Episode Transcript
Carey Griffel: Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and welcome to part three of my conversation about marriage. My plan is to get to some New Testament passages and a little bit of how things looked in the early church, while also talking about some modern ideas that we have.
[00:00:36] There's just so much I could get into and I'm not gonna try to be super massively comprehensive here I'm just going to hit on things that seem particularly relevant to me without trying to cover everything. And for those of you who want more, I can definitely recommend two episodes from the Naked Bible Podcast, Numbers 316 and 318, where Dr. Heiser interviewed David Instone Brewer about divorce and remarriage in the Old and New Testament. Those do cover a lot of ground, and I might have some crossover here, but I'm going to try to cover different territory than those did, so I'll just point you to those episodes for that information.
[00:01:24] There's no sense in reinventing the wheel, and I really do recommend the work of Instone Brewer. He's got some books out as well that would be helpful for those who are invested in this topic. Again, this episode is going to follow on from my last two, and it may contain things that aren't suitable for kids.
[00:01:45] Now, jumping in and repeating my question that I've been focused on, when we're talking about marital relations in both institution as well as that physical sense, what does it mean for us today that we have changed our ideas about marital relations from the Old Testament? Because we have, obviously. If nothing else, we no longer practice polygamy, and we no longer have the exact definition of adultery that we see in the Old Testament.
[00:02:19] So if we've changed things from the patriarchs to the church, then doesn't it mean that we can keep changing the definition of marriage and sexual propriety? After all, it's all in the service of love, right? And the Bible is all about loving neighbor and all of that. So what's the problem with expanding the definition of marriage?
[00:02:43] Well, let's see what we can do to answer that by having a look into the New Testament and the early church. Today we aren't in the context of being overly worried about inheritance and family lines and all of that kind of thing. It's not that we're not connected to our past and future. It's just that we aren't so aware of it.
[00:03:05] To us, sexual sins are more personal affronts and notions of offending God because of propriety. For us, we think of sexual sins as exceptionally intimate and personal. And sure, they do have something to do with what we might see as really deep desires within ourselves. And they can have very monumental consequences, right? Bringing a child into the world is a big deal. And not that we shouldn't rejoice at every child who is brought into the world, but let's face it, both in the past and today, children are not always seen with joy, and it doesn't always turn out well for the child. So with sexual sins, they actively affect other lives in a life and death kind of situation quite often.
[00:03:58] But not only that, but we have this idea that someone, especially women, but in the Christian world it has become both sexes, but there's often this notion that sexual activity sullies a person. Like, they're now damaged goods because they've had sex, and we're usually not talking about disease. Like, everything that comes after that initial sexual experience is going to be, in some way. Lesser. As if every relationship that comes after that is going to be, by default, a relationship that isn't as good as it could have been, because the idea is you gave away something sacred to someone else.
[00:04:44] And that's an idea that's, of course, very old, and it connects to some old ideas. We see the desire for men to marry virgins, and we even have historical tests for that, right? Archaic though that is. As if it matters in some way that women be pure, and again, unsullied.
[00:05:06] Well, with the logic of a tribal society, the woman's fertility was indeed a matter for the family to be concerned with. Because that's how you get heirs. And you want those heirs to be part of the family line and not from outside that, right?
[00:05:25] So, there was definitely the sense that a woman's virginity mattered to the family. But actually, about that, just because there's still a bunch of misperceptions about this idea that a woman has some sort of physical proof of virginity, Let me just read something to help dispel some of that, because it's kinda true, but not really.
[00:05:50] It's not true in the way that I expect most of us think that it is, at least for those who have had the equivalent of a traditional, we might say, American sex education. So I'm going to read something about the hymen, which is this thin membrane that some women have in their vaginal opening. I say some, but maybe it's many, but it's definitely not all, and the thing we believe about it is that with the first act of sex, it's broken, and it's broken forever unless it's surgically repaired.
[00:06:25] Oh sure, some of us have heard that maybe tampons or sports can break it, But we don't question the fact that it can be broken, and that once it's broken, it's done with. So the intact hymen is the test for virginity. Okay, so this is from a book called Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski, and if you want to understand women's sexuality and sexual anatomy in general a little bit better, this is a good starting point because we just have so many bad ideas about it.
[00:07:02] Now, this book is going to be maybe a little bit dismissive of the type of culture we see in the Bible, but let's just look at the scientific information here. Anyway, reading from Nagoski, she says, quote, You may or may not have a hymen, a thin membrane along the lower edge of your vaginal opening. Whether you have one or not, I guarantee that virtually everything you were taught about the hymen is wrong. The closest thing to true is that during intercourse, the hymen can be painful if it's not used to being stretched. That's one of a number of potential causes of pain with penetration, but it is by no means the most common. The most common is lack of lubrication. But the hymen doesn't break and stay broken forever, like some kind of freshness seal. If a hymen tears or bruises, it heals. And the size of a hymen doesn't vary depending on whether the vagina has been penetrated. Also, it usually doesn't bleed. Any blood with first penetration is more likely due to general vaginal tearing from lack of lubrication than it is to damage to the hymen. What does change when a woman begins having the hymen stretched regularly is that it grows more flexible, and as hormones change with the end of adolescence, around 25 years old, the hymen is likely to atrophy and become much less noticeable. If it was noticeable at all. End quote.
[00:08:45] Okay, so a little further along, she talks about the meaning of the hymen in culture and whether or not we agree with the perspective that maybe we can tell underlies what she's saying here, it's still a valid point to consider because our human bodies and the ways that we fit them into our culture really do make a difference.
[00:09:07] Okay. She says quote. The hymen is a profound example of the way humans metaphorize anatomy. Here is an organ that has no biological function, and yet Western culture has made up a powerful story about the hymen a long time ago. This story has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with controlling women. Culture saw a barrier at the mouth of the vagina and decided it was a marker of virginity, itself a biologically meaningless idea. Such a weird idea could have been invented only in a society where women were literally property, their vaginas their most valuable real estate, a gated community. Even though the hymen performs no physical or biological function, Many cultures have created myths around the hymen so profound that there are actually surgeries available to reconstruct the hymen as if it were a medical necessity. In a sense, the hymen can be relevant to women's health. Some women are beaten or even killed for not having a hymen. Some women are told they couldn't have been raped because their hymen is intact. For them, the hymen has a real impact on their physical well being, not because of their anatomy, but because of what their culture believes about that anatomy. End quote.
[00:10:33] Okay, I know, she talks about Western culture as if it's this thing that Western culture made up and that's clearly not the case. The fact that virginity is not actually the physical thing that we thought that it was, I don't know, but I think that's a pretty huge fact. And it's not that our bodies don't change at all in response to intercourse, but it's not what we traditionally think.
[00:10:59] And again, I would dispute the idea that women were always property. In some times and places and situations, yes, there's definitely that idea around. But the Bible pushes against it. But what we can say is that women's virginity was seen as a valuable asset to the community. I think we can put it like that.
[00:11:22] But regarding the concept of virginity in general, either a man or a woman can be a virgin from the aspect of pure experience, but I think we've made virginity into this thing that isn't really a thing to the degree that we thought that it was. And, you know, we have this narrative that ideally you're only going to bond to one sex partner or that you have a spiritual connection to each one of your sex partners and that sex is all about giving this special thing to your spouse. And all these ideas that are kind of wrapped up in all of that.
[00:12:01] And we assume these are biblical ideas, right? We're not pulling them from the text. There's no place we can pull these ideas out in the ways that we're thinking about it. And one proof against the idea that this is biblical is that in general, remarriage after divorce or the death of a spouse is arguably actually encouraged. Certainly by the time of the New Testament, marriage in the culture was very, very strongly encouraged. And so is there any suggestion at all that the second spouse is somehow lesser than the first?
[00:12:38] There's nothing of the sort. So, we've attached this magical feeling to sex that simply isn't warranted. Now, that's not to suggest, on the other hand, we can just be cavalier about the whole thing. Okay, that's not what I'm saying. And we might ask, what about 1 Corinthians 6, verse 16? I've actually got a commentary that talks about this verse in regards to this kind of idea that we get sullied by having sex with someone and that virginity is a gift that we give to someone else. And I really think that's stretching the meaning of this passage.
[00:13:15] Okay, so this is from a series called The Bible Speaks Today, from the volume The Message of 1 Corinthians, Life in the Local Church, by David Prior. He says, quote, It should be positively affirmed that virginity is one of the most creative, releasing, purifying, and beautiful gifts which can be brought to Christian marriage. If either partner is unable to bring such a contribution, his or her whole personhood is impaired. Not irretrievably, because the redemptive power of Christ himself is able to make all things new. End quote.
[00:14:02] Okay, so that is the last part of the commentary for this verse, 1 Corinthians 6, 16, and let's read the actual verse, and here's the questions to consider before I read it. Is this verse saying anything about virginity? Is it saying that sex outside marriage is Impairing someone in a way that they are then incapable of bringing a full contribution to marriage as the commentary I just read suggests.
[00:14:34] First Corinthians six 16, or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her for, he says the two shall become one flesh.
[00:14:47] Okay, so what does this mean, that someone who joins with a prostitute is now one body with her? Note that it doesn't say anything about virginity, or bringing any contribution or gift of virginity to the marriage with the spouse. But doesn't it at least suggest there's a mystical union that's connected to sex?
[00:15:10] Well, not necessarily. Let's back up a verse to look at the context. I'll read verse 15 and 16 here. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For he says, The two shall become one flesh.
[00:15:38] Okay, so the union with the prostitute is like our membership in the body of Christ. While sure, there is some spiritual stuff going on there, we don't need to presume that this is talking about some mystical, spiritual connection. We are members of the body of Christ because of physical inclusion in the community, because of baptism, because of the giving of the Holy Spirit, because we take communion, because we have allegiance to God, etc. Right? There's a lot going on there.
[00:16:11] Let me read again from that commentary, but earlier on when it's discussing the content of this verse, before it jumps to the conflation with lack of virginity impairing an individual. Quote, The extent to which the human body of Christians and the Lord Himself are intertwined is eloquently described in the phrase in verse 15, Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? This is extraordinarily bold language. Our physical bodies are limbs of Christ, and Paul's rhetorical question, Do you not know this? reveals how fundamental is this union with the risen Lord. This is the measure of our oneness with Christ. He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him, in verse 17, The two personalities become one, so merged that Paul uses the same phrases to describe the Christian's integration with Christ as to describe a person's action in joining himself to a prostitute. Jesus himself taught this perfect oneness between himself and those who believe in him. This language, though often described as mystical, also has clear overtones of physical spiritual union. This is why Paul uses the same vocabulary explicitly in connection with marriage to describe the relationship between Christ, the bridegroom, and the church, the bride. Complete and permanent oneness between husband and wife is a powerful pointer to the relationship for time and for eternity between Christ and His Church. In God's ideal purpose for marriage, two believers should be so united as persons that two become one, expressed in the physical oneness of sexual intercourse. Yet even that approximation to the ideal plan of God is, at its very best, only a pointer, and in that sense, a sacrament, to the perfect union and marriage between Christ and his church. If each individual believer's bodily members are actually limbs of Christ, it is inconceivable as well as immoral for him to abuse that body by resorting to sexual intercourse with prostitutes. End quote.
[00:18:27] So for the most part, I actually think that's pretty great. I think that the things that he's saying here are really very in line with what Paul is saying. But then he jumps in his conclusion. And this isn't uncommon in commentaries or sermons. It's like you're following along going, yeah, that's great. Then suddenly they make this jump that just doesn't come from what they were just saying.
[00:18:53] And, after the part I just ended at, Prior says, quote, This is also the strongest reason why believers ought not to marry unbelievers, end quote.
[00:19:05] Okay, so, wait a second, suddenly we're talking about marrying unbelievers? Where did that come in, in the text? You might be able to make that argument by going to some passages and stringing together some logic. But, this commentary is supposed to be drawing out meaning of the passage, rather than jumping straight into an application point that the author just wants to make here.
[00:19:31] And to me, that's a bit frustrating. And I think you should watch out for that when you're reading commentaries. I'm not saying commentaries can't make application points, but this isn't the way to be doing it. There's no grounding for the jump that is being made. And, honestly, my larger point is that we do this a lot for our general understanding of sex, and it just means that we're not thinking very carefully.
[00:19:56] So anyway, the context is the body of Christ and being joined with God, and that's what we have in the Old Testament context, of course. So, again, it's not just about that mystical union. And Paul has been talking about the freedom that believers have in Christ, and that some will take that to an extreme that isn't useful and isn't flourishing. And this passage is putting on some brakes there regarding sexuality.
[00:20:26] But wait, what about verse 17? Doesn't verse 17 mean we join spiritually with our partners? It says, quote, But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him.
[00:20:40] Well, again, we need to be careful readers. Because we join in spirit with the Lord, which makes perfect sense considering the giving of the Holy Spirit, does that then mean we're joining in spirit with another person in sex? Like, who's giving the spirit in that case? I would say that's probably not how we should be seeing that. And I bet that actually seems disappointing to people, because we do have this deep connection to people that we're intimate with, right?
[00:21:12] And I'm not saying sex is casual or it has nothing to do with spirituality, but emotional connections are not necessarily a higher mystical reality. Sometimes they're just emotions, and while emotions do things for and to us, that doesn't necessitate some hidden reality. So we can have some emotional connections that affect us strongly. But I'm suggesting we go beyond that when we're talking about sex, and we have some false narratives that are built up around this idea, and I think those can be damaging. Damaging to people who have had previous experiences that they feel shameful about, and damaging to people who have been, say, raped. Are they going to carry around this burden that they have this connection with that person who was violent to them?
[00:22:05] And look, marriage is hard enough that we should not be burdening it with ideas that simply aren't true, or that aren't helpful, or that are really maybe just meant to put us in a one up position compared to our spouse. Or maybe to put ourselves in a one down position because we're feeling shame. Our feelings may be spiritual, but we can't assume that just because we feel something good that something deeply spiritual is behind it all. Emotionalism does not equal spiritualism.
[00:22:42] Alright, now, a couple of episodes ago, I said that the church is the bride of Christ and that she's not a virgin. And admittedly, I said that mostly to be shocking and to kind of point to this idea that we have this continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. I mean, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 11 2 that he wants to present his readers as virgins presented to Christ. So, look, don't take any metaphor and go too far with it, okay? But we do see that imagery of the church as the Bride of Christ, and that comes from the Old Testament imagery of Israel being unfaithful to Yahweh.
[00:23:24] And this whole thing is a bit interesting because of a few facts. Like, first of all, according to Deuteronomy 24, a man is not supposed to remarry his wife after a divorce. So how is it that God can remarry if he's divorced Israel? Again, let's not push metaphors too far. One of the suggestions in rectifying this supposed contradiction is that it's not like God totally put away Israel, right? Judah always remained. So in a sense, it's not really a total new marriage, but also we can see the church as a new bride, being grafted in rather than the old one. So it's a both and kind of a situation.
[00:24:07] This is actually part of why I think the Divine Council worldview makes a lot of sense for us to see today because it matters that there is a choice to be had. But, we don't want to get too off course in all of that kind of talk today, but my point is that our views of sexuality are exceptionally specific, and tend to be idealized, and some of those ideas are from who knows where, and we go a bit far with them. Like suggesting that someone's first sexual experience leaves them with this miasma. I mean, are we going to say that anyone who's followed another deity and then turns to God, do they always have that first experience that they can't get rid of? I think that's a bit much.
[00:24:54] So it's probably unfair to say that the Bride of Christ isn't a virgin, although, of course, all of our sins affect us in a real way, and we carry some sort of burden or history from everything we do no matter what. But we should be careful not to burden people unnecessarily.
[00:25:12] So let's talk about Jesus and what He says. I mentioned the Naked Bible podcast episodes with David Instone Brewer about divorce and remarriage. And one of the things that he mentioned there were the two schools of thought about divorce in the time of Jesus. Could you do it only for adultery? Or could you do it for pretty much anything? Any cause at all? And these two schools interpreted Deuteronomy 24 in two different ways. But more specifically, we need to realize that the adultery side said that one was commanded to divorce if adultery occurred. And so, even though it sounds like Jesus is siding with them, He's not fully, because He's saying that Look, divorce happens because of a hardness of the heart and shouldn't just be triggered by an event. I mean, look at how patient God was with Israel.
[00:26:12] Let's go ahead and read the passage and note the " any reason at all" language that's key to showing how this question was about these two schools of thought.
[00:26:23] Matthew 19, three through nine says, quote, some Pharisees came to Jesus testing him and asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all? And he answered and said, Have you not read that he who created them from 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. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to him, Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? He said to them, because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery. End quote.
[00:27:27] Okay, so, again, I'm not trying to cover territory that I know you can easily get elsewhere, so I'm going to leave most of that passage at that and invite you to go listen to episode 318 of the Naked Bible Podcast for more on that passage.
[00:27:41] But, it's necessary to look at this and see what Jesus does in his appeal to Torah and navigating the false dichotomies that people are trying to present. We are so good at false dichotomies, saying that there's only two choices or two ways in which you can go, but usually there's some path in the middle that we aren't seeing clearly.
[00:28:05] And note that Jesus says, because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives. So it's a both sides kind of a thing. Both sides are going to be guilty of divorce because the woman may have done something, but it's the man who is divorcing her because she did it. Neither one of the parties gets off scot free and innocent here.
[00:28:33] Okay, so I was going to get into the language of fornication, but I'm not going to because we have too much else to cover here. and it's fine because I've got at least one more episode to go in this series. But to make sure we're on target for a question today, my point at large is to show that there's this really strange phenomenon where even within the pages of the Bible, we have some evidence of change in the conception of marriage.
[00:29:01] David Instone Brewer brought up the Damascus document from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is where we finally have someone pointing out specifically that polygamy is bad. And the translations of the Hebrew Bible from Genesis 2 all make sure that the emphasis is that two become one as a result of this firm moving away from the concept of polygamy for the common person, at least.
[00:29:31] But at the same time, even in the New Testament, the biblical authors are very invested in staying biblical, right? Jesus and Paul, in places like 1 Corinthians 7, They go back to Torah to appeal to the law as well as to just the creation account. And again, to save everyone some time, I'm not going to hash all those particularities out, but there is a continuity and there's always a hearkening back to Torah.
[00:30:05] And, you know, it's not like Torah told anyone to have more than one wife. Polygamy is not a part of the law. It's just part of the customs and the history of the time, so it's definitely a cultural change rather than a change in the law. But, again, back to the strange phenomenon that I mentioned, yeah, there's cultural change in the Bible, but no law change, but between the Bible and us today, I would argue there has been both.
[00:30:40] Both have changed. And that's the really strange phenomenon, because we're so sure that our ideas are biblical. I mean, just look at the particularities of the way that we talk about sex. We talk about things in ways that the Bible doesn't, and we put really hard stops on things.
[00:30:58] And I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I'm saying that we have massively changed as well. I think that when we look at Jesus and Paul, there's obviously a massive amount of continuity between the Old Testament and their words. But I have to wonder how much we've just launched off of the New Testament into our thinking, and we aren't continuous with the Old Testament.
[00:31:28] Now, mostly I'm throwing that idea out there for you to consider and meditate on, because it's not my place here to really say one way or another about things and really get into the nitty gritty details of modern church politics and church doctrine. But you've seen we do hold ideas that are clearly not being derived from the biblical text.
[00:31:51] So, it's fair to investigate and ask these questions. As I've been saying, we need a standard, and that standard begins and is wrapped up in Torah. Not that we should go back to all of those laws in this explicit way, but that's where our standard lies. It continues to the New Testament, and the New Testament affirms Torah, and it affirms cultural changes in the definition of marriage, but the affirmation of those cultural changes are still bound in Torah.
[00:32:28] So, as I'm sure it's not a surprise, the fundamental answer to the question I've been asking in these last episodes is that our definitions, too, should be coming from Torah. Yes, we're going to move those ideas through the Prophets and the Writings and the New Testament, and we're not going to be stuck with just what the Torah says.
[00:32:50] But when it really comes down to it, I don't think it's so much that the laws change from Old Testament to New Testament, but rather that we see under the laws. We see the purposes of them. We see the intent. We see the heart.
[00:33:08] Many of the laws are bound in the tribal structure of the day, and we don't have that. And while we can go to Genesis to see how it should be done. We also clearly have the fact that it's also okay for people to be single, as we see in both the Gospels in Matthew 19, as well as several places in the Epistles.
[00:33:30] So the union of man and wife is not strictly the be all, end all answer either. The spouse of an unbeliever isn't supposed to divorce that unbeliever. Both divorce and remarriage are allowed, and it seems like there's quite a bit of autonomy between the couple for decisions that impact that. Is the other person working to promote my flourishing? Or are they being neglectful? We think in terms of sexual indiscretion and abuse as being those main reasons for divorce, but Biblical grounds for divorce are things like provision of food and clothing and marital relations so that suggests that general neglect can be a cause.
[00:34:20] Now, why does Peter say what he does to husbands and wives? He gives different instructions to them both, but they would have different roles in the home and different ways in which the other would be won over by the spouse, we might say. After the individual instructions for husbands and wives, Peter says
[00:34:41] in 1 Peter 3, 8 9, quote, To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kind hearted, and humble in spirit, not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead, for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. End quote.
[00:35:08] Honestly, I think this verse should be quoted a heck of a whole lot more than I've ever heard it. I don't know about you, but this is pretty awesome, right? There's this idea of turning towards one another and seeking out the benefit of the other person, blessing them. Is that what we're doing? Are we finding ways to live together in humility and harmony? That would suggest working together in ways that limit strife because you're attempting to fulfill the good for someone else other than yourself. And that's a beautiful picture.
[00:35:46] Again, there's so many particular things we could address, too much for a whole series on this even. So, if you've got particular questions because I haven't covered a passage, I'd love to address that. But we're going to end this episode with talking about Matthew 5 and taking that forward to how the early church seemed to take that.
[00:36:09] Matthew 5, verses 27 through 32 says, quote, You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you, that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you. For it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you. For it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. It was said, whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. End quote.
[00:37:05] Alright, way more for us to talk about here; I'm not going to exegete this whole passage, but we know the interpretation of this suggests that having desire is the same as committing adultery, right?
[00:37:18] Looking at a woman, any woman at all, that's what this is talking about. At least the church sure took this passage that way, and we've been saddled with that explanation for it ever since. Let's look at an early example from the church. The Didache, And, I have literally no idea if I'm pronouncing that right, so this is how I'm saying it. The Didache is an early Christian document that provides instructions on Christian ethics, practices, and church organization. It may have been written before the year 100, but even if it wasn't, we're pretty sure it's very early. And it gives us some information on early beliefs, and this is what it says about lust.
[00:38:05] Quote, My child, flee from every evil man, and from all like him. Be not proud, for pride leads to murder, nor jealous, nor contentious, nor passionate, for from all these murders are engendered. My child, be not lustful, for lust leads to fornication, nor a speaker of base words, nor a lifter up of the eyes, for from all these is adultery engendered. End quote.
[00:38:38] Okay. So, I'm also going to read from The Shepherd of Hermas. And this one, this one is really something. It's also very early, probably before the year 150. It's a story that has five visions and twelve commandments, sometimes called mandates, and ten parables or similitudes.
[00:39:01] It's very much a story about repentance and moral living, and some have thought that it was a candidate for inclusion in the canon, and we do have it showing up in some codexes. But even if it was never part of the canon in people's minds, it was exceptionally influential. We have a lot of copies of it.
[00:39:23] The book, though it arguably doesn't even mention Jesus at all, is very much about the topic of repentance. And in particular, it's concerned with the idea of repentance after baptism. It sees baptism as absolutely essential, and there's very much a synergistic view of salvation. Some might say that that means that salvation requires both faith and works.
[00:39:51] And in The Shepherd of Hermas, we have the idea that there is only one single chance for repentance of a serious sin after baptism. So, if you flub up once, okay, that's fine. You can repent, but you do it again and you're out of luck. No more repentance. And, you know, I'm not, actually opposed to the idea of synergism in salvation, but that's pretty extreme, right? And yet we know that people read this book, and many maybe believed it to be authoritative, for centuries. And that's fascinating to me. So yeah, if you want to know how people were thinking in the early church, this isn't a bad read to get into.
[00:40:36] There's a part I really should have read last time in the topic of adultery, but we'll just read it here at the beginning of the book. To set this up, Hermas is the supposed author. He's a former slave, and he meets his former owner, a woman named Rhoda, and this is what happens at the start of the book, when he has a vision, and sees his former owner again after this incident, and she accuses him of sin.
[00:41:03] Quote, He who brought me up sold me to a certain Rhoda at Rome. After many years, I made her acquaintance again, and began to love her as a sister. After some time, I saw her bathing in the river Tiber, and gave her my hand and helped her out of the river. When I saw her beauty, I reflected in my heart and said, I should be happy if I had a wife of such beauty and character. That was my only thought, and no other. No, not one. After some time, while I was going to Cumaea and glorifying the creation of God for its greatness and splendor and might, As I walked along, I became sleepy, and a spirit seized me, and took me away through a certain pathless district, through which a man could not walk, but the ground was precipitous, and broken up by the streams of water. So I crossed that river, and came to the level ground, and knelt down and began to pray to the Lord to confess my sins. Now while I was praying, the heaven was opened, and I saw that woman whom I had desired, greeting me out of the heaven, and saying, Hail, Hermas! And I looked at her and said to her, Lady, what are you doing here? And she answered me, I was taken up to accuse you of your sins before the Lord. I said to her, Are you now accusing me? No, she said, but listen to the words which I am going to say to you. God who dwells in heaven has created that which is out of that which is not, and increased and multiplied it for the sake of his holy church. He is angry with you because you sinned against me. I answered and said to her, Did I sin against you? In what place? Or when did I speak an evil word to you? Did I not always look on you as a goddess? Did I not always respect you as a sister? Why do you charge me falsely, lady, with these wicked and impure things? She laughed and said to me, The desire of wickedness came up in your heart. Or do you not think that it is an evil deed for a righteous man if an evil desire come up in his heart? Yes, it is a sin, said she, and a great one, For the righteous man has righteous desires. So long then as his designs are righteous, His repute stands fast in heaven, And he finds the Lord ready to assist him in all his doings. But they who have evil designs in their hearts Bring upon themselves death and captivity, Especially those who obtain this world for themselves, And glory in their wealth, And do not lay hold upon the good things which are to come. Their hearts will repent, yet they have no hope, but they have abandoned themselves and their life. But do you pray to God, and he shall heal the sins of yourself, and all of your house, and of all the saints. End quote.
[00:44:08] Okay, so here we have a story, and we know how formative stories are. Hermas just sees his former owner, doesn't even really have lust for her specifically, thinks man, I'd like my future wife to be like that, and he goes on his merry way.
[00:44:25] But she greets him later in the vision and says that he sinned against her grievously. And we go on in the book, and well, thankfully, this is his one chance to repent. And actually, I'm going to go ahead and read the second chapter where he sees a different woman who is an allegorical representation of the church.
[00:44:45] This is chapter two, quote, After she had spoken these words, the heavens were shut, and I was all shuddering and in grief. And I began to say in myself, if this sin is recorded against me, how shall I be saved? Or how shall I propitiate God from my completed sins? Or with what words shall I beseech the Lord to be forgiving unto me? While I was considering and doubting these things in my heart, I saw before me a white chair of great size, made of snow white wool. And there came a woman, old and clothed in shining garments, with a book in her hand. And she sat down alone and greeted me. Hail, Hermas! And I, in my grief and weeping, said, Hail, lady. And she said to me, Why are you gloomy, Hermas? You are patient and good tempered, who are always laughing. Why are you so downcast in appearance and not merry? And I said to her, Because of the most excellent lady who says that I sinned against her. And she said, By no means let this thing happen to the servant of God, but for all that the thought did enter your heart concerning her. It is such a design as this, which brings sin on the servants of God. For it is an evil and mad purpose against a revered spirit, and one already approved, if a man desire an evil deed, and especially if it be Hermas the temperate, who abstains from every evil desire, and is full of all simplicity and great innocence. End quote.
[00:46:22] Okay, so, yeah, it's really quite interesting, and these kinds of things are what makes me want to go back in time and really see what people were thinking about this as they read stories like this.
[00:46:35] I do want to get into one more text associated with Matthew 5. Now, this isn't particularly early, but I'm going to read from John Chrysostom, and sorry, I always say his name wrong, but he lived in the mid 300s. This is his homily 27 about the passage in Matthew. Basically, he's bringing forward the idea that Jesus was teaching something beyond the law in Torah, like a better commandment, so to speak, as we often think of this passage.
[00:47:10] And I'm going to snip some things out of the quote just to make it a little more readable in English. But he says, quote, for beginning from the passions, anger, and desire, for it is chiefly these that bear absolute sway within us, and are more natural than the rest. He with great authority corrected them, and reduced them to order with all strictness. For he said, not that the adulterer merely is punished, but what he had done with respect to the murderer. This he does here also, punishing even the unchaste look, to teach you more than what the scribes had. Accordingly, he said, he that looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her. That is, he who makes it his business to be curious about bright forms, and to hunt for elegant features, and to feast his soul with the sight, and to fasten his eyes on fair countenances. For he came to set free from all evil deeds, not the body only, But the soul, too, before the body. Thus, because in the heart we receive the grace of the Spirit, he cleanses it out first. And how, one might say, is it possible to be freed from desire? I answer, first, if we were willing, even this might be deadened and remain inactive. In the next place, he does not here take away desire absolutely, But that desire which springs up in men from sight, for he that is curious to behold fair countenances is himself chiefly the enkindler of the furnace of that passion, and makes his own soul a captive, and soon proceeds also to the act. Thus we see why he said not, Whosoever shall lust to commit adultery, but whosoever shall look to lust.
[00:49:10] What, then, one might say, if I should look, and desire indeed, but do no evil? Even so, you are set among the adulterers, for the lawgiver has pronounced it, and you must not ask any more questions. For thus looking once, twice, or thrice, you will perhaps have power to refrain, but if you are continually doing this, and kindling the furnace, you will assuredly be taken. For your station is not beyond the nature which is common to men. And we then, if we see a child holding a knife, though we do not see him hurt, we beat him and forbid his ever holding it. So likewise God takes away the unchaste look even before the act, lest at any time you should fall into the act as well. End quote.
[00:49:59] All right, so there's some balance there, but clearly the focus is on the lust and how the act of looking, perhaps even seeking those things out in people that you might desire, is, that is sin. That is adultery. Now, it's hard to imagine how one is supposed to search for a suitable mate if this is the case, and how is adultery specifically happening if no one's married, and this seems like an impossibly high standard, right? Which some commentators have said maybe that's the point. Maybe the point is that the standard is so high that no one can reach it.
[00:50:37] Now, I could go on and read what he says about women and how women have this part to play as well, but just to sum that up, he says, you women are also guilty because you dress in ways that attract men. And that also is feeding into the same kind of a sin. Which, yeah, we've heard that before, right?
[00:50:59] But anyway, there's a whole lot we could say about the men and women aspect here and it's really interesting because in the Old Testament, it was the woman who was going to be guilty of adultery, right? In the New Testament, we're looping in the men because by this time, we have this understanding that it's a both and kind of a thing. And yet, by the Early church, when commentators are talking about this, it's like, Hey, why is Jesus only talking about the women? So they're missing that Old Testament context and not seeing the holistic picture. But anyway, that's what we all do, right?
[00:51:37] several things that we see the church is saying that lust is bad. And I'm going to give another suggestion for this passage in Matthew five, a little bit of a nuance here. And this comes from Jason Staples. I know some of you are familiar with his work. He's written a couple of great books, called The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism, and Paul and the Resurrection of Israel, and I recommend both of those. They're fantastic for understanding the covenants, and Israel, and the Church.
[00:52:09] But what I'm talking about here is a blog post that he wrote on this passage, and I'll link it in the show notes for you to read. It's called, Whoever Looks at a Woman with Lust. Misinterpreted Bible passages number one.
[00:52:26] Staples goes into common interpretations for the passage that we're talking about, and then he says, quote, Another key aspect of nearly all the common misinterpretations of this verse is a specific, mistaken definition of the word lust. Specifically, many readers understand lust as specifically denoting misplaced or overly robust libido. For example, as one recent conversation partner explained to me, I take lust to mean wanting something more than you should in an unhealthy way. end quote.
[00:53:05] Now the question is, what is lust? Staples says, quote, the first thing to understand in this passage and in the Sermon on the Mount in general is that Jesus is in no way intensifying the law here, nor is he really saying anything new. What's that you say? The law doesn't forbid lusting after a woman, so Jesus has obviously turned things up to eleven by doing so. Well, as it turns out, the Greek word usually translated lust in this passage is precisely the word for covet in the tenth command in the Septuagint, which says, you will not covet your neighbor's wife. You will not covet your neighbor's house, or his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or any animal which is your neighbor's. Looks pretty familiar, doesn't it? In fact, it's essentially identical, since there's no distinction between the words wife and woman in Greek, the word translated wife here is the same word that is translated woman in Matthew. It turns out that Jesus isn't saying anything new at all in Matthew 5:27-28. Instead, he directly cites one of the Ten Commands to remind his audience that the law not only prohibits adultery, it prohibits coveting with the same severity. This is not an intensification of the law. It's a reminder of what the law already says. In addition, Jesus gives no indication that he regards the law as too difficult to keep. He not only assumes that his followers can follow his interpretation of the Torah, but commands them to do so. End quote.
[00:54:59] Oh, well, if Jesus is not actually intensifying the law, then that is a bit different. Right?
[00:55:07] Staples continues, saying, quote, Strikingly, the nominal noun form concept of lust or desire, even the sexual variety, is nowhere forbidden in Scripture, nor is it equated with sin, only the potential to sin. Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then, when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin. And when sin is completed, it brings forth death, as we see in James 1, 14 and 15. Note that James clearly distinguishes between lust, that is, desire, at the stage of temptation, and sin, which is the actual commission of an act. In keeping with this distinction, Tenth Command specifically forbids the action of coveting, hence the verbal form, Perhaps best understood as forbidding fixing one's desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one's own. A further way to understand coveting is analogous to the modern legal concept of attempted lawbreaking. End quote.
[00:56:23] Alright. Cool. Staples then does this fantastic breakdown of desire and how that fits into the Greek concept of the person in body, soul, and spirit. And, seriously, this is great stuff. You should go read it. And he goes into the grammar of the passage to say that it's not the manner of the look that matters, like it's a particular type of look somehow, but rather it's the purpose of the look. The actual intent. Basically he's saying that when you intend to do something, then you're going to do it.
[00:56:58] And you start being guilty of it right when you intend to do it. So really, it's about your will. Not your desire, but your will. And your will matters. Your desires are a lower order of operation than the will. And the will can have control over the desires. So the desires aren't the problem. It's the will.
[00:57:22] So I think that's really helpful. Intent matters. Our hearts matter. Our wills matter. Because they can be set upon desires and goals. So the question is, what's our goal? What's our intent? Are we working on and for the well being of others? Or are we acting in highly selfish, self serving ways?
[00:57:47] And to answer our question, finally, in our topic on marriage, One man, one woman, as Jesus says, and the goal is to work together and to keep our gaze and intent on the things that belong to us. And while procreation is certainly part of what humanity is to do, it's also still okay to be single. There's no commandment to marry. Now, can we take the definition of marriage to go beyond these things? Seeing as how Jesus and Peter and Paul continually went to Torah to ground their teaching, then so must we.
[00:58:25] Remember, the series got started in response to a question, and that question had multiple parts, and one of those parts was, and I'll quote this, quote, Another argument I've heard is that God commanded man and woman to join to populate the earth. But now that the Earth is populated, that doesn't matter anymore. End quote.
[00:58:48] So, the presumption there is that marriage can be redefined because the command in Genesis doesn't matter. Well, I mean, I think the multiplication can also have to do with the spreading of gospel and God's goodness in the world, but we can't divorce it from the act of marriage and having children, right?
[00:59:09] If you've listened to this podcast much, you know that I do think that God has purposes in creation that didn't just have to do with initial creation, but rather they're embedded into reality, and those purposes have something to do with our lives today, and with the eschaton, the fulfillment and culmination of all things.
[00:59:31] Now, what that means to the idea of physical population growth and the eschaton, I have no idea. But I can say it's not our place to say when we've gotten this accomplished and Surely, we're not yet in the eschaton where maybe those purposes are accomplished and completed in Entirety.
[00:59:53] Anyway I think it's clear that the guideposts we have are in place And there's really no way we could justify changing definitions willy nilly if we want to stay in line with Scripture. This isn't about progress with a capital P, or individual fulfillment, or even soulmates or soul ties.
[01:00:15] But really it's a good idea to look at our concepts of sexuality and look at the Bible's concepts of sexuality and say how do those things connect and where do we get our ideas from?
[01:00:26] All right, I'm going to end it there for this week. As I've said, I've got at least one more week on this and more if anyone else has anything they'd like me to touch on. And if you're listening later on, still feel free to ask me those questions. It doesn't matter when. It's amazing I've stayed focused for as long as I have, and I can always circle back later, too.
[01:00:48] This is Episode 96, so sign up for my newsletter at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com, and you'll find out about my cool giveaways for Episode 100 coming up here soon. Check out my website for blog posts and art, and finding out how to help support me, which I highly appreciate all of you who do. Thank you from the bottom of my heart, you guys, really.
[01:01:13] Thanks for listening and subscribing and rating the podcast and sharing the episodes with other people. And guess what? Spotify now has auto generated transcripts and auto generated chapters. So, that's kind of interesting. I know Apple Podcasts got transcripts fairly recently, but if you listen on Spotify, they've gotten a little bit more organized.
[01:01:37] They're gonna spell my name wrong, but that's nothing new. You can get my more accurate transcripts on my website, too. At any rate, thanks for listening, and I wish you all a blessed week, and we will see you later.
