Current arguments about marriage:
A number of writers have composed arguments discussing their views on marriage and sexuality, particularly as it relates to the Bible and the Garden of Eden story.
Joseph Hertz, the editor who composed The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (1945), believed that marriage embodied the dignity and sacredness of life, was a key part of the creation scheme, intended for all of humanity and strictly between a man and a woman. He saw it as something deeper than a civil contract. The purpose of marriage is posterity (emphasis on the family and children, as commanded by Genesis 1:28) and companionship (emphasis on what a man gains from a female companion and the completeness he finds in her, as commanded by Genesis 2:24). Marriage is also monogamous, ideally in the Bible. He addresses the ideal marriages of the patriarchs but fails to explain why many of them had multiple wives or concubines.
Samuel Dresner in "Homosexuality and the Order of Creation" argues against homosexuality along with other forms of sexual acts prohibited in the Torah. Like Hertz, he argues in favor of heterosexual marriages for the purpose of companionship and children. He uses the same passages as Hertz to support these claims. Adam and Eve were monogamous and so humans were meant to dwell in monogamous families. But he doesn't stop with creation. He use the flood story too, stating that God destroyed the world because of sexual corruption and this was fixed by the heterosexual marriages between Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives. He then turns to the patriarchs' ideal marriage which were not tarnished by their relationships with other wives and concubines. Family is central to everything and homosexuality is against nature. He argues that homosexuals are not so by choice, but they are like those born blind: "As the existence of such persons does not deny the fact that humans hear and see 'by nature,' so humans are heterosexual 'by nature,' though individual persons may be homosexual." He believes that homosexuality is permitted then what will stop adultery, incest and bestiality from being "rejected."
Michael Coogan in God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says discusses sexuality using Biblical support in a different, more openminded way. He begins by first making it clear to the audience that the Bible is a historically bound text that originate in a society drastically different than our own. It cannot necessarily be used a guidebook on the practice and theory of marriage. Like Dresner and Hertz came is a definition of marriage, Coogan sees marriage's function in Biblical times to be the production of offspring. In contrast to Hertz, Coogan states that arranged marriages were extremely common and widely accepted in the biblical world. Examples are strewn throughout the Bible. According to biblical law and practice, endogamy was a (n encouraged) conditions of marriage in ancient Israel.
Coogan also addresses the practice of polygamy (or polygyny). It was not uncommon in the Bible, even sometimes encouraged by God, as seen in the patriarchs. In fact, it is attested among Jews as late as the 300s AD. In response to the Adam and Eve story, Coogan posits: "in the beginning, according to Genesis, there was only the original couple in the Garden of Eden, no one else with whom either could have any sort of relationship; but Genesis never reports a marriage ceremony. Not long after Eden, however, the biblical writers tell us, men began to have more than one wife, beginning with Cain's descendant Lamech, who had two wives." It had great advantages: children were a source of labor and multiple wives were a status symbol. He discusses further the connection between sex and power and how though the Bible they are often associated with each other.
Unlike Hertz ideas of sacredness in marriage, Coogan points out that the Bible does not contain the idea of romantic love that many hold today. In the Bible love is synonymous with sexual obsession and physical attraction. Yet, 'loving marriages' do seems to be described in other cases. Coogan also goes into a long discussion about divorce in the Bible, seen in some cases as permissible and in other cases not.
On the topic of homosexuality (referred to as homoerotic relationships), Coogan states that the Bible does not have very much to say. He examines cases which some people believe contain elements of homosexuality, like David and Jonathan or the men of Sodom and Gibeah. In David and Jonathan's case, he explains that the expressions of love can be taken as not homoerotic because such expressions were not uncommon in the ancient Near East. In Sodom and Gibeah's case, he asks whether or not sodomy was the sin of Sodom. In his opinion, no. By examining other biblical references to the destruction of Sodom, it seems that their sin was actually the lack of hospitality to strangers and social injustice. There are explicate commands against homosexual relationships in Leviticus but it is only those. Coogan goes on to examine how the New Testament handles homosexuality. "Contemporary moralists who argue that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality (or, better, homoeroticism) are correct, but when they appeal to the Bible's authority as a timeless and absolute moral code, they ignore the cultural contexts in which the Bible was written."
In Coogan's case, he does not seek to make a point and then back it up with Biblical support, but rather to critically examine the Bible to understand what it says about marriage and sexual relations. According to him the Bible says: marriage is meant for the production of offspring, arranged marriages were extremely common and widely accepted in the biblical world, endogamy was a (n encouraged) conditions of marriage in ancient Israel, polygamy (or polygyny) was also widely accepted (arguing against the Eden account and its validating of strictly heterosexual marriages), the Bible does not contain the idea of romantic love that many hold today, divorce was seen in some cases as permissible and in other cases not, and finally the Bible does not have very much to say about homosexuality except that there are explicate commands against homosexual relationships in Leviticus. One might call this a more academic reading of the text.
Current understanding of the evolution of human sexuality:
In terms of biology and the evolution of human sexuality, marriage and sexual relations is drastically different. It seems that, by nature, men tend to be polygamous and women monogamous. Evolution chooses (although I cannot see how ‘evolution’ which is simply a concept can consciously choose) the path which leads to the most offspring. Food availability therefore pays a large part in this. It is females and no males who ultimately, albeit usually subtly, determine a species’ mating strategy. When food is in short supply a female may choose to share a male with other females, but when food is abundant she may choose to be in a monogamous relationship. In such sircumstaces, the female will be more careful in choosing a mate. In fact, “from a biological point of view, the predisposition for influence, substance and prestige are all merely expressions of a male positioning himself to acquire women with whom to mate.” One might assume that because food is so readily available for us, monogamy is preferable. This may be. Nevertheless, humans are somewhat sexual dimorphic and sexual dimorphism is a tendency of species who engage in polygamous relationships. So, biologically, we seem to be polygamous.
The
tendency of men to remain with the mother of his children appears to be a
recent evolutionary development. This
was achieved through infertile sex and the sex drive. Through these, humans were ultimately able to
invest more time and energy into raising children, leading to more brain
development and a more advanced species.
Like
polygamy, homosexual relations are also not cancelled out by biology. Some chimpanzees practice same-sex
activity.
Despite
this, there is still love. “Sexual love is complex, all embracing, uplifting, elusive
but real, and it is a uniquely human characteristic. Human sexual love
is highly selective - usually limited to one person at a time. It involves an intense
desire for prolonged, close proximity with a person who is the object of
affection. Passion leads to intimacy and
commitment. Love can be so strong that
it can endure for long intervals without genital consummation.”
Based on the readings from Eve and Adam, Genesis 2:24 is an etiology for both marriage and sexual desire, coming together to form the idea of monogamous families. According to Hertz, this verse supports the idea that one of marriage's 2 key components in companionship. According to Dresner, this verse supports the idea that marriage should be heterosexual.
In my point of view, this verse is an etiology of marriage. Although it is out of place with the Eden story, a man is leaving this parents and cleaving to his 'wife'. This term wife is suggestive of marriage as is the idea of a man leaving his family to start his own family.
Beautifully read, and nicely critiqued.
ReplyDelete“I cannot see how ‘evolution’ which is simply a concept can consciously choose)”
I had the same reaction to a poor choice (no pun intended) of words, but I guess if one calls it ‘natural selection’ there’s also the implication that someone/thing is doing the selecting.
Just a word on reading Gen 2:24. Biblical Hebrew has no word for ‘wife.’ It uses the word for ‘woman’, but that’s kind of awkward so ‘wife’ is translated when it seems appropriate, as it does here. The real meaning here lies in the “become one flesh.”