The first time I heard someone say “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, “ it struck me as a very funny and a very common sense view. The statement does not provide much analysis of homosexuality, but its brevity is part of its strength. Everyone knows, however, that it never convinced anyone who did not believe already that homosexuality is unnatural. Thirty years later people still repeat it. After so much time it is no longer very funny, but it still strikes me as a very common sense view. The fact that after thirty years the question of homosexuality itself has evolved in the question of homosexual marriage, however, confirms that as an argument “God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” lacks persuasiveness.
Yet Christians continue to repeat it, like they do the Scriptures themselves, as if it settles all arguments. In their minds, a paraphrase or direct quotation from the Word of God provides closure for every moral and public policy dispute. But does it? Is the Bible correct about homosexuality and the question of homosexual marriage? Is the Bible a sound guide to marriage to general? Let’s have a bible “sword” drill and see.
The major challenge in seeking answers to marital questions or any ohter question is the matter of interpretation. First, Christians organized the Scriptures around the idea of two covenants, commonly called the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament writings primarily concern the Mosaic Covenant (although they describe additional covenants as well.) The New Testament writings concern the Covenant of Jesus Christ. Theologians--and whole Christian denominations for that matter--disagree about the relationship between the covenants and their application for today. Second, the authors wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Aramaic. Later scribes translated them into Greek. Finally, the writings emerged from cultures very different from our own. All these factors present problems for interpretation. Let’s start with the writings of the Old Covenant. On this post, I first will look at texts describing duties of husbands and wives. In a second post, I will look at texts describing duties between parents and children. Then I will make some comments.
The first thing to note is marriage in the bible is confined to a man and a woman. This is natural in that it allows the continuation of the species--"be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Old Covenant Law required that everyone engaging in homosexual activity be executed (Lev. 18:22). When liberal Christian denominations try to legitimize homosexual relationships, they are completely dishonest. In America, they can ordain anything they want; just don’t call it Christianity.
The second thing to note is that biblical families are patriarchal in organization. This means rule by the man. Theologians trace rule of the man to the creation ordinance. Woman was created as a helper for man. After the fall, he was “to rule” over the woman (Gen. 3:16).
On the most basic level, patriarchy means that the man provided economic sustenance and physical security for family members in return for deference and obedience on their part. Theologians see the origins of work in the creation ordinance. God placed Adam in a garden and commanded him to care for it (Gen. 2:15). It was the easy life, but not labor free. Man’s labors became much more intense after the fall. God cast man from the garden and cursed the ground (Gen. 3:17-19). Man forfeited a life of gathering fruit to one of tilling the ground. (Gen. 3:23). The Old Testament Scriptures provide little direct commands about work. They contain repeated directions about confining work to six days with a day of rest on the seventh, but not much else. Numerous proverbs , however, exhort men to diligence in their work (Pro. 10:4-5. 12:11, 13:4, etc.)
In this patriarchal arrangement, a man could have multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon all had more than one wife. Although the Old Testament law forbids polygamy to kings (Deut. 17:17), it does not forbid it outright to all people livng under Old Testament law. (Ex. 21:10; Deut. 21:15-17).
Men controlled Jewish religious life. They directed both the teaching of the law and the Temple sacrifices. Religious life of Jewish women fell under the direction of their husbands. For example, Jewish wives could not make a vow to God without their husbands approval (Num. 30:6-8).
According this patriarchal ideal, women were to obey their husbands. Old Testament Scriptures provide few direct commands on this question. It seems implicit in accounts of biblical couples. One New Testament observation makes it clear. Peter points to the example of Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who called her husband “Lord” (1 Pet. 3:6). Scriptures also make it more clear in the account of Esther and other Jews living in exile in Persia. The Persian queen Vashti refused a summons of her king. This created a royal uproar. “For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands.” The king reacted with a decree that “all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both great and small” and that “every man should bear rule in his own hous.” (Est. 1:17,22). Later the king acquired a submissive Jewish bride in Esther. According to the story, she intervened with the king to save the Jews from slaughter. Human nature being what it is, however, patriarchy did not necessarily lead to domestic bliss. The book of Proverbs contains several observations about living with an insubordinate woman (Pro. 21: 9, 21:19, 25:26, 27:15).
The patriarchal ideal looms larger when it comes to dissolving a marriage. The Old Testament law permits divorce and remarriage, although it is not clear on what grounds ( Deut. 24:1). No consensus exists on what Moses meant by “unclean.” But it was clearly a husband’s prerogative. No text that I have been able to find suggests a woman may divorce her husband.
A second third way to dissolve marriage is through honor killing. If a man takes a woman to be his lawfully wedded wife, and believes a wives' tale( or would this be a husband' tale) about ascertaining the bride's virginity through examination of the bed sheets, he can hold a public trial. If they ascertain she was not a virgin on her wedding day, she is guilty of shaming her father. The law requires her to be brought to her father's house and stoned to death.
A third way to dissolve a marriage appears more equal. When either party in a marriage commits adultery, Mosaic case law demands death to both parties. This apparent equality, however, may be illusory. Of course, one of the “Ten Commandments” forbids adultery. (Ex. 20:14) But when Moses lays out specific case law, such problems as adultery, seduction, and rape appear not so much crimes against God or the women, but against the woman’s male protector--the husband or the father. For example, if a man seduces an unmarried or unbetrothed woman, the law requires him to pay a bride price to the father and marry her. (Ex. 22:16). If a man seduces a married woman or betrothed woman, the law required their execution (Deut. 22:22-23). If a man rapes a married or unbetrothed woman, the law requires him to be executed ( (Deut. 22:25-27). In an especially morally outrageous case, if a man rapes a unmarried or unbetrothed woman, the law requires him to pay the bride price to the father and marry her (Deut. 22:28). Finally, if a man seduces a bondwoman, he is only whipped, because she is not free (Lev. 19:20). In all these cases, the status of the woman regarding a male protector determines the outcome of the case.
Interestingly enough, never is the status of the male a factor in any of these cases. The law does not contain any example of case law on these questions specifically directed at married men. Usually readers assume that the commandment against adultery and the case law requiring death to adulterers covers transgression for an unfaithful husband or wife. The context of these case laws, however, is all about the status of a woman without regard to the status of the man. If these examples of case law mean a man of whatever marital status, it means that a married man did not suffer the death penalty for adultery unless he violated the rights of another married man through a relationship with the latter’s wife. It suggests a patriarchal double standard for marital relationships. Part 2 will examine Old Testament Scriptures on fathers and children.