In the Hebrew Bible, there is a clear distinction between a
love relationship and a marriage arrangement. Love relationships
are depicted, over all, as the blinding-revealing passion for
someone who is the object of the individual’s attention. For
example, Yaakov’s passion for Rachel (B’reshith 29). King
David’s lustful desire for Batsheva (Sh’muel Bet 11-12).
Samson’s love for D’leelah, the dominatrix of the Hebrew Bible
(Shofetim 16). Just to name a few. A marriage arrangement
requires that the one’s married to each other fulfill the
ethical and moral legal obligations that are binding upon them
under the laws prescribed within the community. Further, love
between the ones married to each other is not guaranteed.
Divorce is probable, and arrangements for that are legally
prescribed in both the Torah and the Talmud. Marital strife is
likely to occur due to differences in individual needs or
unpredictable circumstances, and must be weathered through by
adherence to the marital obligations. Love can flourish between
the married partners, and this is the \"ideal\" if the individuals
work together through the struggles and keeping the obligations
to nurture its continued existence in the marriage. In the
Hebrew Bible, all aspects dealing with the legal institution of
marriage express polygamy. So, too, do all the narratives on the
marriage lives of people; with what may appear to be the rare
exception of a few. But, the Torah rarely, if ever, gives full
disclosure on the personal lives of its legendary people. It has
selective memory, and midrash of later generations have had to
fill in areas not covered. If we were to stretch scripture a
little, and interpret that some marriages were intentionally
portrayed as monogamous, all this really shows us is two
possibilities. The first, is that some men were likely to take
only one wife; and/or two, that some should limit themselves to
a lesser number. All aspects dealing with what can be described
as a monogamous relationship within the Hebrew Bible deal with
the love affair situation of a biblical patriarch and a woman
(not always a Hebrew matriarch). Kept in its context, the Hebrew
Bible presents the cultural marriage arrangement of its time –
polygamy. It even legally defines proper marriage behavior for
the husband who is married to more than one wife (D\'varim
21.15-17). And, in typical Hebrew teaching style, the polygamist
marriage narratives teach us that relationships are a struggle
between individual needs. And, that the obligations – laws,
commandments, rules – of being legally married to each other
requires that these struggles be worked out within the marriage.
Great lengths of creativity within the marriages of biblical
times were taken to accomplish this.
The \"idea\" that the Torah encourages monogamy by showing all
the struggles happening in the polygamist relationships is a
later midrashic interpretation of the Common Era Palestinian
Jews*. [*See footnote below.] The Jews of the intertestimal
times (the 700 year period between the writing of the Jewish
scrolls, now known as the TaNaKH, and the writings of the Greek
New Testament by the Greco-Roman Christians of the Diaspora).
And, for only about a thousand years, has it been upheld through
cultural law as the ideal within most Jewish communities, and
more specifically the Ashkenazic community of Old Europe. The
rabbis of the intertestimal period took the TaNaKH scriptures
out of their context and applied new meanings to them to deal
with the present problems occurring within the overran,
hellenistically influenced Yisrael. The old ways and the reasons
for these ways were no longer being followed enthusiastically,
and new ways were needed to keep the integrity of the Hebrew
teachings.
Hence, the new law that appeared in the Damascus Document*
scroll of intertestimal times that limits marriage to one
husband and one wife. The Damascus scroll gives a new definition
to what is considered the act of fornication. It specifically
states that fornication, a sexual sin, is the taking of more
than one wife in a man’s lifetime. The rationale for this
definition of fornication is based upon two quotes from legend
narratives of the Torah. B’reshith 1.27, \"So G-d created
humankind in his image, in the image of G-d did he create it,
male and female he created them\" and 7.9, \"two and two (each)
came to Noah, into the Ark, male and female, as G-d had
commanded Noah.\" Both scriptures were taken out of their context
and have nothing to do with the Moshaic laws regarding marriage.
And, one quote from D\'varim 17.17 that speaks of the King of
Yisrael, that he is not to \"multiply wives for himself.\" (A
translation of the Damascus Document is available in The Dead
Sea Scrolls, A New Translation.) [*See footnote below.]
This latter biblical injunction does not restrict the King to
one wife only, but instructs him not to create a harem for
himself, so that his attention remains on his duties as King.
The King is also told in this same passage of scripture not to
\"multiply horses for himself,\" \"not to return the people to
Egypt in order to multiply horses,\" and that \"silver and gold he
is not to multiply for himself to excess.\" Neither of these
injunctions say that the King is restricted to owning only one
horse and possessing one piece of silver or gold. The D’varim
passage cited as validation by the first intertestimal adherents
to monogamy is dealing with political-trade transactions of the
King. Later tradition has ascribed B’reshith 2.24 and Mishlei 31
as further justification that the ancient Jews intended for us
to form monogamous marriages. Again, scripture is taken out of
context to justify a fundamentalist view. With the passage of
Mishlei, it is expressing the ideal wife and likens her to
Shechinah, which is the feminine image of G-d, the Hebrew
G-ddess. It does not make the slightest suggestion concerning
the number of wives a man is to have. To say that the Bible
supports a bias towards (or against) something that it clearly
does not is simply wrong to do. And, this kind of interpreting
leads to injustice.
There are four types of marital arrangements (only one that is
civilly legal in America): polyandry, polygamy, monogamy, and
polyamory. Polyandry is a marriage arrangement between a wife
and two or more husbands. Polygamy is a marriage arrangement
between a husband and two or more wives. Monogamy is a marriage
arrangement between one husband and one wife. Polyamory is a
marriage arrangement between two or more husbands and/or two or
more wives. The Torah makes no distinction on which type of
legal marriage arrangement is more preferable than the others.
Instead, it only encourages that through marriage the struggles
of relationship be dealt with, and that the expression of love
be realized. Just as it is realized through the marital
struggles between G-d and the People of Yisrael. \"Now you are to
love YHWH your G-d with all your heart, with all your being,
with all your substance!\" (D’varim 6.5). We do this by
faithfully fulfilling the obligations of this community marriage
relationship with G-d. So it must be in our human marriage
relationships the Torah teaches us.
Monogamy is not threatened by society allowing citizens the
legal right to choose other types of marriage arrangements, and
to be held accountable for these marriages. For those who
idealize monogamy as the way to go, the simple bottom-line
fact-of-reality is that there is only one threat to the success
and survival of monogamous relationships. This real threat comes
from within the homes of the couples that choose a monogamous
marriage arrangement, and this threat is not keeping the vows
made when getting married and not working together to mutually
meet each other\'s needs. The threat of infidelity is not basing
the marriage on clearly defined obligations to begin with.
Banning the legal right to form other types of marriage
arrangements will not change this. And, it will not prevent
people from forming polygamous, polyandrous, and polyamorous
relationships - regardless whether they are legally sanctioned
by society or not.
The issue in the Hebrew Bible is about getting married, not
about what marriage form is \"right.\" Its focus is on fulfilling
the obligations that come with marriage, whether there is love
between the married partners or not. When maintained in this
manner, the relationship is in kedusha, a state of holiness.
And, this benefits the community, by providing a strong
family-oriented foundation to build from. How can a marriage
relationship – whether it be polyandry, polygamy, monogamy, or
polyamory – be less of a struggle and more of a love
relationship? The first step is to keep the marital obligations
made between each other when committing the act of marriage.
Verbally remember and edify the words of this marital agreement
often - if possible, on a weekly basis. Sit down together and
talk it over.
The next step, which is actually the very first step and must
always remain the more important step throughout the marriage is
understanding that love is not an object, and thus the degree of
love one has for another cannot be controlled. But, we do have
the power within us to control how we will relate to to each
other in our relationships. And, we have the power to decide
whether we will be fidelitous or not. In other words, by
defining together the obligations of the marriage, by living by
them throughout the marriage (being conscious of these
obligations on a daily basis) and, through this marriage
relationship, by elevating the emotional, sexual, and spiritual
needs of our partners-in-marriage. Complete honesty between each
other, recognition of the need for individual
self-responsibility, and partner encouragement (not coercion) is
a must. Fulfill this and this marriage, whatever its type, is a
marriage maintained in kedusha/holiness, according to the
teachings of the Hebrew Bible.
Footnote: Just for historical authenticity to the statements
made in these * asterisked paragraphs above, the Damascus
Document of the Intertestimal period is a product of a specific
extremist community sect of Judaism, and is not reflective of
Jewish lifestyle in that time period as a whole. In fact the
majority of Jewish communities would continue to engage in
polygamist marriage relationships well into the Common Era, and
even within the Ashkenazic communities this was so. Monogamy was
accepted and justified as the ideal by modern Jews only because
of the Christian presence around these Jewish communities,
meaning Jews conformed to the practices of their neighbors to
avoid persecution over this issue. It is through the extremist
Jewish document of the Yachad sect that defines monogamous
marriages and the monogamous approach to marriages within the
Greco-Roman world of the time that Christianity would come to
idealize monogamy as the ideal marriage relationship style. Even
the Irish, who were the first culture to embrace Christianity
outside of the Greco-Roman world, continued to engage in rather
promiscious relationship styles - styles that included group
sexual relationships and marriages. It would not be until the
arrival of the \"White\" people into Europe and their subsequent
embracement of Christianity that monogamy would be
institutionalized as the only correct form of marriage. Some
estimates have it that monogamy finally took root about a good
thousand years after the Damascus Document had been written.
And, still today, not all societies are convinced that it really
is the most moral form of forming relationships.
300+ Variations Of Mandala
Arts
|
|
