Just two instructions in the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, which suggest the God of Israel does not follow Biblical family values.

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney urged his followers last week to “commend the Biblical way of life in our churches and to the community.” This was in anticipation of this week’s report on same-sex marriage to the Australian federal parliament.

The problem these venerable gentlemen have, however, is that their understanding of the “Biblical way of life” is just nowhere found in the Bible.

Abraham is one of the greatest heroes of the Judeo-Christian tradition. When he and wife Sarai found themselves childless they brought their slave girl Hagar into the bedroom. The resulting son became a great patriarch.

Abraham later took a second wife, Keturah, and had several more kids. He also had children with an uncertain number of mistresses, or concubines.

Jacob’s sex life is more bizarre still. He purchased his first wife Leah from her father then married her sister Rachel. Rachel’s servant girl Bilhah soon joined them “as a wife” for at least two children. A bit later, Leah’s servant girlZilpah made it a happy fivesome.

Yes, a bit kinky perhaps. But there is no hint in the texts this was irregular. In fact, the opposite. Great rejoicing at these blessings from God.

These lucky guys were not alone. Lamech took two wives. Esau had three. Gideon had many wives. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Rehoboam took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. Abijah had 14 wives. Caleb had children with at least two partners. David had eight wives, an unknown number of concubines and a relationship with Jonathan. There are others we know of and many we don’t.

First wives must be looked after when a man takes new ones. Wives must not come from another race. Inheritance must be divvied up fairly among children of all wives. Subsequent wives must not include your wife’s sister while your wife is living (this came after Jacob’s threesome). And a widow whose husband dies before they have had children must marry her brother-in-law after the funeral.

A man may assign one of his slave girls to a male slave for them to have children. When the male slave is redeemed, he is free to go. But his wife and children remain the property of the owner.

A virgin who is raped must marry the rapist with no possibility of divorce. But the rapist must pay the father 50 shekels for his property loss. A bride who is discovered after the wedding not to be a virgin must be killed.

Biblical marriage, anyone?

The argument that God disapproved of multiple partners but tolerated and regulated it – as with divorce– is unfounded. There is no hint anywhere that polygamous, same-sex or extramarital unions are intrinsically wrong. Some may be, but not all. Yes, Solomon was rebuked for taking too many foreign wives. But nationality was the problem there, not multiplicity. Although 700 does look a bit greedy.

God’s prophet told King David he could have had even more wives had he wanted. This is just not possible if polygamy was in any way sinful.

The New Testament, in contrast, teaches clearly against marriage, proclaiming celibacy as the preferred option for followers of Christ.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman”, Paul instructs. And later, “He who marries does right, but he who does not marry does better.”

Marriage is grudgingly permitted for the weak and then regulated. Slaves, wives and children are all subordinate to thehusband. There is one commandment in the New Testament requiring one wife. That applies to bishops or elders only.

So where did the curious idea arise that Biblical marriage is one-man-one-woman? It appears to have originated from a poetic piece set in the Garden of Eden, a passage often read at weddings.

Genesis chapter 2 says: (24) “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (25) And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Clearly, say conservatives, this has the words “a man” and “his wife”. End of argument.

Increasingly, however, scholars say this does not deal definitively with questions of number, gender, race or anything else regarding marital partners. Rather, it is snapshot of the first union between Adam and Eve affirming that partnerships should be permanent, and that newlyweds should not live with his parents. That’s about all.

Singular terms in Scripture, scholars advise, often imply plural. And vice versa. For example, the tenth commandmentinstructs us not to “covet thy neighbour’s house, thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass…”

These are all singular terms, but clearly imply plural. Similarly, instructions to fathers to “not provoke your children” apply to fathers with only one child.

So restricting Genesis 2:24 to just one spouse fails. Besides, they ask, how can we apply verse 24 rigidly today, but not verse 25?

Scholars note also that Genesis 2:24 uses the Hebrew word ‘dabaq’ for being joined, or cleaving. What does this mean? We find the word also used for Solomon and his many wives and for the relationship between two women, Ruth and Naomi. So on the face of it, whatever ‘dabaq’ means, it can apply to polygamous and same-sex unions.

Scholars ruefully admit Scripture offers no clear definition of marriage. Murdoch University’s Professor of New Testament William Loader suggests marriage in Biblical times was primarily to secure father to son inheritance.

“Men owned households,” he wrote in his submission to the Australian Senate in April. “That included sexual access to wives and slaves, but never incestuous relations. Men decided with other men whom their daughters would marry and so ‘gave them away’, a tradition which still survives at least in ceremony in many wedding liturgies.”

Loader concludes that “there appears to be no sound reason to exclude same-sex couples” from marriage.

So Christians are quite free to argue for a definition of marriage as “the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman”.

But they are not free to claim this is Biblical.

http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13758&page=0

~~

2. ‘One in spirit’: same-sex unions in the Bible

“Where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.”

This has been a popular Bible reading at Jewish and Christian weddings for thousands of years. Marriage liturgies today still use variations on “until death do us part”.

It is a classic declaration of commitment for life – but what many don’t realise is that it was made between two women, Ruth and Naomi.

Is this an example of a same-sex union in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures? And if yes, so what?

Several countries, including Australia, are debating changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Much of the vociferous opposition to change is based on religious belief.

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney urged his followers last month to “commend the Biblical way of life in our churches and to the community.” His definition of marriage specified “two persons of the opposite sex”.

Scholars now challenge the view that this is the only biblical model. Many no longer believe Scripture condemns all homosexual unions, as the Church has traditionally taught. Andsome claim there are indeed approved same-sex relationships in the ancient texts.

Biblical times were not much different from today, they say. There were flamboyant queens, male prostitutes, closet gays and unobtrusive monogamous unions.

Professor of New Testament at Melbourne’s Whitley College Keith Dyer believes “mutually enriching same-sex relationships” were known. But not much is known about them: “Such relationships were kept quiet then, as for many today and especially in the Church.”

The story of Ruth and Naomi, above, comes into frame because of the Hebrew word dabaqused of their union. That is the key word meaning “to cleave” in the foundational marriage text in Genesis: “A man shall leave his parents, cleave unto his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

“Whether there existed a relationship of physical love between Ruth and Naomi cannot be demonstrated,” writes Middle East scholar Tom Horner. “However, the right words are there.” The story contains the Bible’s second strongest declaration of love and commitment.

The strongest is in the saga of David and Jonathan. This takes up more chapters than any other Scriptural relationship and includes more intimations of intimacy.

We read, “Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and loved him as himself.” Jonathan “made a covenant with David because he loved him”. Jonathan “took off his robe and gave it to David, along with his tunic, his sword, his bow and his belt”. David took an oath saying, “Your father knows very well that I have found favour in your eyes.”

Jonathan told David, “Whatever you want me to do, I’ll do for you.” Jonathan later “made David reaffirm his oath, because he loved him”. And we read that “they kissed each other and wept together”.

Again, no explicit mention of sex. But clues to the author’s intention are in references to the oath, disrobing and, pointedly, the father’s rage at the shame of it all:

Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?

Finally, after Jonathan’s death, David wrote of Jonathan, “You were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.”

Tom Horner claims there is little doubt, “except on the part of those who absolutely refuse to believe it”, that this was a homosexual relationship.

A third possibility is Daniel and Ashpenaz. We read in the King James Version that God “brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs”. Just how tender this love was we don’t know. The account is frustratingly brief. Its meaning has been obscured by later translations which tone down the “tender love” to “compassion” or “sympathy”.

A fourth is the relationship between a centurion and his child “servant” in the New Testament, recorded by Matthew and Luke. Both authors use the Greek word pais to describe the relationship with the boy who was “dear to him”. Some who have studied these things believe pais in that context has definite same-sex intimacy meaning.

Finally, there are several enigmatic Biblical passages about eunuchs – men whose sexuality was different from ‘normal’.

Was this a generic term for LGBTQ people? Some scholars believe so. If true, this refutes the oft-repeated claim that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Jesus did affirm that “there are eunuchs who were born that way” when teaching about marriage.

We also read an intriguing account in Acts about a eunuch journeying from Ethiopia who was converted to Christianity and instantly baptised into the new community.

J David Hester claims eunuchs were not celibate and chaste by unfortunate anatomical necessity, “but highly sexual and sexed beings”.

The former academic believes Scriptural references to eunuchs are directly relevant to the current debate:

No matter how you view it, the figure of the eunuch … radically undermines the foundational assumptions used to reinforce the conservative heterosexist reading of the Bible.

Admittedly, these accounts in Scripture are few. But perhaps that should be expected with same-sex and bisexual orientation being minority experiences. And there are no details about actual sex. Again, that should not surprise. There is no reference anywhere in the Bible after the birth of Christ to any married heterosexuals ever having sex either. There was none? Or can we use our imagination?

Progressives within the faith communities do not rely too much on these accounts for validation of their inclusive praxis. They look, rather, at deeper Biblical themes.

These include: all are created in the image of God; we are fearfully and wonderfully made; it is not good for anyone to be alone; life in all its fullness; some are born with different sexuality.

So what of the Biblical references to homosexuality as an abomination? Those passages, progressives claim, condemn coercive, abusive or idolatrous acts – not committed, loving unions.

Amazing variations abound in this extraordinary creation, they say, including in human relationships.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4143802.html

~~

3. God is cool with gay marriage