Has Biblical Marriage Always Been Only 1 Man + 1 Woman?

[Guest DesiB]

My Sunday Bible Study: Has marriage really always been only “1 man + 1 woman,” even Biblically?

[Note: All quotes are from my NRSV Study Bible.]

Abraham’s wife’s slave Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (Gen. 16), then his wife Sarah gave birth to Isaac (Gen. 21).
“Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.” (Gen. 25.5-6)

“When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elom the Hittite.” (Gen. 26.34) . . . “So when Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please his father Isaac, Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath daughter of Abraham’s son Ashmael, and sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife in addition to the wives he had.” (Gen. 28.8-9)

Jacob fell in love with Laban’s second daughter Rachel and promised to serve him for seven years to earn her hand in marriage. But on the wedding night he was tricked and got the eldest daughter Leah. So he had to work another seven years to earn Rachel as a second wife. (Gen. 29. 15-30) The next chapter describes how Leah gave birth to four sons, but Rachel was barren from the start and had Jacob use her maid Bilhah to bare sons on her behalf.
“When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she took her maid Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. Then Leah’s maid Lilpah bore Jacob a son.” (Gen. 30.9-10)

[i’m sure there are tons more ‘Old Testament’ examples, so I’m just going to jump ahead to the ‘New Testament’ for now.]
From the above it is clear that Biblical marriage has not always been only 1 man + 1 woman. And in what follows we see that even divorce laws evolve.

“Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’” (Mat. 19.3-9)

Next is where it gets really interesting.
“His disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.’” (Matt. 19.10-12)

There are 3 types of eunuchs: 1) Born that way—various types of intersex births, 2) Manmade—medical intervention for various reasons. In those days it was most likely for reasons such as to guard female royalty or even to preserve high singing voices. Regardless, Jesus referenced the practice without any negative connotation. 3) Self-made—voluntary permanent chastity.

“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin.” . . . “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his fiancé, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry.” (I Cor. 7.27-28, 36)

[Guest Mickey]

In Biblical times there were 6 different, recognized, and accepted genders. Saris, MtF trans* people, was mistranslated to eunuch.

[Guest DesiB]

In Biblical times there were 6 different, recognized, and accepted genders. Saris, MtF trans* people, was mistranslated to eunuch.

You have to be more specific about Biblical times since it spans so many centuries, but since you're referring to the Hebrew word "Saris" that at least tells me you're talking about 'Old Testament' times. And there are ongoing scholarly debates over the physical condition of 'bedchamber attendants' who were used during various times and places throughout that broad period of writing. It's a fascinating topic in and of itself.

But the word "eunuch," which is a Greek word used in the verses I quoted from Matthew 19, originally written in Greek during the Roman Empire, was not "mistranslated."

[Guest Razilee]

Jesus recognized five, that I can see, male, female (Mt 19:4) and three kinds of "eunuchs", those born that way (intersex). those neutered by others (transsexuals) and those who who refrain from sexual activity voluntarily (asexuals). (Mt 19:12) Another favorite verse of mine is: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant -- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever." (Isa 56:4-5) It makes me feel better about being unmarried and childless.

Love,

Raz

[Guest Raya]

Ok, I'm struck for the first time about "male and female he made them...And the 2 shall become one flesh" I'm still trying to put both pieces together and become one me.

Sorry, it's odd and not in context but thats me

[Guest DesiB]

Ok, I'm struck for the first time about "male and female he made them...And the 2 shall become one flesh" I'm still trying to put both pieces together and become one me.

Sorry, it's odd and not in context but thats me

A male and a female can join in sexual intercourse to "become one flesh" in the form of offspring. But this understanding of the metaphor does not really help in the application to a question on divorce and whether the two can or should ever be separated. And I'm certain it did not mean one individual getting the masculine and feminine sides together internally.

My theory is that just as the religion had evolved into one of monotheism, the sexual ethic had also evolved into one of monogamy (as a second best option for those who could not handle becoming eunuchs either physically or just in practice, since they believed they were living in the final days and there was no need for reproduction).

[gennee]

Jesus recognized five, that I can see, male, female (Mt 19:4) and three kinds of "eunuchs", those born that way (intersex). those neutered by others (transsexuals) and those who who refrain from sexual activity voluntarily (asexuals). (Mt 19:12) Another favorite verse of mine is: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant -- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever." (Isa 56:4-5) It makes me feel better about being unmarried and childless.

Love,

Raz

Raz, I brought this question up somewhere a few years back when the procreation debate came up. Some quarters of society dogmatically believe that procreation is why people are created for. I questioned what about people who for one reason or another cannot bear children. What about folks who should not to have children and abstain from sexual relations. I asked does that make them 'less than worthy' of God's mercy and goodness? My answer was a resounding NO.

[Guest Mickey]

I guess my point with that pic showing the different genders was that in those times, they didn't understand orientation and gender identity the way we do now. For them in those times, and yes this would still be in the New Testament times as well, and even after that, it was just about gender variation. But even in the first century after the Cross, there were marriage certificates showing the marriage of 2 men, in the church. Just some of the stuff I've learned over the last 2 years or so.

[VickySGV]

We also seem to have a little problem when it comes to God, who is neither male or female, but transcends gender in the Image put into us. This is a spiritual image and not a bodily likeness, since God has no "body" per se, until we come to Jeshua Bar Abbas. Even there, Jesus is and showed two spirits which culminated on the Cross. In my rite of re-naming back on June 7th, even my Bishop recognized the transcendence of the image that was placed in me. It is not the body that adores and communes with God and Jesus, but the inner image which also transcends a single gender. "And" as in "male and female" is inclusive, whereas if it had been "male or female" makes them exclusive. This is tough for the pseudo-literalists to even get on board with, since they even mistake the literal meaning of some of it.

[Guest Raya]

Thank you for that, Vicky, especially the "and" explanation