Biblical Marriage Not Defined Simply As One Man, One Woman:
-
Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed
The Huffington Post | By Meredith Bennett-Smith
A trio of Iowa-based religious scholars penned an op-ed in a local paper this week, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The joint editorial was written by Hector Avalos, Robert R. Cargill and Kenneth Atkinson and published in the Des Moines Register on Sunday. The men teach at Iowa State University, University of Iowa and University of Northern Iowa, respectively.
"The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible," the authors wrote. "Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy."
The Bible's definition of marriage can be confusing and contradictory, noted the scholars. They stated in their column that a primary example of this is the religious book's stance on polygamy, a practice that was embraced by prominent biblical figures Abraham and David. Furthermore, Avalos, Cargill and Atkinson point out that various Bible passages mention not only traditional monogamy, but also self-induced castration and celibacy, as well as the practice of wedding rape victims to their rapists.
In an interview with The Huffington Post, Iowa University Professor Robert R. Cargill said the column was the brainchild of his colleague Hector Avalos, who suggested local scholars put together an "educated response" to the often-touted claim that the Bible defines marriage as solely between one man and one woman. "[T]hat's not the only thing the Bible says," Cargill told HuffPost.
He explained that it is obvious to scholars (and some religious leaders) that the Bible endorses a wide range of relationships. But he noted, however, that professors are "terrified" of the potential backlash that might result from opening a dialogue about these relationships. Cargill also noted that the initial response to the Register column has included its fair share of vitriol.
Ultimately, said Cargill, a Biblical "argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable. We all know this, but very few scholars are talking about it, because they don't want to take the heat."
He suggested that academics who continue to be cowed by a strident opposition do a disservice to their communities.
"Most people aren't dumb, they want to make an informed decision" on religiously charged questions, Cargill said. "If scholars aren't talking to them, they have to rely on talk show hosts and pundits, and that's not the most reliable source of information."
Cargill also realizes that there are some people he may never be able to convince.
Many politicians have made a career out of using the Bible to justify opposition to hot-button topics like same-sex marriage or abortion. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), for example, told a crowd of evangelicals in April that Americans cannot "retreat from our values and fail to make the case on issues like marriage – because it is one man, one woman -- because God said it is."
Cargill said Bachman and her like-minded colleagues use a strategy he calls "cherry picking" to appeal to their base.
"Politicians who use the Bible aren't necessarily interested in the truth or the complexity of the Bible," he said. "They are looking for one ancient sound bite to convince people what they already believe."
Anyone who argues that "the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage ... haven't take the time to read all of it," he added.
-
Des Moines Register ~ Iowa View: 1 man, 1 woman isn't the Bible's only marriage view
The debate about marriage equality often centers, however discretely, on an appeal to the Bible. Unfortunately, such appeals often reflect a lack of biblical literacy on the part of those who use that complex collection of texts as an authority to enact modern social policy.
As academic biblical scholars, we wish to clarify that the biblical texts do not support the frequent claim that marriage between one man and one woman is the only type of marriage deemed acceptable by the Bible’s authors.
The fact that marriage is not defined as only that between one man and one woman is reflected in the entry on “marriage” in the authoritative Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): “Marriage is one expression of kinship family patterns in which typically a man and at least one woman cohabitate publicly and permanently as a basic social unit” (p. 861).
The phrase “at least one woman” recognizes that polygamy was not only allowed, but some polygamous biblical figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob) were highly blessed. In 2 Samuel 12:8, the author says that it was God who gave David multiple wives: “I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom. … And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more” (Revised Standard Version).
In fact, there were a variety of unions and family configurations that were permissible in the cultures that produced the Bible, and these ranged from monogamy (Titus 1:6) to those where rape victims were forced to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and to those Levirate marriage commands obligating a man to marry his brother’s widow regardless of the living brother’s marital status (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4). Others insisted that celibacy was the preferred option (1 Corinthians 7:8; 28).
Although some may view Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-10 as an endorsement of monogamy, Jesus and other Jewish interpreters conceded that there were also non-monogamous understandings of this passage in ancient Judaism, including those allowing divorce and remarriage.
In fact, during a discussion of marriage in Matthew 19:12, Jesus even encourages those who can to castrate themselves “for the kingdom” and live a life of celibacy.
Ezra 10:2-11 forbids interracial marriage and orders those people of God who already had foreign wives to divorce them immediately.
So, while it is not accurate to state that biblical texts would allow marriages between people of the same sex, it is equally incorrect to declare that a “one-man-and-one-woman” marriage is the only allowable type of marriage deemed legitimate in biblical texts.
This is not only our modern, academic opinion. This view of the multiple definitions of “biblical” marriage has been acknowledged by some of the most prominent names in Christianity. For example, the famed Reformationist Martin Luther wrote a letter in 1524 in which he commented on polygamy as follows: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not oppose the Holy Scriptures.”
Accordingly, we must guard against attempting to use ancient texts to regulate modern ethics and morals, especially those ancient texts whose endorsements of other social institutions, such as slavery, would be universally condemned today, even by the most adherent of Christians.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ROBERT R. CARGILL is an assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Iowa. KENNETH ATKINSON is an associate professor of history at the University of Northern Iowa. HECTOR AVALOS is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University.Share your thoughts »
-
Hi I would like to introduce myself. I am a recovering gay at the age of 23 and recently came across your post and just had to reply. I would like to preface this message with what i mean by recovering gay. I am in no way saying being gay is wrong. I just believe it is a personal choice and as a practicing christian, it is my duty to stray from the temptations God has put in my way. That being said, the justifications for the nonexistence of biblical quotes clearly stating marriage is between a man and a women is erroneous at best. Genesis 2:22-24 is a clear statement in favor of the traditional marriage people obtain today. I am surprised they discarded this verse saying that Jesus conceded the words of his father. I find this very vague and unfounded.
I am sad to announce that marriage is between a man and a women according to the Bible and the Christian faith. I am in no way forcing my religion onto you but if you insist to misinterpret my holy book then I will be forced to respond. You can practice any other of the countless religions that interpret the holy book into whatever way you see fit but Christianity does not condone what is being said here.
I would like to wrap up with my final thoughts on the matter. Marriage, in Christianity, is between a man and a women. Although this is the case, there are countless other faiths that would see the marriage between a man and a man sacred. I also believe there needs to be a distinction between a "church" and "state" wedding. They do not need to be inclusive. This would allow gays to get legally married without having to ruin the sanctity of marriage that the church has created. Thank you for your time <3.
-
I am not a Christian, I am gay, not recovering from anything.
I'm happy for people to believe in whatever they like as long as it doesn't interfere with me but I do find it annoying when people quote the bible so selectively. At the time of the verses you quote there were no Christians.
And why do all these 'militant' anti-gay Christian people seem so angry - I thought Jesus was all about love.
We won't get into the whole Leviticus thing about mixed fibres, menstruating women or shellfish but if the Bible is holy writ, surely you should abide by all of it.
And so far in England we have had two Anglican male priests marry and two Lesbians get married in a non-conformist Christian church. World still seems to be turning
-
Well the Anglican church has never been quote "orthodox" considering the nature of its foundation. So it allowing gays to marry is not too shocking.
-
Well, Balder, doesn't look like you've strayed very far!!
And you might need to read the original post again. It doesn't claim any nonexistence of quotes regarding one man, one woman. What it does state is that the bible is contradictory and confusing on the issue and goes on to quote verses that are just that - contradictory and confusing to the concept of one man, one woman.
Your reply pretty much fits the bill of what the original post is all about - Christians cherry-picking the Bible to agree with what they would like it to agree with… and ignoring what they don't like/what doesn't suit them.
For what it's worth I'm gay - and a recovering Christian. To explain what that means, I was brought up in a devoutly religious family and community and was more or less brainwashed as child to believe all kinds of unhealthy, unloving, downright hateful, bigoted and racist things.
And just to clarify, I'm not a practicing homosexual. I'm effing brilliant at it!!
All joking aside, I sincerely hope you learn to accept yourself as you were created -- and learn to enjoy that, as well as all the love and pleasure life has to offer. There are even plenty of Christians who would be more than happy, and able, to help you with that.
Good luck
-
^ :clap2:
-
First off, I'm happy you accept yourself and you found that the Christian faith is not the right fit for you. It isn't for everyone and there are many other religions that may better suite your needs.
I'm not jaded enough to believe that religions don't cherry pick what their particular religion holds sacred. This is why there are hundreds of religions based off of the same book. They each emphasize or translate the Bible differently. That being said, the religion I follow "cherry picks" and holds the verses of marriage being between a man and a women very sacred (Catholicism). There are many christian faiths out there that don't emphasize this value as strongly and may "cherry pick" a different verse to fit their creed.
I had to respond to the first message because it encompassed all of Christianity and that is very disrespectful to my religion that "cherry picks." Religion is based on faith - belief not based on truth. I have faith in my religion and what they cherry picked. As a non-religious person with no faith in a particular religion, I can see how this kind of faith is hard to accept and obtain. No one can force you to have faith and no one should try.
Once again the start of my issue with the original post is that it encompassed all of Christianity. If the basis of the passage was to prove that religion cherry-picks certain verses to advance their own creeds, I could have agreed. The passage instead attacked every Christian religion as not having any clear proof from the bible that marriage is between one man and one women this is completely erroneous when it comes to Catholicism.
Thank you once again for your time :love: :love: :love:
-
Proverbs 18:22
He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.
¡Bendita sea tu fuente!
¡Goza con la esposa de tu juventud!
19 Es una gacela amorosa,
es una cervatilla encantadora.Proverbs 20:6-7
Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find? The righteous man leads a blameless life; blessed are his children after him.
Son muchos los que proclaman su lealtad,
¿pero quién puede hallar a alguien digno de confianza?7 Justo es quien lleva una vida sin tacha;
¡dichosos los hijos que sigan su ejemploDeuteronomy 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
No envíes a la guerra a ningún hombre recién casado, ni le impongas ningún otro deber. Tendrá libre todo un año para atender su casa y hacer feliz a la mujer que tomó por esposa.Matthew 19:4-6
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."Colossians 3:18-19
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
Normas para la familia cristiana
18 Esposas, sométanse a sus esposos, como conviene en el Señor.
19 Esposos, amen a sus esposas y no sean duros con ellas.Hebrews 13:4-7
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
4 Tengan todos en alta estima el matrimonio y la fidelidad conyugal, porque Dios juzgará a los adúlteros y a todos los que cometen inmoralidades sexuales. 5 Manténganse libres del amor al dinero, y conténtense con lo que tienen, porque Dios ha dicho:
«Nunca te dejaré;
jamás te abandonaré.
6 Así que podemos decir con toda confianza:
El Señor es quien me ayuda; no temeré.
¿Qué me puede hacer un simple mortal?
7 Acuérdense de sus dirigentes, que les comunicaron la palabra de Dios. Consideren cuál fue el resultado de su estilo de vida, e imiten su fe. 8 *Jesucristo es el mismo ayer y hoy y por los siglos.Mark 10:6-9
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
6 Pero al principio de la creación Dios “los hizo hombre y mujer”. **7 “Por eso dejará el hombre a su padre y a su madre, y se unirá a su esposa,[c] 8 y los dos llegarán a ser un solo cuerpo.”[d] Así que ya no son dos, sino uno solo. 9 Por tanto, lo que Dios ha unido, que no lo separe el hombre.Ephesians 5:22-33
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
22 Esposas, sométanse a sus propios esposos como al Señor. 23 Porque el esposo es cabeza de su esposa, así como Cristo es cabeza y salvador de la iglesia, la cual es su cuerpo.** -
Well the bible does omit part of the genesis that it take from the tora, so expect fun as you read about the first couples…
Actually in the dark ages there were gay couples married by the church also, in galicia there is a document of the 11th century I believe, in germany there was also a codex that tells a god tale about it, however just forward to any cathedral of the medieval and look at the statuary in the water lines, most likely you will see some gay action there. (The church did never care much about it until Erasmus and Calvin)
-
Plase tell me the parts that you think condone gay sex. :pope:
-
Matthew 8: 5-13: “Jesus Heals the Roman Soldier's Servant:”
Jesus meets a humbled Roman Soldier; something that was strange, because, at that time, Israel was controlled by Rome, and the soldier would have been in a much more powerful position than a wanderer and simple prophet like Jesus. The Soldier begins to tell Jesus about his sick and dying servant. Roman soldiers typically had a number of servants, just like in this story, but the Soldier keeps explaining to Jesus why this servant, the sick one, is special to him. Servants, like slaves, were like property that could be easily replaced, but this Roman Soldier has a special connection to this servant. He humbled himself before a man that most Romans thought was a loon. out of faith that Jesus could heal him. Jesus, knowing all, decided not only to heal this special servant, but to commend this Soldier on his great faith.
While so many people forget this story, it speak volumes about what Jesus thought about men having special “friendships” or “relationships” with other men. Jesus did not tell this guy that he shouldn’t be “getting too close to this male servant, because being gay is wrong;” he commended the man for stepping out of his comfort zone and acting out of faith and love for his fellow man.
This is one of possible cases tho even in the old testment you get some cases like these, which is normal since homossexuality wasn't exactly a faux pas… AGAIN historical aproach over interpretation might be interesting tho Paul was a biggot hater and that is that ahahah
-
The fact he healed a gay soldier goes to show his benevolence and not his acceptance of homosexuality. I only see one verse here and it doesn't exactly condone homosexuality. Where exactly do you think it does? :pope: :cheerup:
-
The fact he healed a gay soldier goes to show his benevolence and not his acceptance of homosexuality. I only see one verse here and it doesn't exactly condone homosexuality. Where exactly do you think it does? :pope: :cheerup:
He did not healed a gay soldier, he healed his slave lover? :poorthing:
-
Regardless of that, it still only shows the magnitude of God's benevolence and not his accpetance of condonation of their behavior. God also stepped to prevent the stoning of a prostitute, which is also not a condoned behavior. Again this just shows God's mercy not acceptance. Love the person and not the sin. :love:
