Genesis 2:24 - Monogamy Support or Not?

Apex · Jun 2, 2017

ClementofA said:
In ancient Greece:

"...extramarital relations with a free woman were severely dealt with. In the case of adultery, the cuckold had the legal right to kill the offender if caught in the act; the same went for rape. Female adulterers, and by extension prostitutes, were forbidden to marry or take part in public ceremonies.[2] The average age of marriage being 30 for men, the young Athenian had no choice if he wanted to have sexual relations other than to turn to slaves or prostitutes."

Prostitution in ancient Greece - Wikipedia

For Roman citizens, including the apostle Paul:

"...it was socially acceptable and even expected for freeborn men to have extramarital sex with both female and male partners, especially adolescents, provided they (1) exercised moderation, (2) adopted the dominating role, and (3) confined their activities to slaves and prostitutes or, less commonly, a concubine or ‘kept woman’. As the property of another freeborn man, married or marriageable women and young male citizens were strictly off-limits.

"...The Romans sought in particular to control female sexuality because they thought of it as the basis of the family and, by extension, of social order and prosperity. These notions are epitomized by the cult of Venus, the mother of Aeneas and so of the Roman people, and, of course, by the absolute virginity of the Vestals, who would be buried alive if convicted of fornication."

"...Most extramarital and same-sex activity took place with slaves and prostitutes. Slaves were regarded as property, and lacked the legal standing that protected a citizen’s body. A freeman who forced a slave into having sex could not be charged with rape, but only under laws relating to property damage, and then only by the slave’s owner. Prostitution was both legal and tolerated, and common, often in brothels or in the fornices (arcade dens) under the arches of the circus. Most prostitutes were slaves or freedwomen. By becoming a prostitute, a freeborn person suffered infamia (loss of esteem or reputation) and became an infamis, losing her or his social and legal standing. Other occupations to suffer from infamia—a concept that still retains some currency in the Roman Catholic Church—included not only pimps but also entertainers such as actors and dancers, and gladiators. Members of these groups, which had in common the pleasuring of others, could be subjected to violence and even killed with relative impunity."

Sexuality in Ancient Rome

"The Romans demolished Corinth in 146 BC, built a new city in its place in 44 BC, and later made it the provincial capital of Greece...Under the Romans, Corinth was rebuilt as a major city in Southern Greece or Achaia. It had a large[49] mixed population of Romans, Greeks, and Jews. The city was an important locus for activities of the imperial cult, and both Temple E[50] and the Julian Basilica[51] have been suggested as locations of imperial cult activity. Ancient Corinth - Wikipedia

Sex and marriage are not the same thing.

Apex · Jun 2, 2017

ClementofA said:
Apex, you made some excellent points. Still, in the garden of Eden, God gave Adam only one wife for himself, one man. Not multiple wives.

And God gave David multiple wives. If you want to claim that Adam and Eve's marriage set the ideal standard, you'll have to prove it - not just claim it. Their children also had incestuous marriages. However, I doubt you claim this to be an ideal standard. Just because something happened in the past (or even the very beginning) does not make it ideal or the standard.

Similarly we have Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:

“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.’”—Matthew 19:4, 5.

Is it possible to be "one flesh" with multiple women at the same time?

"But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

"Let each one have his own wife or her own husband" does not advise everyone to marry. The verb "to have" can be used to refer to the state of being married, but that meaning does not apply here. Otherwise, Paul would contradict himself in 7:8–9 when he recommends the unmarried to remain single if possible. The danger he wants to preempt is "inappropriate contenteia", and he is fully aware that simply urging people to get married will not solve the problem of sexual sins. Married persons can violate their marriages. The state of marriage alone is not enough to guard against outbreaks of "inappropriate contenteia".

The verb "to have" was also used as a euphemism for having sexual intercourse (see Matt. 14:4; Mark 6:18; 12:33; John 4:18). The immediate context, with the reminders about what is owed in marriage, the assertion that husbands and wives have authority over one another's bodies, and the command not to deprive one another, makes clear that the phrase "let each one have his own wife or her own husband" refers to sexual relations within marriage, not getting married.

Copied and modified from: David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 256.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" (1 Timothy 3:2)

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Timothy 3:12)

I interpret this to mean that those in leadership positions cannot be polygamists. Their duties spread them too thin to adequately satisfy their marital obligations in a household with more than one wife. This is practical, not moral.

Apex · Jun 2, 2017

ClementofA said:
Yet in 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is so much against incest that a believer is excommunicated from the church. Where does Paul get his opposition to incest from, if not from the OT law?

I'll have to keep my answers short in this post. Too many rabbit trails.

The incest laws found in Leviticus had more to do with property rights than sexual morality. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. Was he in sin? I don't think so. Endogamy was very popular early on. To put it bluntly, outside of the Mosaic Law - sibling/cousin incest is not a sin.

Why does he tell the Corinthians to "flee" the sex workers in Corinth, which was apparently a lawful profession there? Were they carrying the bubonic plaque? He gives a number of arguments.

My position is that these prostitutes were temple sex workers that facilitated the worship of idols. This has more to do with idolatry than simply paying for sex.

How was joining to a sex worker 2000 years ago sinning against your own body? Bad breath? Dust & sweat? STI's? While modern medicine can often prevent or cure STIs easily with a pill or shot, back then it could have easily resulted in serious consequences, even death. Moreover back in the 1st century AD, without any effective protection, e.g. latex condoms, the risk of being infected would probably have been much higher.

I already explained this. If they were temple prostitutes and if by "body" Paul meant the "member's in Christ" then the sin he is against is that of co-mingling allegiances between the body (group) of Christ and the body (group) of the prostitute's god. You can only have one master.

As to polygamy, aside from the question if it is Biblical or not, is it expedient? It is against the law in the USA & the vast majority of the world. Likewise with prostitution, incest, rape & inappropriate behavior with animals.

So...if something is against the law...it makes it a sin? Wasn't Christianity once against the law to practice?

ClementofA · Jun 2, 2017

Hidden In Him said:
It's not incest. The phrase is "such sexual immorality ... as for one to have sex with his father's wife." Not, "his mother." The father probably remarried due to his original wife's death or divorce and remarriage, so he married another woman, probably a younger model as was often the case in ancient times. Hence the problem. Daddy's away, "wifey" is here to stay, and the two younger folks are eventually at play.

Not incest. Adultery with his father's younger wife. Not justified by any means, and it sounds really bad. But more understandable under the circumstances.

Interesting. I've never heard that view before. The interpretation of inappropriate contenteia as incest appears here a number of times:

1 Corinthians 5:1 Commentaries: It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife.

In any case, whether adultery or incest, it doesn't matter re & is irrelevant to the point or question i was posing. Namely, if Paul's opposition to such persons (sodomites, catamites, whoremongers, etc) as i mentioned is not derived from the law of Moses, then where did he get it from? This was said is in regards to Apex' comment:

" Also, Leviticus is not universal law. Do you still sacrifice animals at the Temple in Jerusalem? What about wearing mixed fabrics?"

Which was a reply against the interpretation that Leviticus 18 outlaws polygamy, which is referring to verse 18:

"18 "'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living."

Davidson, in "Flame of Yahweh" goes into a lengthy explanation, with 8 supporting points, arguing that the "sister" (Lev. 18:18) can refer to any woman & the verse prohibits taking "two women in general". In other words, he says, "this legislation prohibits all polygamy" (pgs 193-198).

BTW, as regards Leviticus 18, it seems that it may also prohibit the particular type of inappropriate contenteia spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:

"Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father." (Lev. 18:8)

If Paul didn't get the idea that was wrong from Leviticus, then where did he get it from? And if he got it from Leviticus, what does that say about Apex's comment?

ClementofA · Jun 2, 2017

Apex said:
And God gave David multiple wives. If you want to claim that Adam and Eve's marriage set the ideal standard, you'll have to prove it - not just claim it. Their children also had incestuous marriages. However, I doubt you claim this to be an ideal standard. Just because something happened in the past (or even the very beginning) does not make it ideal or the standard.

Many Scripturally debated subjects are ambiguous. Evidently they cannot be "proven" one way or the other, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. One side presents their "proof texts" & explains away the "proof texts" of the other side. And vica versa. The best one can do is consider all the evidence on both sides, pray, & see where that takes you. Whether you lean to opinion A, opinion B, opinion C, or Switzerland (neutral). Later you may obtain new evidence that changes your viewpoint.

Apex said:
Is it possible to be "one flesh" with multiple women at the same time?

I don't see the Bible addressing that one way or the other. Certainly "one flesh" can refer to the relationship between one man & one woman, i.e. a monogamous marriage. That seems to be the way it is used in Genesis & Matthew. If the "one flesh" of joining a harlot in 1 Corinthians 6 referred to sexual intercourse, then seeing numerous different harlots would refer to numerous occasions of "one flesh" with different persons. Likewise with Solomon's hundreds of wives & concubines.

Apex said:
So...if something is against the law...it makes it a sin? Wasn't Christianity once against the law to practice?

Since Christians are generally to be law abiding citizens, yes, disobeying the law might be considered a sin. An exception might be if the law required one to deny Christ. A law against polygamy would not be an exception.

Hidden In Him · Jun 2, 2017

ClementofA said:
In any case, whether adultery or incest, it doesn't matter re & is irrelevant to the point or question i was posing. Namely, if Paul's opposition to such persons (sodomites, catamites, whoremongers, etc) as i mentioned is not derived from the law of Moses, then where did he get it from? This was said is in regards to Apex' comment:

" Also, Leviticus is not universal law. Do you still sacrifice animals at the Temple in Jerusalem? What about wearing mixed fabrics?"

Ok, I couldn't answer for Apex here, since I'm not even fully in agreement with his conclusions. But my answer here would be that Paul's NT commandments against sodomy, uncleanness (you'll see this word show up incessantly in such contexts), adultery, whoremongering, etc. all are listed as sins, not because of OT law, but because there is a spiritually unclean element involved, i.e. unclean demonic spirits are involved in the temptation to commit the sin, and their influence is welcomed by this means. Those who commit such acts are entering into obedience to unclean spirits rather than the Holy Spirit.

What do you think. Possible?

ClementofA · Jun 3, 2017

Hidden In Him said:
Ok, I couldn't answer for Apex here, since I'm not even fully in agreement with his conclusions. But my answer here would be that Paul's NT commandments against sodomy, uncleanness (you'll see this word show up incessantly in such contexts), adultery, whoremongering, etc. all are listed as sins, not because of OT law, but because there is a spiritually unclean element involved, i.e. unclean demonic spirits are involved in the temptation to commit the sin, and their influence is welcomed by this means. Those who commit such acts are entering into obedience to unclean spirits rather than the Holy Spirit.

What do you think. Possible?

That is a theory i'm unfamiliar with. Is there a book or online source that details the reasoning for it? Does the same apply to all other sins or only sexual sins? How closely do these supposedly sexual sins align with OT prohibitions re sex, such as in Lev 18?

Recenly i started reading Davidson's 'conservative' tome. Before that i was reading free online portions of the 'liberal' book of the following discussion, including a chapter on polygamy with some similar comments to what Apex made in this thread:

Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition?

Hidden In Him · Jun 3, 2017

ClementofA said:
That is a theory i'm unfamiliar with. Is there a book or online source that details the reasoning for it?

No. That's more the kind of thing He has simply given me.

ClementofA said:
Does the same apply to all other sins or only sexual sins?

All demonic spirits are unclean, but you will see this wording especially used with regard to sexual sins because the demons associated with sexual perversions are amongst the most unclean of them all. Those who have witnessed them in the spirit realm have testified that some of them are so repulsive as to cause nausea simply by looking at them.

ClementofA said:
How closely do these supposedly sexual sins align with OT prohibitions re sex, such as in Lev 18?

Closely.

ClementofA said:
Recenly i started reading Davidson's 'conservative' tome. Before that i was reading free online portions of the 'liberal' book of the following discussion, including a chapter on polygamy with some similar comments to what Apex made in this thread:

Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition?

I read the opening posts of this thread, and the Book summary, which I will provide below here:

xpower said:
Divine Sex examines every Biblical reference to human sexual practice. By using tools of modern scholarship, evidence is produced to show that the Bible does not actually say what generations of professional religionists have told us. The Bible does not forbid all sexual activity other than monogamous heterosexual intercourse. Instead it treats us to a wide range of God-approved, and sometimes even God-supplied, sexual possibilities that the church has never told us about. In fact, the most famous erotic poem in history, is actually a book of the Bible!

God is the Architect both of human sexuality, and of sexual pleasure. The passion, pleasure and possibilities of sex are His gift to humanity. Like any proud parent, Father God is pleased and honored when His kids delight in His gift/ God made sex to be fun. He is not embarrassed nor is He angered when we enjoy it. Sex as God designed it to be is truly Divine.

From polygamy and concubinage, to prostitution, to masturbation, to oral sex, to nudity - and all else besides - this study of what the Bible actually says, and does not say, will surprise, perhaps elate, and we believe will liberate the reader from the sex-stifling effects of church dogma.

Sex without religious baggage. Sex without guilt and shame. Sex as the Creator meant it to be. Divine Sex.

I would say this may be much more in line with Apex's way of thinking than mine. I tend to be more conservative in what I would without qualification approve of as Divinely sanctioned sexual practices. And without reading the book myself I would not be able to discern to what extent I thought the author fully understood the mystery of the Bride and Bridegroom as I understand it. Looks like it might be an interesting read, however.

ClementofA · Jun 7, 2017

Apex said:
3. Is it possible to be "one flesh" with multiple women at the same time? I doubt anyone questions that Rachel was Jacob's real "one flesh" wife even though she was wife #2. Also, if it is possible to have multiple "one flesh" unions, then it is not necessary to interpret Genesis 2:24 to mean monogamy - it could be equally valid to assume this passage is just speaking to the new kinship union that each wife in a marriage has with her husband.

According to the following book (p.80) the Hebrew word can be translated "wife, wives, woman or women". And the Greek word (1 Cor.7:2) likewise.

What the Bible "really" says about Sex: Tom Gruber: 9781552126219: Amazon.com: Books

Apex · Jun 7, 2017

ClementofA said:
Many Scripturally debated subjects are ambiguous. Evidently they cannot be "proven" one way or the other, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. One side presents their "proof texts" & explains away the "proof texts" of the other side. And vica versa. The best one can do is consider all the evidence on both sides, pray, & see where that takes you. Whether you lean to opinion A, opinion B, opinion C, or Switzerland (neutral). Later you may obtain new evidence that changes your viewpoint.

Forgive me, but this all sounds like you are dodging my questions. Surely you can provide me an answer on why you believe something.

Why do you believe Adam and Eve's marriage is the ideal or standard?

I don't see the Bible addressing that one way or the other. Certainly "one flesh" can refer to the relationship between one man & one woman, i.e. a monogamous marriage. That seems to be the way it is used in Genesis & Matthew. If the "one flesh" of joining a harlot in 1 Corinthians 6 referred to sexual intercourse, then seeing numerous different harlots would refer to numerous occasions of "one flesh" with different persons. Likewise with Solomon's hundreds of wives & concubines.

I interpret "one flesh" to mean creating a permanent kinship bond. Do you think a couple is really only "one flesh" while having intercourse?

The phrase "one flesh" must be interpreted in light of Genesis 2:23. There Adam declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one's "bone and flesh" is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Genesis 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judges 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Samuel 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Samuel 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Samuel 19:13, see 2 Samuel 17:2; 1 Chronicles 2:16–17). As such, the expression "one flesh" seems to indicate that a man and a woman become close kin - at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically.

To answer my own question. Yes, a man can have multiple "one flesh" kinship bonds with multiple wives at the same time.

As for 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses Genesis 2:24 to reference the relationship one has with the deity their worship. This is quite fitting analogy since Christ is our betrothed husband. Worshiping other gods (such as by sleeping with temple prostitutes) is spiritual adultery. Take note that the "you" in this passage is plural and "body" does not mean an individual's body, but a collective body. You can either be part of Jesus' group or the prostitute's group. But not both at the same time. You cannot have two or more husbands.

Since Christians are generally to be law abiding citizens, yes, disobeying the law might be considered a sin. An exception might be if the law required one to deny Christ. A law against polygamy would not be an exception.

I agree. Polygamy is illegal, but not unethical.

Traveling teacher · Jun 7, 2017

The prohibition was forign wives...
Or in the NT unbelieving wife....
Only verse i can find on mulitiple wives is
Deuteronomy 17:17
A king should not multiply wives .......

I was in the middle east at an airport and saw a guy with his 2 wives in berkas...both semed to look right at me..
Kinda weird

Kinda strange in America
Legal for man to mrry man...women marry women...
Men and woman to live together....comon law...
But ilegal for a man to have 2 wives???

ClementofA · Jun 8, 2017

Apex said:
Forgive me, but this all sounds like you are dodging my questions. Surely you can provide me an answer on why you believe something.

Why do you believe Adam and Eve's marriage is the ideal or standard?

I don't believe or disbelieve. It's a subject, along with sexual practices in general, that i've been looking into recently. I posted a few of the usual arguments for heterosexual monogamy to see what people thought. IMO they were shot down quite easily.

Apex said:
I interpret "one flesh" to mean creating a permanent kinship bond. Do you think a couple is really only "one flesh" while having intercourse?

The phrase "one flesh" must be interpreted in light of Genesis 2:23. There Adam declares that the woman is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. To be one's "bone and flesh" is to be related by blood to someone. For example, the phrase describes the relationship between Laban and Jacob (Genesis 29:14); Abimelech and the Shechemites (Judges 9:2; his mother was a Shechemite); David and the Israelites (2 Samuel 5:1); David and the elders of Judah (2 Samuel 19:12); and David and his nephew Amasa (2 Samuel 19:13, see 2 Samuel 17:2; 1 Chronicles 2:16–17). As such, the expression "one flesh" seems to indicate that a man and a woman become close kin - at least legally (a new family unit is created) or metaphorically.

To answer my own question. Yes, a man can have multiple "one flesh" kinship bonds with multiple wives at the same time.

As for 1 Cor. 6, Paul uses Genesis 2:24 to reference the relationship one has with the deity their worship. This is quite fitting analogy since Christ is our betrothed husband. Worshiping other gods (such as by sleeping with temple prostitutes) is spiritual adultery. Take note that the "you" in this passage is plural and "body" does not mean an individual's body, but a collective body. You can either be part of Jesus' group or the prostitute's group. But not both at the same time. You cannot have two or more husbands.

That's some very good food for thought. Thanks for sharing.

I haven't yet read what Davidson says on the topic of "one flesh" in his 800+ page book. He is pro heterosexual monogamy & against anything else, i.e. he seems to think sex within marriage only is legit. His book is quite scholarly & as such much of it goes over my head & is therefore not of any value in helping me to form my opinions. From what i've been reading some scholars will agree with him & others disagree re Gen.2:24 & other topics related to sexual practices in general.

Search

Search

Genesis 2:24 - Monogamy Support or Not?

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

More options

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

More options

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

More options

ClementofA

Well-Known Member

More options

ClementofA

Well-Known Member

More options

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member

More options

ClementofA

Well-Known Member

More options

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member

More options

ClementofA

Well-Known Member

More options

Apex

Radical Centrist & Ethicist

More options

Traveling teacher

Well-Known Member

More options

ClementofA

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads