Matthew 19 does not permit Divorce in the case of Adultery.

As someone who’s politically a Leftist while being Theologically Conservative I want to clarify this discussion of what The Bible says about Divorce should have no impact on Civil Laws, Civil Marriage as a Legal Contract should have no restriction on how to enter it or leave it (besides Consent and being old enough obviously), forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages is not the way to inspire Christian Morality.

Matthew 19 is the core of why Christian Morality is traditionally Anti-Divorce and yet even the most Conservative commentators are forced to concede Adultery as a valid excuse for Divorce here because of their other Conservative agendas in how to treat a certain word.

Matthew 19:9 in the King James Version uses the word “fornication” for what the only allowable reason for Divorce is.  I’ve proven before on this Blog how that word and the Greek word Pornea are words for specifically Prostitution.  But because casual usage watered down that word to mean any perceived Sexual sin or any sex “outside of marriage” that part of the verse is often quoted as if it used the word Adultery even by people saying they are going off the KJV. 

The problem with thinking that reading is valid is the way even Jesus’s own Disciples reacts to it in verse 10.  Their reaction only makes sense if this is some utterly unprecedented restriction even though Adultery as a good enough reason for divorce is about the most precedented allowance imaginable.

According to the Talmud the Pharisees had an internal disagreement about Divorce at this time, Hillel’s school was more permissive while Shammai allowed it only for Adultery. Jesus seeming more like Shammai here is the exception to the general trend, on everything else Jesus sounds a lot more like Hillel.  But His break from Hillel here is based on very Hillelian principals, Mercy and Forgiveness.

Yes words for Prostitution are often used euphemistically to call someone a whore for being sexually active at all.  But that doesn't change what the word means, the word should be translated as what it means and let the reader interpret how literally it’s being used. And Euphemistic references to Prostitution sometimes go the other way, they are sometimes about the concept of “selling out” and not actually sexual at all.  The core Greek Root behind Pornea means “to sell off” the sex part is not in the actual Etymology.

Adultery is explicitly mentioned in this passage but not as a reason for Divorce, rather as a consequence of it.  This is the only passage in all of Scripture that defines Adultery as a Crime a Husband can commit against his Wife, in The Torah Adultery is always defined only as a Wife sleeping with someone other than her Husband.  Why is explained earlier in Matthew 5:32 where it’s clarified that a Husband causes his Wife to Commit Adultery when he divorces her, because women in that society usually needed a husband to survive.

Marriage in The Resurrection

I shall have to set up some context before getting to the passage I really intend to explain here.

First, what passage of Genesis ordains Marriage?  

If you have a positive view of marriage as a mutual co-equal partnership you are likely to answer Genesis chapter 2 verses 18, 23 and 24.  Where the word for “help meet” or Helper is a word also used of God in his relationship with Humanity in Exodus 18:4 and Deuteronomy 33:7-26-29 (I've seen it argued Rescuer would be a better translation then Helper) and where how the union happens is if anything seemingly Matrilocal.

But if you have a more cynical view, if the marriage you mean is the marriage that Marx and Engels wanted to abolish, you are likely to answer Genesis 3:16 where Patriarchy began.

In Hosea 2:16 we read “And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali”.  

Both of these are Hebrew words for Husband, but with different connotations.  Ishi is the word for Husband (or man in the KJV) used in Genesis 2:23 which is based on the same root as the word for Wife/Woman while Baali also means Lord or Sovereign or Ruler.  

The levirate marriage was an ancient custom explained in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where if a husband died before producing an heir the wife would marry a near kinsman (brother preferably if available) and the son conceived would be considered legally a son of the dead husband in addition to his biological father.  This concept is relevant to Genesis 38, The Book of Ruth and explaining apparent genealogical contradictions involving Zerubbabel.

What fascinates me about this law is how while there are no references to Polyandry in The Hebrew Bible the logic behind this law can certainly open the door to it.  What if a husband becomes unable to reproduce but is still alive?  But in the time of Jesus the Pharisees were still dominated by the Shammai school for whom such a permissive reading would have been unthinkable, and the Sadducees were no doubt the same.

And so with those at first seemingly barely related subjects laid out I shall now interpret what Jesus said in Matthew 22:23-30 and Mark 12:18-25, and more different from the others Luke 20:26-37.

The Sadducees seek to discredit the promised future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead by bringing up the Levirate Marriage and implying that would result in Polyandry.

Jesus first says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Greek word translated Power here is Dunamis/Dynamis which gets translated a number of ways including “abundance”.  Jesus is identifying their core error as an underestimation of God not an overestimation of the long term existence of marriage.

Next Jesus says “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. “Given in marriage” is one word in the Greek, Jesus uses two related verbs not the actual word for marriage itself.  

Who the “they” means in the context of what the Sadducees were talking about is key to understand here, they are thinking in the framework of marriage being a means by which a woman is possessed by her husband “whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her”.  It is women who Jesus is saying will no longer be passed around from one family or husband to another like a possession.

Luke’s version has a part about the Resurrected being “children of God” but that’s the same Gospel that called Adam the Son of God.  In Luke 17:27 Jesus also refers to marrying and “given in marriage” as part of what the people drowned in the Flood of Noah were doing.  Genesis 6 described their core Sin as Violence.

None of what Jesus said here can be interpreted as saying the Marriage of Genesis 2 where it was never about one party owning the other is discontinued.  In my view the “angels in heaven” are life forms living a Genesis 2 existence not the immaterial sexless phantoms Platonist Christian want them to be.

In the KJV the word Paradise only appears in the New Testament, that's because that Greek word is used for the Garden of Eden in the LXX and Revelation 2:7 confirms that’s still what it refers to.  That Paradise is in “Heaven” currently according to 2 Corinthians 12:4 but in Revelation 21-22 it returns to Earth as part of the New Jerusalem in the New Creation, which is also called The Lamb’s Wife. 

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in the Resurrection because the Body of Christ is a Communistic Polycule.

Age of Consent and Adulthood

If I identify with any specific branch of Christianity more then the others it's The Baptists (but with some Quaker characteristics), especially The General Baptists.  But one annoyance I have with a lot of modern Credo-Baptist sects is a refusal to state a clear absolute minimum age one can choose to be Baptized, with some even thinking Elementary School kids can be old enough.

Baptism should be viewed as in part a Commitment on par with Marriage.  So anyone you consider too young to get Married is also to young to be Baptized because I view Baptism as in-part becoming Betrothed to Christ.  But I think most Churches are permitting Marriage at too young an age as well. 

It's also about becoming an Emancipated Citizen of The Kingdom and so anyone you think is too young to Vote you should also consider too young for Baptism. 

I'm a true Paulian Christian, I don't believe we are under The Law in any rigid or legalistic sense.  But I am Hebrew Roots enough to still believe The Torah is useful, for things like this especially.  And I think a lot of early Christian traditions that don't seem directly mandated by The New Testament have their roots in applying Torah ideas though a New Testament filter.

Exodus 30:14, Leviticus 27:3, Numbers 26:2-4 and 1 Chronicles 27:23 tell us that about 20 is when The Torah considered someone legally an Adult Citizen of the Congregation.  Numbers 1:3 and 2 Chronicles 25:5 also say 20 is the minimum age you could serve in the Military.

However since I view New Testament water Baptism as evolving out of the Water Immersion ritual that was part of consecrating the Aaronic Priesthood (Exodus 29:4, 40:12 and Leviticus 8:6) applied to the Priesthood of All believers Doctrine that only Congregational Polity practicing Christians even pretend to take seriously.  Age milestones related to the Levites specifically may be worth looking at.

1 Chronicles 23:27 and Ezra 3:8 confirm the significance of 20, but that's not actually The Torah. In Numbers 8:24 the age of 25 is when Levites start the service of the Congregation, but in Numbers 4:3-47 it seemed to be the age of 30.  Contextually the main difference between Numbers 4 and 8 is that chapter 4 is about one specific event and chapter 8 is laying out the more general rules for how Levites will function. There's quite a few things in Numbers 8 that arguably make it more relevant to Baptism then Numbers 4.

One of the arguments against Infant Baptism being the original norm of the Church is the clear evidence that early Christian Tradition going back to at least the 2nd Century said 5 years of Catechism was necessary before Baptism  This tradition remained formally in-place after Infant Baptism was standardized but was applied only to adult converts.  But that combination makes no sense, why can Infants be Baptized right away but adults need to be prepared to know what they are committing to?

Now a lot of people in Acts seem to be Baptized right after they convert, but in Acts 2 and 8 we are dealing with people coming from an Israelite background, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Isaiah already, the stuff the 5 year Catechism was necessary for may be stuff they already knew.  

So I think either 20 was originally the Minimum age to begin Catechism and then 25 when 5 years have passed for Baptism, and another five years before you can be considered an "Elder". I don't think NT use of Presbyter meant Elder or Senior in the old age sense but more closer in application to the Japanese honorific Sempai, I think Congregational polity denominations often cede to much ground to Presbyterians and Episcopalians on how to define those words.

It is of course possible the Catechism was only required for Adult Converts and those raised in the faith were expected to know all that when they reached the minimum age.  But I do think it'd be a mistake for parents to pressure their kids to hard to get Baptized as soon as they turn 20 or even 25, let them think about it for awhile if they want to.

Thirty as an ideal age for Baptism is a natural conclusion one could draw from Luke 3:21-23 seeming to say about Thirty was when Jesus was Baptized.

So 20 as the minimum age for even beginning to prepare for Baptism in my view should also be the minimum age of Consent for Sex and Marriage.  But I can even sympathize with raising that to 25 based on the science about how the frontal context of the Brian isn't fully formed till 25.

Rabbinic Judaism at some point developed the Bar Mitsvah tradition of considering adulthood to in some sense begin at 12 or 13 (the oldest reference to it is from the 2nd Century AD Mishna but specifically doing it as young as 13 isn't referenced till the 4th Century).  I don't know where this came from, there is nothing supporting it in The Torah or anywhere else in The Hebrew Bible.  Manasseh became king at 12, but he didn't turn out to be a very good King, maybe that had something to do with it?  Either way that happened because that was his age when his father died, no other reason. 

However a lot of Christians think 12 as some sort of milestone age is vindicated in The New Testament by Luke 2:40-42.  Nothing here says Jesus being 12 is the reason for anything.  The Torah required only adult males to attend the Pilgrimage Festivals but those Men did often bring their families including wives and children.  Nothing in Luke 2 says Jesus wasn't there for prior observances of Passover, this is just a time when something notable happened.  And it's notable precisely because it's unusual for someone this young to be this intellectually skilled, think of this almsot like a Detective Conan scene.  This is a story about how Jesus as the Son of God was not like other 12 year olds, it's not a model for anything.

[I've also been considering a theory on New Testament chronology that would have the Passover when Jesus was Twelve be the first one after the removal of Archelaus which makes sense as the first time Joseph would have brought his family with him given what the end of Matthew 2 says.  But that's a secondary theory and not necessary to explain it.]

Contrary to popular assumption NO it was not in Ancient or Medieval times common for people to get married with at least the woman being as young as 16 or even 12 in some claims.  While on the books marriages that young might have been technically allowed all the evidence shows that in practice the norm was usually at least 20.  The notable exceptions were usually among the Aristocratic or Royal Families making important marriage alliances and even they often weren't consummated right away.  But those exceptions are often what people write historical fiction about helping spread the confusion.

https://youtu.be/E6Ey6tAbUfg?t=530

[Update: And here's one citing sources on specifically Mary's Age at the Annunciation.]

There are no Biblical verses stating a clear ideal or minimum marriage age, but at least 3 notable people didn't get married till 40, Isaac, Esau and Moses (Jacob was Esau's twin and he got married even later). 

Joash becomes King at Seven years old after a crisis which has left things so the continuation of the House of David falls entirely on him.  Yet he still doesn't have his son Amasiah till 14 years later when he's about 21. This is based on the Biblical accounts of 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 13, and statements made in 2 Kings 12:1, 2 Chronicles 24:1, 2 Kings 14:2 and 2 Chronicles 25:1. 

And no nothing in Scripture supports the "if she can bleed she can breed" meme people assume about pre-modern cultures.  

The one Bible verse some will cite for that is 1 Corinthians 7:36 but it does not explain what "flower of her age" means, the natural assumption to me is Puberty being over not when it starts, that "flowering' is a process not a singe event.   "Flower" isn't even a good translation of the Greek, the Greek text here is communicating the idea of being physically fully grown, which happens at about 20.  So I would consider 20 the age of consent for sex but still hold off on marriage till 25 or 30.  

Also regardless of age some people abuse "let him do what he will" from this chapter to defend martial rape. The context of this chapter is addressing believers questioning whether Sex and Marriage is right for them at all, Paul is giving people permission to enter consensual marriage, not disregarding the woman's consent.

However this scientific basis for the raising the Age of Consent is not an argument agaisnt Trans Healthcare for Minors.  Puberty Blockers are for those who DO NOT CONSENT to their assigned gender's puberty.  You can be to young to consent to something but not to young to refuse Consent.   Hormone treatment is reversable., not allowing Top or Bottom surgery till 20 I can be fine with, but Hormone treatment needs to be allowed. 

In both Numbers 4:3-47 and Numbers 8:25 the age of Fifty is when Levites retire.  And looking at a lot of contemporary issues not letting people over Fifty stay in Congress or on the Supreme Court sounds like a good idea.  Letting people between 50-60 remain in advisory positions with no direct powers could also work, Sixty as a milestone age comes from Leviticus 27:3-7.

The Christology of the Sanctity of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage.

So I've been talking on this Blog about how Paul said there is neither Male or Female in The Church.  And recently I've been noticing how traditionalists will say that it's important to defend "traditional marriage" because of how it's a picture of the relationship between Christ and Israel and/or The Church (whatever your view on The Bride of Christ doctrine is).

And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Colossians 2:16-17?  Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.

Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of His responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.

That same principle can be applied to marriage.  God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone.  Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion, some scholars argue it means "rescuer".  So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2.  And likewise when some people need more then one companion.

1 John 4:7.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

So there is no context in which it can ever be appropriate to call Love a Sin, in fact doing so could quite possibly be Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit.

Peter Hiett loves mentioning various Romantic movies in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed, especially in the Anime I've watched.

Just accept that The Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy

I myself was once on the bandwagon of trying to deconstruct the Old Testament's approval of Polygyny.  Though at the same time I also deconstructed the presumed New Testament arguments against it.  My mind has changed on a lot of things since then.

This is prompted partly by me watching a recent YouTube video by William Schnebolen, who's gone all Hebrew Roots now.  He's coming at it partly from an Anti-Mormonism angle, which is Ironic.

There are a lot of inconsistencies between what The Book of Mormon teaches and the doctrines that Joseph Smith and even more so Brigham Young would develop later.  Indeed the Book of Mormon actually says the kinds of things The Bible should have said if any of it's authors ever wanted to condemn Polygamy or specifically Polygyny.  And I agree with the Mormon historians who've argued that Joseph Smith never practiced or approved of Polygamy, it seeped into Mormonism through another short lived movement who's members were absorbed into the early LDS church.

Schnebolen even repeats the whole "it's oppressive to women" thing, which is a riot coming from someone who now wants to impose The Torah on the modern world.  The fact is Monogamy has also been traditionally based on viewing women as property.  But even more then that, Polyandry in most cultures that have practiced it still practiced it Patriarchally, the woman was still property just shared property.  No numerical form of Marriage is inherently Patriarchal, it's society that is Patriarchal.

I believe that under The New Testament gender no longer matters, so Polygyny isn't the only form of Polygamy I support, I support Polyandry, Group Marriages, Open Marriages, Polyamory, everything so long as all parties involved are consenting and adults.  And those Mormon communities practicing Polygyny very non-consensually came into existence because of the government making it illegal, just like how so many other forms of prohibition have failed.

The perception that the New Testament is for strict Monogamy is mostly dependent on a lack of any direct references to Polygamy in it.  But I think a lot of that may be because some in the early Church were iffy on continuing marriage as a custom at all, Paul's attitude towards it was complicated and the Disciples left their wives to follow Jesus.

Another factor is how the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers are given primacy in the history of how the New Testament has been interpreted since they spoke the same language (to the point where their Semitic contemporaries works mostly weren't preserved at all). Where that applies to favoring them over the Latins like Augustine I agree.  But the trade off is the New Testament books weren't the only Greek writings to influence them.  The New Testament was a Greek text written mostly by Hebrews.  

You see the Greeks were the first culture in all of history to oppose Polygamy (though they still felt a Husband could have mistresses) and this was among the Greek ideas adopted by Rome.  The Greeks and Romans happen to be the only Pre-Christian cultures to have any opposition to Polygamy, unfortunately they helped shape the development of Christianity.

Every ancient source on 1st and 2nd Century AD Judaism besides the New Testament is clear that they were still practicing Torah based Polygamy, Josephus, Philo, the Talmud, the Early Church Fathers, and even Pagan sources.  Why didn't Jesus ever address this problem if He viewed it as a problem?   

Taking Jesus statement about a man and wife being made one flesh as against Polygamy is massively manipulative.  The context was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was one flesh with each of them.

Romans 7 cited the part of the Torah it does to prove a principle that you're not bound by the Law anymore at Death, and then explains how believers are Dead to the Law in Jesus at Baptism.  So no this chapter can't be used against Polyandry.

Paul's statements in the Pastoral Epistles about Bishops and Deacons being the "husband of one wife" have been interpreted as meaning no more then one when opposing Polygamy, but no less then one when addressing the Vatican's doctrine of a Celibate clergy.  However it does not say "Only one".

Schnebolen actually says Paul had to say this because of the Polygamy being practiced by the Pagans of Corinth, which shows his ignorance of Pagan Greece.  Quite the contrary the context of Paul saying the Bishop should be "blameless" suggests it's about appeasing the norms of the secular society they live in not rejecting them.  Well as Americans the norms of our secular society are supposed to be about valuing the Freedom to live however you want. 

Jesus told a parable about 10 Virgins awaiting the same Bride Groom, which goes against the usual trend of the Bride of Christ doctrine being presented as a Monogamous marriage even though it's literally not.  I think that the Church should be viewed as a giant Group Marriage, here is an old website advocating for Christian Polyamory.
http://www.libchrist.com/

Some scholars think Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany weren't literally siblings but that the women were his Sister-Wives, I'm not inclined to agree with that given my theories about them, but I can't refute it either.  Brighamite Mormons view Mary and Martha as Sister-Wives of Jesus, which I have a controversial response to.  If Jesus was married to the Sisters at Bethany then He was married to the Brother too, if anything His love for Lazarus is described more strongly.

Now onto the attempts to say the Old Testament didn't really approve of it all that glowingly and was subtly vilifying it all along.  That is kind of the key to making their narrative work.

1 Kings 11 is the main discussion of Solomon's wives.  Now I agree that Solomon is not as glowingly approved of as people assume.  But using this narrative to paint Polygamy as the problem is a blatant manipulation of the text.  The wives promoting the worship of Pagan gods was the problem, the story spells that out for us.  Scripture interprets itself on this issue.

And attempts to blame the dysfunctionality of David's family on his Polygamy are equally decimated by reading II Samuel 12.  It happened as a Judgment for David's adultery and murder of Uriah, and Yahuah tells David he only needed to ask if he wanted more wives.

This drama began with Amnon's rape of Tamar.  And it's tempting to suggest that he wouldn't have lusted after her if she had the same mother based on modern psychological theories.  But we have no evidence he did have any full siblings, and no direct evidence these children were raised in a compartmentalized fashion like we often assume of ancient royal Polygamy.  The connection to the Bathseba situation is that Amnon followed his father's example and simply took what he wanted, and then didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.

Now to Deuteronomy 17.  Most scholars of the Hebrew agree Deuteronomy 17:17 is not limiting the King to only one wife, simply saying some restraint is to be practiced.  But Schnebolen wants to get really technical about what "multiply" means in the KJV (he seems to be be maintaining his old KJV onlyism even as a Hebrew Roots person now, which is weird).  How about we interpret all of these rules equally?  Is verse 16 saying the King can't have more then one single horse?  Of course not, that would be absurd, you need more then one horse just to draw one chariot. 

Many scholars see a connection between this part of Deuteronomy and Solomon.  Atheists say Deuteronomy was actually written later then 1 Kings 11, and Believers see it as a covert Prophecy.  Thing is, a break down of this connection shows that David basically followed these instructions while Solomon broke every part of it.  The total number of David's wives may not have exceeded 10 (8 are named) and a few more concubines (which Abishag may have been counted among).  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  So even without Deuteronomy making the line exactly clear, it's obvious how Solomon was excessive in a way prior Biblical Polygamists were not.

Now to the Patriarchs.

On the subject of drawing a connection between the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and their families dysfunctions.  It should be pointed out that Isaac had only one wife and no concubines and that didn't prevent the same thing from happening, parental favoritism and sibling rivalry still happened and it's effects lingered over the rest of the Biblical narrative even more directly then Hagar and Ishmael.  It's post Biblical history that makes Ishmael seem like a bigger conflict then Edom to modern Judeo-Christians.

Here is the thing, Jacob had the most wives, and yes it wasn't any more premeditated then Abraham's situation, but he still had twice as many as Abraham (I now agree with viewing Hagar and Keturah as the same woman).  And yet, in-spite of all the issues Jacob's family had, his family was the one that stuck together, this was where they stopped breaking off into separate nations and in fact remain one pretty united people until Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeorboam messed it up, and that break up wasn't divided along the lines of Jacob's wives.  Leah is treated as Joseph's mother in his dream in Genesis 37, and children of a city of Judah are refereed to as Rachel's children in Matthew 2.

It's common to compare when Rachel asked Jacob to lie with Bilhah to Sarah asking Abraham to lie with Hagar.  But this time it didn't end the same, neither woman wound up despising the other.  Both of Jacob's handmaiden concubines get fully promoted to wives without Leah or Rachel needing to die first.

Among the three Patriarchs, there is a direct correlation between how many wives they had and how well their family stuck together.  Jacob's family had it's issues, but every family has issues.

With the Patriarchs when Polygamy becomes a problem it is the favoritism and jealously that is the problem, not having more then one in the first place, and that's why it was still a problem for Isaac.

The Lamech of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 gets brought up in this debate.  First of all there is no Biblical basis for the law of first mention, the law of needing two references to build doctrine has at least some basis but even it some question.  However the law of first mention is just made up.

And as I recently talked about, Racists love to claim the first Mixed Marriage was also in Genesis 4.

There is nothing in the Lamech narrative to support a connection between his cryptic claim to have killed someone and his having two wives. In fact his confessing his sin to his wives may be the light in this situation.

"Neither Male or Female in The Church" Follow Up

This is a follow up to my earlier Paul Said there is Neither Male or Female in The Church.  Which was based on Galatians 3:28.

I want to address some of the other passages in the New Testament, mainly other teachings of Paul, people might insist contradict my absolutist understanding of that verse.  Some of course I already anticipated in advance there, or dealt with when defending Female Pastors, [that post is a big out of date only in that I no longer support the traditional office of "pastor" at all, but I definitely support female Presbyters].

In Romans 7 the point of the Torah Passage being cited there is to demonstrate that we are no longer under the Law once we are made Dead to the Law in Christ at Baptism.  I don't think it's meant to be relevant to how Christians should understand Marriage, Gender Roles or the Bride of Christ Doctrine.

The end of 1 Timothy 2 I think is about the Seed of the Woman prophecy, it's not saying any individual woman's salvation is dependent on bearing children.  As for everything alleged to be Sexist about this passage, quite a bit has been written about it already.

1 Corinthians 11:5 is clear that Women were speaking in Church.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is what's often cited to say that women are forbidden to speak in Church and thus be pastors.   First of all 1 Corinthians 14 was largely about the misuse of Tongues and other Charismatic practices.  Second that statement can be viewed as Paul quoting a Rhetorical slogan that he then refutes in verse 36 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?".

Ephesians 5 is the key passage used to insist the New Testament reinforces patriarchal Gender Roles in Marriage.  But here is what I want to point out, the words for Male and Female used in Galatians 3:28 are not used at all in the entire book of Ephesians.

There are likely a variety of ways Ephesians 5 has been translated, and maybe not even always internally consistent.  What you need to know is Aner/Andros gets translated both Man and Husband while Gune/Gyno gets translated Woman, Wife and maybe sometimes Bride.

In ancient Greek, the words in Galatians are much closer to being clinical terms, with the word for Female there also being the root for the Greek word for breastfeeding.  Aristotle explained their meaning in his Generation of Animals where he says the Arren are those who generate in another and the Thelu are those who generate in themselves, Aristotle on issues was Conservative but not Reactionary, so whatever ones opinion on his philosophy we can trust he got the meanings of words right.  Gyno only seems clinical to us now because of the modern medical profession's selective use of Greek and Latin words.  

Basically, I think Ephesians 5 is about Marriage rather then Gender.  And that in the context of this author also writing Galatians, it can be considered possible that a Female could be a Husband and a Male could be a Wife and a Non-Binary individual could be either or both.

Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae is a teaching manual in legal rhetoric featuring unusual law cases and strategies to be used for or against the defendants involved.  One example he uses comes from Sacaurus consul suffect in 21 CE in his criticism of the tactics used by Hybreas in defending a man who murdered two women he caught having sex with each other.  Sacaurus referred to both women as Tribades (an often debated term associated with Lesbianism during the Greco-Roman era), Hybreas however used Andra of the active partner.  The scene may be interpreted as being comedic, but the use of Andra is not the punchline, it's the set up, the punch line is using "stitched on" to describe the Dildo he looked for didn't find.  This is a first century AD legal precedent for describing a Butch Lesbian as a Husband.  Later in Lucian's Dialogue of the Courtesans Megilla/Megillus and Demonassa call themselves Husband and Wife.

The Bible is not against "Interacial" Marriage

The Torah's commands against marriages with the Canaanites were about mixed marriages on Spiritual grounds.  The issue with the marriages Balaam helped arrange is deliberately explained as the daughters of Moab leading them to into idolatry.

Lots of people want to deny this, yes even today some still try to preach against White People marrying Black People (as if that modern ethnic divide could possibly correlate to any tribal relations in The Bible).

Even going off just The Torah  Who Israelites are allowed to marry, and who they're not, makes no sense if it's purely Ethnic or genealogical lines, they're too arbitrary.  The commands against it are primarily directed at Canaanites, which would work in that context.  But then Moab and Ammon, who descend from Lot, Abraham's Nephew.  One could speculate their gene pool was corrupted by their Incestuous origin, but in Deuteronomy 2 Yahuah still recognized their right to their land as much as he does Edom's.  Their idolatry is I believe the reason they normally can't marry Israelites, yet God's promise of the land he gave to the family of Abraham still applies to them in spite of that.

However marriages to Mizraimites, other descendants of Ham, same son of Noah as Canaan, are repeatedly shown to be okay.  Hagar and Abraham's relationship was not disapproved of by God.  Then Ishmael married a Mizraimite.  Joseph married the daughter of a Mizraimite Priest.  Leviticus 24 records the son of a Danite Woman and a Mizraimite man being an Israelite.  You can conjecture his ancestry related to his Sin all you want, but the text doesn't say that, his Punishment shows he was considered a citizen.  Later the Book of Chronicles tells us of other marriages with Mizraimites that happened pretty early on.

I just did a post on the Cushite Wife of Moses.  It can be viewed as an oversimplification of the passage to say it's explicitly approving that marriage, yet if Moses was wrong to marry her, Yahuah would have said so as Moses Sin at Meribah is not glossed over.

Edom is not included on those prohibited to marry either.  On the one hand you could say that makes sense, they are closer related to Israel then them, coming from Jacob's Twin.  Yet Edom himself married some Canaanites he wasn't supposed to, so why wasn't that condemnation inherited by their descendants if genetics not who they worship was the issue?  Plus in other contexts The Torah mentions Edom right by Moab and Amon.  The difference is Moab and Amon worshiped Idols, Chemosh and Molech, while Edom as I've talked about before seems to have worshiped Yahuah, often worshiped Him wrong perhaps, but still worshiped Him.  Compare Deuteronomy 23:3 to 23:7.

And in a post I'm working on for my Prophecy blog, I'm going to suggest the Mizraimites (often translated Egypt and Egyptian) of the Torah may not have worshiped Idols yet either.

The Levites had many special restrictions, they were not allowed to even marry women of other Tribes of Israel.  You can't use their restrictions to interpret general Laws for all the people.

Deuteronomy 7:3 is the primary verse cited by anti-Mixed Marriage people. They ignore the very next verse.

Now, going beyond The Torah, since most Christians consider all of The Bible canon.

The Book of Ruth.

One website obsessed with saying Interracial marriage is wrong regardless of faith, insists Ruth was not a Moabitess.  This was not a Torah only website obviously, or they'd just do what I've seen some Torah only people do and reject the line of David.  They seem to overlook that if you want to be selective about Canon only the Book of Ruth places a Ruth in Davids ancestry in the TNAK, and Matthew does not repeat her Moabite status.  Though I feel Matthew's mention of her name does Canonize the book of Ruth for all Christians, since there is no other Biblical source he could have gotten it from.

This website argued the Country or Plain of Moab mentioned in Ruth is not in what you usually see Moab limited to on Maps, south of Reuben and the river Arnon, but land that was Moabite before the conquest.  (I think this website was trying to argue it wasn't even Trans-Jordan.) This forgets that Deuteronomy 2 explicitly says God wasn't going to give Israelites any land of Edom, Moab or Amon.  The Trans-Jordan tribes decision to stay Trans-Jordon when that wasn't the original plan arguably complicated this, but I still think it was mostly only Canaanite and Ishmaelite territory they borrowed.

The word Sojourn is used in the very first verse, a word that is usually used of dwelling in a foreign land. Used of Non-Israleites in Israel, and of Isrealites when they Sojourned in Egypt.

They say it doesn't matter that Ruth is called a Moabitess, they believe she was an Israelite, yet is the only Israelite ever repeatedly called a Moabite.

Some verses do say ___ite when referring to a geographical association rather then genealogical ancestry.  But there are usually of Non-Israelites, or of the Patriarchs back before they were their own tribe, hence them being called Arameans even though they descended form Arphaxad not Aram.   Or if it's used of Israelites it's only in a sense that confuses what Tribe they are, like Samuel as a Levite being called am Ephraimite, or the mother of Hiram being both a daughter of Dan and a Widow of Naphtali.

Even if the land they were in can be argued to be formally Moabite territory then belonging to Gad or Reuben.  That hardly rules out Ruth being ethnically Moabite, as the Moabite population of that region would hardly disappear.

Either Ruth was not an Israelite, or the author of Ruth wanted to deceive their readers into thinking she wasn't.

But regardless of all their technical arguments about what terms mean.  To any literary analysis of the book it is absurd to deny that Ruth was a foreigner and that it is advocating for allowing a foreigner to marry into Israel if they are faithful to The Torah.  Ruth is ignorant of the ways of Israel at the start and needs to learn them from Naomi.  And in Ruth 4:5-6, why else would the kinsman in line before Boaz reject her out of concern of his inheritance being barred unless he was concerned with the laws against marrying Moabites?  Obviously people who thought those laws were purely Ethnic existed back then, Ruth is a book written to argue against that belief.

Uriah The Hittie's marriage to Bathsheba was not an issue either, because he was clearly someone who worshiped Yahuah and who Yahuah considered His Servant.

Ezra and Nehemiah.

Some argue that it is specifically Ezra and Nehemiah who's decisions strongly leave no room for allowing ethnically mixed marriages.  Skeptics of The Bible see them as clearly philosophically opposed to the Book of Ruth (and try to claim Ruth was written about the same time by an opposing camp).

Now I haven't studied these two book as much I as should yet.  Maybe they too are being miss-characterized by those who oppose mixed Marriages.  If so I apologize that I can't adequately defend them here just yet.

What I am going to say is that while I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are canonical inspired records of History.  Ezra and Nehemiah were still flawed fallible humans who's interpretations of The Torah we don't necessarily have to agree with.  Even Paul sometimes said "says I not The Lord", and I trust Paul's Judgment more then theirs.

The website I have in mind says The Messiah (they believe that is Jesus) upheld the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah.  But I see no place in The Gospels where Jesus does that.  The book of Ezra is never directly quoted in the New Testament, there is one verse where arguably Jesus is referencing Nehemiah, but that is disputable.  But even then, the verse of Nehemiah in question is not one of their rulings but describing the Manna miracle in the Wilderness.

Jesus acknowledgment of the Second Temple in John 4 is only upholding Zerubabel and Jeshua, Ezra and Nehemiah came later.  Likewise the Prophetic books of the return from Captivity period uphold those two a lot but don't mention Ezra or Nehemiah.  And I think even they possibly built The Temple on the wrong location.

Malachi who was clearly quoted by Jesus as a Prophet, says in chapter 2 verse 11 that the issue is marrying "the daughter of a strange god".  He was a contemporary of the same concerns Ezra and Nehemiah were dealing with.  And the only specific people group spoken of negatively in Malachi is Esau, who were not among those prohibited to marry in the Torah as I laid out.

In The New Testament, Paul taught that there is neither Jew or Gentile in The Church in Galatians 3, and about Gentiles being grafted into Israel Unnaturally in Romans 11.

Wives of Moses

I want to dedicate a post specifically to this question, since it's something I haven't made up my mind 100% on yet.

Most famously is Zipporah, daughter of Jethro also called Raguel, a Priest in Midian.  That could imply they were ethnically Midianite (descendants of Abraham by Keturah) but maybe not.

There is a controversy in Numbers 12 about Moses marrying a Custhie Wife.  There have been two common theories about who this is.

Either it's the same person as Zipporah, thus making this relevant to speculation about the Tribal identity of her and her father Jethro.

Or the extra-Biblical tradition recorded in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian Cushite Princess when he conquered Kush for Egypt way back when he was still a Prince of Egypt.  (This is in DeMille's The Ten Commandments 1956 film, but it doesn't make their marrying explicit, cause it's 1950s America).

In either of those cases I'm inclined to question, why was it just becoming an issue now?

It's often overlooked that in Exodus 18:2 Moses sent Zipporah back to Jethro in Midian.

That Miriam and Aaron are condemned by God for objecting to Moses marriage is taken as proof their objection was wrong.  While that can suit my own agenda well, it's perhaps an oversimplification, since what God was directly angry at was their implying their authority was equal to Moses.  So it's more like this was a minor issue bringing a greater one to the forefront.

What were they objecting to however?  This passage becomes relevant to two debates about Marriage.  Mixed or "Interracial" Marriage, and Polygamy.

Zipporah is last mentioned by that name in Exodus 18. And this passage seems to be the only place after that Moses having a wife comes up.  So whether or not Polygamy is possibly relevant here is not just dependent on if they are the same woman.   Zipporah could have passed away by this point, leaving Moses free to remarry regardless of how okay with Polygamy you interpret the Torah as being.  If Polygamy was their objection, I think they would have said "in addition to".

None of the verses in the Torah taken as condemning mixed marriages even address descent from Cush, they seem to be about Canaanites, Moab and Ammon.  Intermarriages with Mizraimites are not objected to at all, so the ban on Canaan can't be inferred to include all Hamites.  I believe these are in truth about spiritually mixed marriages, not ethnicity, I'll be doing a post on that later.

That proves Yahuah wouldn't have objected to a Cushite wife, but Miriam and Aaron are a different story.

In The Torah Zipporah and Jethro's clan is never explicitly called Kenite.  So people who limit their Canon to the Torah might insist they aren't.

But for those of us who consider Judges a worthwhile source.  Judges 1:16 says the Father in Law of Moses was a Kenite.  Going off that verse alone it could be a different Father in Law is who was meant.  But later Judged 4:11 clarifies these are people who descend form Hobab, and again calls them Kenites.  Now this verse as it's rendered in English at least can be accused of contradicting Numbers 10:29.  Numbers Says Hobab was the son of Moses Father In Law, while this verse in Judges looks like it's saying Hobab was Moses Father in Law.  It might be something is lost in translation here, that it meant to call Hobab and the Father in Law of Moses ancestors of this clan.

Or maybe Numbers 10:29 can be taken as calling Hobab not Raguel the Father in Law of Moses, either way this verse means Jethro wasn't his only name.  Exodus 2:18 could have been referring to Reuel was Zipporah's father even though he was really her grandfather, the patriarch of the clan.  Exodus 2 is the only time Reuel is mentioned as someone clearly still alive, Jethro isn't mentioned till 40 years later in the first verse of Exodus 3.  Every time someone is called Moses' "Father in law" in the KJV the "father" part is added by the translation, the Hebrew just uses a word for in-law.  So maybe Reuel, Jethro and Hobab were three different male members of Zipporah's family.

Only Numbers 10:29 calls Raguel a Midianite, and not simply of the region of Midian.  But even then Midianite can mean that and not stickily ethnically.  Genesis 15 lists the Kenites as people who already existed at this time, that is different from other places in Genesis where I think the narrative voice is mentioning people who'll exist later.

People who don't want The Bible to make sense love to accuse Kenites of being the descendants of Cain, who's line logically perished in The Flood.  However if you look at Kenite's placement in the Strongs, the Pre-Flood patriarch name it's closest to is Cainan or Kenen of Genesis 5, the son of Enosh son of Seth.  Luke 3 tells us another person with this same name (in the Greek text it's spelled identically to the Genesis 5 Kenen) existed after the Flood as a son of Aprhaxad son of Shem.  My theory on this extra name of Luke 3 is that Shelah was a younger son of Arphaxad who married his niece Kenen's daughter.  The Kenites could be people who paternally descended from this Kenen.

That Exodus 4 strongly implies Jethro's family didn't practice Circumcision, I think is also evidence against them descending from Abraham.

I myself had strongly argued for Zipporah being the Kushite wife in my post about Cushites in Arabia.  However that argument was by no means dependent on that, I had another verse implying Cushites and Midian being associated with the same area.

Now my conclusion is most likely this was someone Moses married at the time this controversy broke in Numbers 12, or just a little before.  Given where they were, in Arabia, this Wife of Moses is still evidence for Cushites in Arabia.

For the Josephus tradition, you could get around my first question by saying Moses was obviously separated from her when he fled Egypt, and perhaps they were reunited now.   But still, I feel Josephus is recording a story someone before him imagined to explain this mysterious verse in Numbers while also making Moses more awesome.  I think it's also dependent on assumptions about "Egypt" that may be wrong.

Numbers 11 ends with the Israelites settling at a place called Hazeroth.  Could be this was a place where Arabian Cushites dwelt? and Moses married one of them?

Broader Sexual Morality can't be ignored when affirming Homosexuality

On the main Page of this Blog for my The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality dissertation I provide links to other posts relevant to the issue.  But also to posts about morality in general that may mention the Homosexuality or Transgender issues only briefly if at all.  Why do I do that?

Because one's broader view of Morality does effect how open one will be to the Homosexuality issue.  I think to many traditionalists that partly justifies their not even listening to the argument.

Because even when the Clobber Passages are properly understood, viewing it as totally okay to be a practicing Homosexual or Bisexual or Pansexual requires at least one of two major assumptions about Biblical Morality to be wrong.

1. That all Sex outside Marriage is a Sin.

2. That Marriage is only between Men and Women.

I have argued on this Blog quite strongly that The Bible does not Condemn all Sex outside Marriage, and that the word Fornication refers to Prostitution.  And the origins of condemning Sex outside Marriage lie with Plato.  It helps to understand my Ye Hath God Said study before reading those, to open one's mind to rejecting the assumption that of course God is super strict and questioning that is clearly a tactic of Satan.

While I am very open minded to equally rejecting the common assumption about Marriage.  My studies of it for The Old Testament on Polygamy and New Testament on Marriage posts lead me to conclude that The Bible presumes it to be a a union between Men and Women.

Now I do not want Biblical Marriage to define Legal Marriage.  I'd prefer the Government didn't give out Marriage Licenses at all, but as long as they do I want all alternative forms of Marriage to be legal and treated equally, Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages, ect, even Incestuous Marriages.  As long as everyone involved is consenting and an adult, the State should not be allowed to restrict it.

And I feel Christians should refuse to get Marriage Licenses from the Government regardless, for the same reasons I support the House Church movement and rejecting the 501c3 status.  As I explain in The State, The Church and Marriage, There is no Marriage Ritual Ordained in The Bible and Marriage License vs Marriage Covenant.

Some Gay Affirming Christians may take the opposite approach, and I understand why.

1. They don't want their love to be viewed as different from or inferior to Male-Female love.  Marriage should not be necessary to achieve that, David's greatest love was Johnathon, regardless of only being married to women.

2. Some want to stick as close as they can to an Augustinian Sexual morality to avoid the stereotype that Gays and Bisexuals are deviants and perverts, that condoning them inevitably leads to anything goes.  Thus we get Dan Savage bragging about his husband being a "stay at home dad", and Yuri genre critics like Erica Freidman over reacting to even the mildest forms of Incest.

But I feel history shows the greatest gateway drug to perversion is being too sexually prudish.  When you tell people they're sinning anytime they don't wait for a long term commitment, and shame them for it, it frequently leads to them questioning any restrictions, even the basic idea of consent, since after all animals don't ask for consent.  That is again one of the points of my "Ye Hath God Said" study.

Allowing Sex Outside Marriage does not automatically lead to no morals.  As long as people try to stick to the Golden Rule, and Christians always seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit.  The right decisions can be made without needing to bind people to the minutia of a rule book.

However, since I believe we are not under The Law, I will never condemn or shame any Gay Christians for practicing a Gay Marriage.  We are under The Law of Liberty now, which is flexible.

My point here is, that in trying to open peoples minds on this subject, I think it's often necessary to begin with broader issues.  Then once that is achieved it may be easier for them to accept that what they thought they knew about the Clobber Passages is wrong.

Update July: I've made this post recently where I argue for more nuance in understanding the New Testament on Marriage and Gender.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html
But the overall point of this post I still stand by.
October 2018 Update: and now I've also done this post.
 https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-christology-of-sanctity-of.html
I've also basically reversed my past position on Polygamy in the Old Testament.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html

Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this post risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear, this is about after we're Saved.  He's saying these distinctions don't exist within in the Church, not that they're irrelevant to getting in.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.  But plenty in both of those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

Likewise with "Bond nor Free", when Christians are pointing out how many of the Abolitionists were driven by their Faith, this is among the Bible Verses they cited to support abolishing Slavery.  And yet the same modern Christians who think those Abolitionists were so right about Slavery will go 'how dare you think we should abolish gender'.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they (and us still) were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham (which was always the plan in Genesis 12), so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Bride of Christ doctrine, using an Old Testament custom as an illustration of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is still patriarchal.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambiguous statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there were no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.  The context of the verses around it, 26-29, are basically saying we've not any of these other classes because we are now all in Christ and thus all Sons of God like Christ.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.  And I read this interesting post on naming conventions.

Update October 2018: I have written this follow up post going more into passages not addressed here.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html

Marriage Licence vs Marriage Covenant

A few of the the Christians out there who are advocating that Christians stop getting Marriage licencees, like I believe.  Still advise  Christians to document the marriage with a certificate signed by the couple and two witnesses, in case legal proof of the marriage is needed later.

They say the State should not give permission to marry, but does have authority over marriage in cases of divorce and adultery.  And then decry that the state today allows divorce for any reason and doesn't punish adultery as a crime.  And one calls for the state to make "sodomy" illegal to solve the Gay Marriage "problem".

I just talked about why there was civil authority over marriage in the Old Testament and why that's invalid under the New Testament.

These people are only talking about how the modern concept of legal marriage developed only since the 1800s, how the marriage license was originally only for giving permission for "interracial" marriages which were originally illegal.  But not willing to address that maybe Traditional Christianity went wrong waaaay before that.

Even the "Pastor" or whatever you want to call that office is not an appropriate third party to bring in.  No spiritual leader presides over the marriages in Genesis 2 or Revelation 19.  Even when under the Law of Moses, you never heard of a Priest or Levite or Prophet having marrying two people together as one of their responsibilities.  And it's certainly not covered in the Pastoral Epistles or any of Paul's teachings on marriage.

Don't put your Marriage on paper at all, paper is as worthless as the federal reserve notes printed on it.

The only Biblical Requirement for Marriage is for the Man and the Woman to agree to be married, to make a commitment to one another.

As for divorce,

First, Christians should not get divorced, the one excuse Jesus theoretically allows when debating with the Pharisees under the Law of Moses (prostitution), is still for Christians invalidated by our command to forgive.

Second, if the state wasn't involved in starting the marriage, why are they needed to end it?

As for Adultery, the punishment for Adultery under the Old Covenant was death, which is done away with under The New Covenant in John 8.

Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 6 and some other places talk about how Christians should resolve disputes among ourselves, within The Church.  No third party, the state included, should be brought into it.  Based on this many evangelicals agree it's a Sin for Christians to ever sue each other.  I don't know why people have trouble realizing that that should include marriage disputes.

BTW, I don't even think Christian women should change their names.  The Family Name concept wasn't really in Biblical Culture, you were just refereed to as a relative of someone or from a certain town, or by profession, to distinguish you from others with the same name.  And besides that the woman's identifier being the one to change reflects the women as property aspect we should reject under the New Covenant.

If you feel called by The Holy Spirit to change your name or give yourself an additional name to reflect being a new creature in Christ, which there is much Biblical precedent for, that can be done legally for males and females.  But marriage isn't a reason to do that.

There is no Marriage Ritual ordained in The Bible

Think about that for a minute.

The Torah has laws related to marriage.  And has lots of rituals laid out to be performed.  But no Marriage ritual.

People talking about The Church as The Bride of Christ doctrine talk a lot about the "Jewish Wedding" but this Jewish wedding is never laid out in Scripture.  It seems to have developed by New Testament times and therefore was maybe in the minds of some New Testament authors for certain statements.  But that would make it canonical no more then any other Extra-Biblical writings alluded to in the New Testament, like the many Pagan Greek writers Paul showed familiarity with.

Revelation 19,  has no wedding ceremony.  We are told it is time for The Lamb's Marriage.  Then there is a marriage supper to celebrate it, but no ceremony.

In Genesis 29 Jacob was married back in the country Abraham was told to leave, the Jews didn't have their own nation and laws yet.  Yet even there, there is only a feast, no ceremony with vow saying.

That's interesting to think about in light of the origin and destiny of Marriage in The Bible.

Now under the Law of Moses marriage certainly wasn't like how it is for Tolkien's fictional Elves, where Heterosexual potentially reproductive Intercourse and Marriage are the same thing.

But there is no evidence the NT Christians didn't do it somewhat like that.  Jesus said a Husband and Wife become "one flesh" and lots of people interpret that terminology as if it were about sex rather then marriage.

The end of Genesis 24 has Isaac and Rebecca consummating their relationship as soon as they meet.  And Adam and Eve certainly never had a formal marriage.

Also Hagar, Bilhah and Zilhah are all refereed to as becoming wives as soon as Abraham or Jacob "knew" them.

In The State, The Church and Marriage, I mentioned how I could talk about how "Legal Marriage" in the Law of Moses was different then Legal Marriage in the modern Western World but chose not in light of a greater point.  I will explain it here.

The Law of Moses was Imperfect.  It tolerated certain things not part of God's will that Man wasn't ready to abandon.  Among those things was Slavery.

The "legal marriage" practiced in Ancient Israel and the Near East was effectively slavery.  It was based on seeing women as property, as an asset.  Legal Marriage was how one family bought a woman from another.  Now you'll find a lot written on Apologetics websites about how women had more rights under the Law of Moses then they did in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, and that is all valid.

But the fact remains the Law of Moses still acknowledges that system, that's why the fathers of brides are constantly getting paid money.  That's why there was no ritual in-spite of the legal status, the marriage was legal when the financial transaction was complete.

The aspects of The Law and even secular customs that imply the woman to be property are implied in passages about The Church as the Bride of Christ only because Jesus shed his Blood to purchase us from The World.  Now that we belong to Christ we are not bound to such barbaric worldly customs as "legal" marriage.  The Marriage of Genesis 3 is done away with, only the Marriage of Genesis 2 still stands.

And the Greco-Roman world still saw Marriage that way, just without the tolerance of Polygamy the OT had and NT not as much. That's the only reason the Greeks never had Gay Marriage for the same sex relationships that were accepted in their culture, and none of those Gay/Bi men had a problem with it.  If a Man with wealth and/or property wanted to legally give his male lover legal rights to his wealth or property, he did it by adopting him.

That is why no where in Paul's statements about how Christian Marriage should work does he recommend going to get legally married by the local Greek or Roman authorities.  Because under the New Covenant the separation of the Genders is over just as the separation of Jews and Gentiles is over.

The only Biblical Requirement for Marriage is for the Man and the Woman to agree to be married, to make a commitment to one another.

The State, The Church, and Marriage

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?

Was Marriage ordained in Genesis 2 or Genesis 3?

A study from my Eschatology blog that is relevant here.

New Testament on Marriage.

Now I feel I've shown that the Old Testament doesn't joyfully endorse Harem Polygyny/Concubinism as much as people think. On the other hand, is the New Testament as anti-anything other then absolute monogamy as people assume?

 Matthew 19:5-6 says "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 It is common to insist that the "one flesh" emphasis while not explicitly saying only one wife still would make it awkward to involve more then two people. The poetic idea is the wife as the husband's other half, and the word translated "twain" does imply duality. Still the intent of the verse is against divorce. Again as a Libertarian, I don't support divorce being legally restricted either, Jesus' command was about the promise made before God, not a legal contract.

Marriage references in Paul's Epistles seem to assume monogamy, but Paul was writing to a Greeco-Roman audience, for whom monogamous marriage was the norm well before Jesus was born. (Though the Macedonian and Hellenistic rulers weren't as strict about it). Indeed, many would say that Western Christianity's devotion to monogamy is another example of how it is really more Hellenistic and Roman in origin then Jewish.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/010903.pdf
But Greek Monogamy still treated adultery as a one way street. To modern readers it's outright annoying how the Odyssey treats the threat of Penelope remarrying or being unfaithful as a horrible catastrophe, while Odysseus has two affairs on his journey home without the slightest condemnation. And also Euripides play Andromache revolves around a conflict between a wife and her husband's mistress, and the narrative is firmly on the "other woman's" side, (Of course Hermione is a spoiled brat Neoptlemus only married for politics, while Andromache is the widow of Hector he took as a spoil of war, and yet they do seem to have fallen in love somewhat). So I understand the points in the above PDF I linked to.

The Church's marriage to Christ, is in how it's treated a Monogamous marriage between a Bridegroom and a Bride, the Church as a collective unit is The Bride.

1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 5:9 and Titus 1:6 refer to how an Overseer (Bishop is an unfortunate KJV rendering, the most obvious area where it's Anglicanism is an issue) should be the Husband of "One Wife" the word for "one" here is "Mia" (Strong# 3391) which can be interpreted as meaning "only one", "Heis" or "Monad" are the standard Greek words for "one". But these are special guidelines for Overseers, the rule here could also mean no less then one (hence how Protestants use it against The Vatican) and elsewhere it's clear Christians can choose to be single for life if they wish.

Polyandry is the term for a marriage between one woman and plural husbands. The Wikipedia page says the Bible condemns it simply by citing the adultery laws. That's obviously flawed logic however. The Bible doesn't address it, the Hebrew Bible is the product of a very Patriarchal culture that never even heard of it as an option. In the New Testament Paul might have heard of it from the examples in ancient Sparta, or Caesar's account of the Celts practicing it, but if he did he chose not to address it.

The most common form that has actually been practiced is Fraternal Polyandry, a pair or group of brothers sharing a wife. The Torah does say that if a husband dies before producing an heir, that his widow should marry his nearest living kinsman (who would be a brother if there was one) to produce a son that would in a sense legally be considered the son of the dead husband. The reason for this is it is vital that the family line of inheritance continue, it was considered important for the tribe as a whole that no individual family line perish. So, what if a Husband becomes unable to reproduce but still lives? Like he becomes Sterile due to illness, or loses his genitals in an injury? Given the intent of the law, I could imagine it being allowed there if they'd have considered it.

On the other hand, Jesus condemns a man married to a divorced woman who's husband still lives as adultery. But that needs again to be understood in the context of the condemnation of divorce.  As I said in other articles, it's only reproductive sex God really wants to restrain.

I frankly don't approve of the modern world's over attachment to Monogamy for all romantic relationships, because it's fueled by jealously which is a very unhealthy emotion. And as I've explained elsewhere, not all sex outside marriage is a sin like is commonly taught.  Loving more then one person should not be inherently wrong.

But how do I morally view Marriage? Or rather the Hebrew custom we associate with marriage? Everyone should agree that marriage is about more then just sex, and many even that it's more then just love.  From my understanding of the intent of what the Bible portrays about it, it's even more then just a "committed relationship", it's the foundation of the family. To me it is implied in the function of marriage that you will at least try to have and raise children. This is why it annoys me how often on TV two people get married and have apparently never discussed the children issue till they find out a week after their honeymoon they're not on the same page there, sadly I'm sure that does happen in real life too often, but it shouldn't.

I believe ideally children should have both a father and a mother. But I know we live in a fallen imperfect world where that option isn't always possible, so I don't support single parents having their children taken from them. And I certainly don't want adoption limited.

To people complaining about Gay adoption I'd say two parents are still better then one, even if they're  the same gender at least one has the option of staying home, and certainly it's better then none. In fact I want adoption made a lot easier in general, it's become a lot more complicated in recent decades, they don't even have orphanages anymore. To me even the most dysfunctional family is preferable to the state raising them in foster care.

As the Hebrew Scriptures demonstrate, Harem Polygyny creates rivalry problems. So for the purpose of raising children I consider a monogamous marriage best. But other people also being involved doesn't have to be a problem. So I don't consider open marriages a sin, so long as everything is done openly and honestly.

So in summery, legally I want marriage to have no restrictions at all, morally I consider one husband and one wife best to raise children, but will pass no judgment on those trying to do it differently.

Do The Hebrew Scriptures condone Polygamy as much as we assume?

Before I get into what the Bible says here. I want to remind everyone that I'm a Libertarian in my political views (at least Socially). So regardless of what Marriage should be Biblically, Spiritually, Morally or Ethically I absolutely do NOT want the state regulating it in any way. I would rather marriage not be a civil institution at all, but as long as it is I fully support legalizing Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Bigamy, Polygyny, Polyandry, Polyamory, Groups Marriages, open marriages and so on.  As long as all parties involved are consenting adults it's none of my or the state's business.  Now to get to the subject at hand.

Does The Bible define Marriage as "Between one man and one woman" as so many of my fellow Fundamentalists say?

First off marriage is an English word. Ancient Israel did have an institution of a union between a man and a woman, and the New Testament uses that relationship symbolically a great deal, (The Church is the Bride and Christ the Bridegroom, but on our wedding night it will be the Groom's Blood presented on the sheets). The gender designation of the parties in that union is specific.  In fact in Hebrew the word for woman is also the word for wife, and the word for man (as in the adult gender distinction, not as in mankind) is also the word for husband. But the modern custom of marriage practiced by western Christianity has numerous differences in function and practice from that union, well before we debate the gender distinction or number of people involved. I've written a dissertation on the verses alleged to condemn homosexuality altogether, they don't.

It is popular to point out that Polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament. We casually use polygamy to refer to a very specific form of polygamy, the word strictly speaking covers any kind of marriage with more then two parties involved. The polygamy practiced in Ancient Israel was Polygyny (One man with plural wives) and even a specific form of that, Harem Polygyny/Concubinism, which involved each Wife/Concubine having children of their own (or trying to anyway) and raising their own children, creating basically mini-families within the family. This can create rivalries for the favor of the father, and increase the chance of incest, if the children by different mothers aren't entirely raised together the natural barrier to being attracted to one might not develop as it normally would.

To call it common is simply misleading, like in most polygamous cultures it was mainly the wealthy and upper-classes actually practicing it. The Torah never outright forbids it in general, but Deuteronomy 17:17 in laying out guidelines for the future Kings says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." They failed to obey this (Some anyway, at-least the first three or four, and especially Solomon) but it's interesting that the individual most capable of supporting that lifestyle is the one explicitly advised against it.

The Law of Moses tolerates many things that are still morally disapproved of.  There are no actual laws in the Exodus or Deuteronomy law codes against Drinking/Drunkenness or Prostitution either, but endless verses making clear they're disapproved of morally.

God only made one wife for Adam (Lilith is extra-Biblical nonsense, drawn on misunderstanding Genesis 1 and 2 and how they relate to each other). He could have made many more just as easily as he made Havah(Eve) but he didn't.

The first account of polygyny being practiced is among Cain's descendants in Genesis 4, now it would be unfair to condemn them based solely on that descent, but it is possibly a revealing context. The Midrash interprets the names as an attack on polygamy. Adah is there interpreted as the deposed one, implying that Lamech spurned her in favor of Zillah, whose own name is understood to mean she shaded herself [from Zillah at Lamech's side].

When it is practiced among the protagonists of the Biblical narrative, the results are jealous rivalries between the wives and their offspring. Abraham and Jacob were both forced into their situations by circumstances more or less beyond their control, they were not very extreme examples and yet those problems still occurred, and are the root of the Middle East crisis we have today (Arabs being mostly derived from Ishmael). Later Leviticus 18:18 does specifically condemn the kind Jacob engaged in, marrying two sisters.

I've seen some pro-polygyny sites make a point of Miriam being punished for disapproving of Moses's marriage to a "Cushite woman". I view the point being a condemnation of racism, Miriam was objecting to marriage to a foreigner, not a second wife. And besides, scholars don't even agree that this was a separate wife form Zipporah (We don't know the ultimate Genesis 10 background of the Kenites for certain, and there were Cushites in Arabia). And some would interpret that it didn't matter if Moses was in the wrong or not, Miriam was still out of line, I don't like that way of looking at it though. I've seen websites even cite Esau's polygyny as an endorsement of it, I don't like to vilify Esau as much as Jewish tradition does, but how he ran his family was certainly viewed critically by the Author of Genesis.

It's clearly a source of problems in David's family, the Bathsheba incident was the finale trigger, but it drew on roots already there, from seeds planted by David's polygyny. And with Solomon it's firmly linked to his inevitable corruption and falling away into idolatry, though their mostly being foreign, (point being religiously foreign not ethnically) is also a factor. Solomon didn't follow the other guidelines given to the Kings in Deuteronomy 17 either, which means the connection to that chapter isn't a coincidence.