Kirkwood, Missouri.\u00a0 When he slowly came to the realization that he had a homosexual orientation, he was horrified by the fact that his Presbyterian church offered him no route whereby he might gain God\u2019s blessing for his sexuality.\u00a0 Here is the message he received from his church:<\/p>\n

We affirm God’s design for the two sexes \u2014 male and female \u2014 and believe that each is a glorious gift from God.\u00a0 Our sexuality is meant to be offered back to Him.\u00a0 For some, this means joining in a one-man, one-woman marriage \u2014 for procreation, union and mutual delight.\u00a0 For others, this means celibacy which allows for undivided devotion to Christ.\u00a0 Sexual expression is designed for the marital relationship, and homosexual lust<\/a>[i]<\/strong><\/a> and behavior are among the sexual sins that are outside God’s created intent and desire for us.<\/p>\n

Vines, at the age of 21, realized that his divine salvation relied upon his willingness to accept God\u2019s plan that sexual intimacy was exclusively reserved to heterosexual partners bound together in marriage.\u00a0 Since Vines knew that he was not attracted to women, he faced the bleak prospect of trying \u201creparative therapies\u201d<\/a>[ii]<\/a> and praying to God for a miracle that would \u201ctransform his sexual appetites.\u201d<\/a>[iii]<\/a>\u00a0 Should these options fail, he knew full well that he would be forced to maintain a lifelong celibacy, even though he honestly recognized that he was not naturally inclined in this direction either.<\/p>\n

Shaken by these bleak prospects for his future, Vines deliberately interrupted his college studies at Harvard (2008-2010) because he knew that he had to consult with biblical experts and come to a deeper understanding of why God opposes homosexuality and why God has no blessing to give to men like himself.<\/p>\n

After his father approved of his six-page summation of his biblical research, Vines took his discoveries and presented them to the elders in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in his home town.\u00a0 He met privately with many of the church members as well.\u00a0 And here is what he discovered:<\/p>\n

Despite my best efforts and the support of my family and some of our friends, our broader church community proved unreceptive to my message.\u00a0 Months of grueling, emotionally draining conversations with church leaders and members produced next to nothing in terms of progress.\u00a0 So eventually I left, dejected and depressed, but also determined to make change.\u00a0 Several months later, I found a church in town that was brave enough to offer me a public platform to speak about the issue. . . .<\/a>[iv]<\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Matthew Vines\u2019 entire family deciding to leave their local church as well.\u00a0 They didn\u2019t do this in anger or in frustration.\u00a0 They did it because they wanted to express, first and foremost, their solidarity with their son or with their brother.\u00a0 They also did this, I would conjecture, because they were increasingly suspicious, thanks to the insights of their son, that there might be something drastically mistaken in the traditional Bible interpretations and that the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d was indeed destructive to the spiritual and psychological well-being of Matthew.\u00a0 By extension, they might have conjectured that if the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d is poisonous to their son, it would follow, as the night follows the day, that this \u201cgospel\u201d might be toxic to other youths<\/a>[v]<\/a> wrestling with their sexual orientation as well.\u00a0 Here is how Vines expresses this in his own words:<\/p>\n

Could it be true?\u00a0 Could it really be that this holiest of books, which contains some of the most beautiful writings and inspiring stories known to mankind, along with the unparalleled teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, also happens to require the emotional and spiritual destruction of sexual minorities?\u00a0 For any of us who learned to love the Jesus who called the little children to him, whose highest law was that of love, and who was a fierce defender of the downtrodden and the outcast,<\/strong> this simply did not seem possible.<\/strong><\/a>[vi]<\/strong><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thus, the suspicion was that the teachings of Jesus invalidate the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d and that, in the case of homosexuality, false teaching has distorted the biblical texts such that \u201cScripture is used to manipulate.\u00a0 God is used as a weapon.\u201d<\/a>[vii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Matthew Vines use of Scriptures is quite sophisticated.\u00a0 Vines is not only casting doubt on the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d and the texts used to support it, he is also discovering overlooked texts that construct a solid basis for an eventual acceptance of homosexual unions.\u00a0 Here is an excellent example:<\/p>\n

In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the heavens and the earth, plants, animals, man, and everything in the earth.\u00a0 And He declares everything in creation to be either good or very good \u2014 except for one thing.\u00a0 In Genesis 2:18, God says, \u201cIt is not good for the man to be alone.\u00a0 I will make a helper suitable for him.\u201d\u00a0 And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman.\u00a0 And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men \u2014 for straight men.\u00a0 But for gay men, that isn\u2019t the case.\u00a0 For them, a woman is not a suitable partner.\u00a0 And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men\u2014for gay men, it\u2019s another gay man<\/strong><\/a>[viii]<\/strong><\/a> who is a suitable partner<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

And the same is true for lesbian women.\u00a0 For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner.\u00a0 But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own.<\/p>\n

We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone.\u00a0 And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.<\/strong><\/a>[ix]<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Notice how Vines begins by carefully examining the text of Gen 1-3.\u00a0 He isolates God\u2019s declaration, \u201cIt is not good for a man to be alone,\u201d as his key concern.\u00a0 But then he shows that the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d frustrates God\u2019s declaration in two ways:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Gay people know very well that God has created for them \u201csuitable partners,\u201d yet the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d declares that same-sex partners are everywhere and always unsuitable;<\/li>\n
  2. Likewise, the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d declares that gays must embrace lifelong celibacy; yet, in so doing, they frustrate God\u2019s declaration that \u201cit is not good for a man to be alone\u201d (Gen. 2:18).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This double failure on the part of the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d is \u201cdeeply wounding and destructive.\u201d\u00a0 The unspoken complaint here is that following the gospel of life should lead to peace, joy, and understanding; hence, quite clearly the \u201canti-gay gospel\u201d is not the gospel of life even though Matthew\u2019s church declares that it is the one and only Gospel.<\/p>\n

    3.2.3 Does the Bible support the contention that marriage rules never change?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Many Christians imagine that biblical inspiration takes hold when God overrides the human faculties of an author such that they write what God wants them to write\u2014nothing more and nothing less. With this understanding, Christians had good reason to imagine that the Bible had a coherent unity and that a single author, the Lord God, expresses himself on every page.\u00a0 Hence, whether you begin with Genesis or with the Book of Revelations, there is unity of thought and unity of purpose from beginning to end.<\/p>\n

    Today educated Christians recognize that the books of the Bible were composed at different times by different authors and that there is no overall unity of thought and expression in the Bible. Even the linguistic differences demonstrate that various books were written by different persons.\u00a0 Mark\u2019s Gospel, for instance, reveals a limited vocabulary and a rough master of Greek grammar. In contrast, Luke\u2019s Gospel has a polished Greek appropriate to someone who was a master wordsmith.<\/p>\n

    When it comes to marriage, it is no secret that the divine norms governing marriage changed during the twelve hundred years that span the books of the Bible. \"\"Going further, it would be absurd to suggest that once the canon of the NT was fixed that nothing more needed to be decided upon or legislated. The writings of the Church Fathers and the decrees of local Synods and Ecumenical Councils expanded upon the NT norms precisely because they were aware that the NT had no exhaustive and systematic norms for sexuality. Hence, the bishops had to sort out the inconsistencies of the Bible and to respond to new questions and new situations of life that were never addressed in the Bible or that were addressed but only partially and inadequately.<\/p>\n

    \"\"Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a brilliant treatise in 1845 entitled, \u201cAn Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.\u201d\u00a0 Newman’s great masterpiece was the last work he completed before coming into communion with Rome. It is a magisterial defense of the idea that the Church’s comprehension of divine revelation enlarges and expands as it encounters different cultures and new social situations. He argues quite brilliantly (using a multitude of case studies) to reinforce the notion that the Bible cannot interpret itself and that, when every Christian is left to their own private interpretation, there cannot be any unity of understanding or of practice. \u00a0In the end, he comes to this conclusion: \u201cIn a higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and to be\u00a0 perfect is to have changed often\u201d ((Chapter 1, Section 1, Part 7)).\u00a0 Click here to explore<\/a> how Newman\u2019s thesis was embraced by the Fathers of Vatican II.<\/p>\n

    Some Catholics are distressed to find out that there are inconsistencies in the revealed laws of God in the Bible and further inconsistencies in the marriage legislation of Church Synods. In many ways this is so because their priests and religious teachers are fond to glamorize the Church hierarchy by insisting that there is in the Catholic Church a chain of transmission whereby the one true faith that Jesus taught to his apostles has been passed on through an unbroken line of Catholic bishops down to the present time. This enforces the notion that the faith passed on is \u201calways the same\u201d (semper eadem<\/em>). \u00a0Anyone who has studied church history or the development of doctrine knows that \u201cfaith\u201d was passed on but the expression of that faith is quite another thing.\u00a0 In point of fact, marriage laws changed at different times and in different places along with everything else.\u00a0 Others, like Cardinal Newman, are quite aware that if God just kept repeating himself by issuing identical instructions on marriage over a period of twelve hundred years, this would create the distinct impression that God is indifferent to or ignorant of human experience and cultural changes.<\/p>\n

    Any human father who rules his children with an iron fist and imposes upon them rules and practices that are harsh and outmoded, would be deemed as an abusive and incompetent parent.\u00a0 \u201cSpare the rod, spoil the child.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cChildren are to be seen and not heard.\u201d \u00a0\u201cNever praise your child; it only makes them proud.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cFather knows best.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 One of my boyfriends in grade school told me of how his father would strip him naked, hang him by his wrists in the basement, and whip him with a leather belt.\u00a0 Needless to say, I saw this as extreme.\u00a0 If I had known of the discipline advised by God in Deut 21:18-21, I would have thought that God himself was an inept parent.\u00a0 Here is the key text:<\/p>\n

    18\u00a0<\/sup>If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him,<\/span> 19\u00a0<\/sup>his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.<\/span> 20\u00a0<\/sup>They shall say to the elders, \u201cThis son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.\u201d<\/span> 21\u00a0<\/sup>Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid [NIV].
    \n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Our analysis of Gen 2 above illustrated how God is no stranger to human interaction and that he adapts his initiative to fit the situation.\u00a0 The same thing must be said regarding the writings of the Church Fathers and the decrees of Church Synods. If all the bishops and synods issued identical instructions on marriage over a period of twenty hundred years, this would create the impression that the bishops were either out-of-touch or completely indifferent to human experience. \u00a0Again, as Newman came to understand, \u201cto live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.\u201d\u00a0 That being the case, let\u2019s go on to examine a case study that will illustrate Newman\u2019s thesis.<\/p>\n

    3.2.4. A Test Case: The Strange Case of Levirate Marriages<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In many societies, both ancient and modern, levirate marriage was practiced.<\/p>\n

    Among the Hebrews, a levirate marriage is literally a \u201cmarriage with a brother-in-law.\u201d The word levirate<\/em>, which has nothing to do with the tribe of Levi, comes from the Latin word levir<\/em>, \u201ca husband\u2019s brother.\u201d In ancient times, if a man died without a child, it was common for the man\u2019s unmarried brother to marry the widow in order to provide an heir for the deceased. \u00a0A widow would marry a brother-in-law, and the first son produced in that union was considered the legal descendant of her dead husband.<\/p>\n

    We see a couple of examples in the Bible of levirate marriage. The first is the story of Tamar and Onan in Genesis 38<\/a>. Tamar had been married to Er, a son of Judah. Er died, leaving Tamar childless (Genesis 38:6\u20137<\/a>). Judah\u2019s solution was to follow the standard procedure of levirate marriage: he told Er\u2019s brother Onan, \u201cSleep with your brother\u2019s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother\u201d (28:8).<\/p>\n

    Onan was more than willing to sleep with Tamar, but, unfortunately, he had no desire to have a child with her: \u201cOnan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother\u2019s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother\u201d (28:9). In other words, Onan was taking selfish advantage of levirate marriage. He wanted sex with his sister-in-law, but he purposefully avoided impregnating her. Onan was aware that, if Tamar became pregnant, her child would claim a portion in the family inheritance.\u00a0 Thus, the inheritance coming to Onan would be diluted. God intervened on behalf of Tamar.\u00a0 God called Onan\u2019s actions \u201cwicked\u201d and killed him (28:10).<\/p>\n

    Then, Judah said to his daughter\u2011in\u2011law Tamar, “Remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up” \u2011\u2011for he feared that he too would die, like his brothers (28:11).\u00a0 So Tamar agreed to wait.\u00a0 When Shelah is grown (age 12?), Judah fails to keep his promise.\u00a0 Years go by.\u00a0 Then Tamar decided to take a bold step outside the Law.\u00a0 She disguises herself as a \u201ctemple prostitute\u201d and uses this ruse to get the offspring that is her right from the father of Shelah.\u00a0 Three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter\u2011in\u2011law Tamar has played the whore; moreover she is pregnant as a result of whoredom.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned” (38:24).\u00a0 Tamar then confesses to her ruse.\u00a0\u00a0 Hearing her story, Judah responds, “She is more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah” (38:26).\u00a0 Thus she is exonerated by her father-in-law who confesses that he blocked her from access to his eligible sons.\u00a0 This narrative is revealing.\u00a0 It demonstrates that there are circumstances whereby a widow can, in desperation, seduce her father-in-law.\u00a0 It also demonstrates that Levirate marriage was practiced long before it was included in the Deuteronomic Code.\u00a0 Thus, even God adjusts his Divine Law to take into account those circumstances when \u201cincest\u201d is not only permitted, it is required<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

    Some seven hundred years later, the book of Deuteronomy was found in the temple (2 Kings 22\u201323).\u00a0 The purpose of this book was to consolidate the temple in Jerusalem as the exclusive place to worship the Lord God and to insure that the direction of the temple was entirely in the hands of the Aronide priests. At this time, it appears that the books of Moses were lost.\u00a0 Thus the book of Deuteronomy with its description of the laws given to Moses is presumably the sole witness to God\u2019s revelation on Mt. Sinai. The discovery of this book may have given rise to the Deuteronomic Reform or, quite possible, the book itself might have been created by the reformers.\u00a0 For details, click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    There are many significant changes in Deuteronomy. \u00a0For example, the law reveals a special concern for the poor, for widows and the fatherless.\u00a0 All Israelites are brothers and sisters, and each will answer to God for his treatment of \u201chis neighbor.\u201d Now, for the first time, God calls his people to take care that the stranger who lives among you is treated fairly. The stranger is often mentioned in tandem with the concern for the widow and the orphan. Furthermore, there is a specific commandment to love the stranger. These things, of course, are some of the themes that distinguished Jesus\u2019 teaching. The Deuteronomic Reform, therefore, envisions a leap forward into the kind of Judaism that finds full development in the Acts of the Apostles.<\/p>\n

    Our special concern is changes in marriage law.\u00a0 It would appear that the death of a brother in an extended household would often result in his widow being neglected or even expelled from the family. This occasioned great suffering for the widow.\u00a0 The introduction of Levirate marriages was thus an act of compassion (some would say an act of justice) toward the widow.\u00a0Once a widow had a son, her place in the family was secured and she had access to a portion of the family inheritance.<\/p>\n

    God\u2019s purpose for levirate marriage is clearly stated: \u201cThe first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel\u201d (Deut 25:6). An unmarried brother of the deceased man bore a responsibility to marry his sister-in-law: God called it \u201cthe duty of a brother-in-law\u201d (Deut 25:5<\/a>).\u00a0 This is clearly an \u201cexception\u201d to the previous divine command that God delivered to Moses on Mt. Sinai: \u201cYou shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife: it is<\/em> your brother’s nakedness\u201d (Lev 18:16).<\/p>\n

    Notice that levirate marriage was a marital bond not born out of free choice and of growing affection but out of duty.\u00a0 Deut 25:7-10 hints how this new ruling was oftentimes resisted by the brother-in-law.\u00a0 The law then describes the measured steps to be taken whereby this resistance was to be overcome:<\/p>\n

    7\u00a0However, if a man does not want to marry his brother\u2019s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, \u201cMy husband\u2019s brother refuses to carry on his brother\u2019s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.\u201d 8\u00a0Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, \u201cI do not want to marry her,\u201d 9\u00a0his brother\u2019s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, \u201cThis is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother\u2019s family line.\u201d 10\u00a0That man\u2019s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The social pressure on the brother-in-law was enormous.\u00a0 The village elders were intent upon providing for the widow from the resources of the family into which she married in the first place.\u00a0 If that family failed to care for her out of obligation and if the widow\u2019s parents were unwilling to allow her to return home, then the community would be burdened by another charity case.\u00a0 Hence the husband\u2019s brother had to be constrained to marry as an obligation to the deceased and as an economic and social safety net for the widow. The public shaming involved in allowing the widow to remove his sandal and to spit in his face<\/a> is also unprecedented because it gives a powerless woman the right to shame a powerful man due to his stubbornness and his unwillingness to make provisions for his brother\u2019s widow.<\/p>\n

    Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Notice that levirate marriage presumes that polygamy is socially acceptable and divinely authorized.\u00a0 For this reason, Jews everywhere have long ago abandoned levirate marriage,\u00a0and even the most devout Jews in the Hassidic quarters of Jerusalem are not anxious for its return<\/a>\u2014despite the fact that Deut 25:5 makes it clear that levirate marriage is God\u2019s will.\u00a0 In Mishnah and in Talmud we learn how the discussions of the rabbis sought to remove the necessity of Levirate marriage and to provide alternatives<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    At the risk of overlooking exceptions, I would hazard the following general conclusions:<\/p>\n

    #1\u00a0 No religious community can expect to be alive and to continue to thrive if it mindlessly imposes upon its participants a rigid conformity to practices that were understood as divinely authorized in the past but, more often than not, cause resentment and unnecessary suffering.\u00a0 Test cases: the religious anti-slavery movement and the recent redefining the fate of those children who die without baptism<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    #2\u00a0 The Bible and the study of church history allow us to see a huge landscape whereupon religious communities, sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly, change their minds in order to keep pace with the living voice of God.\u00a0 Test case: Peter describes his own conversion saying, \u201cYou know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you [Gentiles]. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean\u201d (Act 10:28).<\/p>\n

    #3\u00a0 Prophets and teachers serve to keep alive the quest for holiness in\u00a0 changing cultural and historical conditions. \u00a0Tradition is always a guide, but some elements in any tradition invariably become an obstacle and present a disservice to the living God. \u00a0Not to be willing to change is the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit because it venerates the demands of the past so completely as to be incapable of heeding the voice of the living God.\u00a0 “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts” (Heb 4:7).<\/p>\n

    Test case: Current discussions on whether polygamy (as a matter of justice) needs to be allowed in the case of those African converts to Christianity where polygamy has been an abiding part of their social fabric ((https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Polygamy_in_Christianity & \u00a0https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/magazine\/archive\/1981\/02\/of-sex-and-the-catholic-church\/305451\/)<\/a><\/em>).<\/p>\n

    Test case:\u00a0 Despite the fact that homosexual acts were traditionally harshly punished within both civil and church societies, the majorities of citizens in the USA, Ireland, and Australia have recently seen fit to sanction and protect same-sex marriages.\u00a0 Christians now are sorely divided on this issue.<\/p>\n

    #1\u00a0 Some Christians believe that God in the bible only sanctions marriage between one man and one woman.\u00a0\u00a0 One the basis of the study done above, we can now agree that this is a misreading of the evidence of the bible.\u00a0 When the bible is rightfully examined, it reveals that God has mandated at least eight \"\"different forms of marriage at one time or another (Remember the chart above).\u00a0 Christians today can continue to imagine that God only sanctions\u00a0marriage between one man and one woman; however, this belief can no longer be founded exclusively (a) on biblical texts such as Gen 2 and (b) on the presumption that the divine laws governing marriage within the bible never change.<\/p>\n

    #2\u00a0 Some Christians believe that their church laws regarding marriage have never changed.\u00a0 One the basis of the study done above, we can now agree that this is a misreading of the evidence of their denominational church history.\u00a0 When their history is carefully examined, it will reveal that their church laws have periodically changed in order to update their service to the living God.<\/p>\n

    Consider how, in times past, marriages that crossed denominational lines were outlawed, then tolerated under certain special circumstances, and then finally approved with joy.\u00a0 Consider also, how prejudices against former slaves or against “primitive” races prompted churches to legislate against inter-racial marriages. \u00a0 Consider, also, how such legislation was eventually changed to tolerate such inter-racial marriages in certain circumstances.\u00a0 Then, consider how your church’s legislation gradually moved toward a full and joyful acceptance of inter-racial marriages.\u00a0 Examine how and when something akin to levirate marriage or polygamy were practiced within your denominational history.<\/p>\n

    Finally, consider to what extent the legislation in your denomination was influenced by civil legislation on the criminality of homosexual acts and by the psychological analysis of homosexuality as a “mental disorder.”\u00a0 In the last thirty years, however, consider how members of your Christian denomination have come to personally experience in their families<\/a>, in their parishes<\/a>, and in their Netflix choices<\/a> instances wherein same-sex unions manifest something of the self-sacrificing love and the permanence of affection traditionally associated with God\u2019s covenant with his people as enshrined in the theology of marriage.\u00a0\u00a0 No matter where you stand on this issue today, consider what responsibility you and your denomination have to\u00a0 reexamine the unnecessary suffering and combative factionalism imposed by things as they now stand.\u00a0 What responsibility do you and your denomination have now to bring “peace, justice, and love” as the balm for healing your present denominational divisions so as to make “living faith” a possibility for future generations.<\/p>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Arguments from Authority: The Bible and Church Tradition 3.2.1 Does the Bible support the contention that marriage must be limited to one man and one woman? When public discourse first considered the possibility of giving legal protection to same-sex unions, most Christian communities were alarmed at this because they judged that the traditional ideal … <\/p>\n

    Continue reading “What does the Bible declare about marriage?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9,6],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=474"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":482,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/474\/revisions\/482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}