Can Men Commit Adultery?

A local friend of mine who lives here mentioned how common it is for men to have “other women” besides their wives, especially when they travel for work, etc.  These other women are typically foreigners with a different background than the locals.  Of course I was shocked on many different levels.  But I was mostly unprepared for the reality that male infidelity could be so common particularly in this part of the world.  Simply because this is within a part of the world where female fidelity is taken with the utmost seriousness.  So what gives?  Why is the same act on one side of the gender line a betrayal and dishonor of the highest order, while on the other side it has so little consequence?  It was a difficult question to wrap my mind around until I read this article...

Kyle Harper writes that much of the ancient world thought with the same type of categories.  In a 2011 JBL article he examines the development and usage of the Greek word “moicheia” meaning adultery.  For the Greeks (and almost all ancient cultures) adultery did not mean simply having extra-marital relations.  Its meaning was fundamentally about the “violation of a respectable woman.”  And in fact, sleeping with another man's wife was actually construed to be “a crime against another man.”  A crime either against the husband of a respectable woman, or if unmarried a crime against her father (or brothers).  When this is the fundamental understanding of adultery in honor-based cultures, it becomes clearer why there are different ways of thinking about it for men and women.  If a husband in ancient Greece were to have extra-marital sex with his female slave for instance, it is not actually considered adultery.  The same was true for prostitution.  In fact, P. Leithart summarizing Harper says that in ancient Greece “prostitution was not merely tolerated but seen to fulfill a social good.  It allowed men to satisfy their sexual desires without violating honorable women, that is, without the danger of rivalry with another man.”

Harper goes on to argue that in the ancient world the Jews (particularly their prophets) were the first to reconstruct an understanding of adultery that ran across gender lines.  Such that by the second-temple era (and on into the New Testament period) the gulf between the sexual ethics of the Jews and their gentile neighbors was notoriously vast.   

It dawned on me that the contrast I noticed here was more nuanced than just a simple double standard.  There were new definitions and different categories being used than I was working with.  Protecting the honor of respectable women was held with the utmost esteem.  And it brings into focus the ethics that come with the shame and violation of such honor.  This explains the rigidity of their standards from this angle.  But at the same time this understanding theoretically leaves open the question of extra-marital affairs by men that don't affect “respectable” women. And at least in the observations of my friend here, they are not just “theoretical.”

De-debunking Trinitarian Analogies (cont)

A few months ago I argued here that the way modern evangelical scholars have debunked Trinitarian analogies actually misses what a real analogy is supposed to do.  And therefore with more limited goals for what actually counts as a decent analogy, what should we say about the historical and modern analogies of the Trinity?  Are they workable?  Would I ever use them?

If you see these potential analogies as illustrating one significant aspect of the Trinity, and not every aspect, then in fact these analogies are quite redeemable and very useful.  For example, most analogies regarding the Trinity are made to illustrate how God's threeness and his oneness can intersect simultaneously.  Again this is only one part of the doctrine.  But one that is difficult to wrap one's minds around which makes an analogy quite fitting.  Lets take the water analogy again.  A single component of water (H2O) exists in three different states (ice, liquid, vapor).  There is one substance and three ways it expresses itself.  I'll say that again, so it is clear what the analogy is doing:  The Trinity is like water in that (and only in that) it is one substance that expresses itself in three different ways.  I know many of you have an innate distrust in these analogies and you are already instinctively thinking of counterexamples.  Counterexamples like: God is a person and knows everything whereas water has no intelligence or personality.  God is not made of Hydrogen and Oxygen.  And further God is simultaneously three, not three at different times depending on temperature and pressure like water.  Yes, these are all true.  But if you read my first post on this, you already know what I'm going to say.  None of that matters as to whether it is decent analogy.  Because those counterexamples again miss the purpose of the analogy or any analogy for that matter.  In order to disprove the analogy, the counterexamples must show a disconnect of the precise aspect that is being compared, not any random disconnect you can show between the two.  Thus, only in the circumstance where either water or the Trinity fail to illustrate one substance being expressed in three ways, will there be room for showing a meaningful disconnect in the analogy.  I have not been convinced there is such a disconnect in this case.  And I'm also convinced that many other Trinitarian analogies are similarly useful when they are nuanced in this way and understood within the proper framework of what an analogy does.

St. Augustine's analogies of the mind, St. Patrick's botanical analogies, even the dreaded egg analogy can be equally redeemed in so far as they helpfully illustrate the one particular aspect of the Trinity that they actually intend to explain.  Some analogies of the Trinity don't focus on the threeness and oneness paradox.  Some analogies are used to explain the interpersonal relationship between the members of the Trinity.  For example, I have used many times the analogy of marriage as an illustration of how the Son is ontologically equal, but functionally subordinate to the Father in their relationship.  I am convinced the bible teaches these same values in the relationship between a wife and her husband.  Whether the bible teaches this and whether the analogy helpfully illustrates this point can be debated.  But to say the analogy would fail because for instance the Father is all-knowing while husbands are deeply limited in their knowledge, or because the analogy leaves out the Holy Spirit, etc. is to again misunderstand what an analogy is doing.  Debunking analogies does not mean showing that there are some random differences between the two things being compared.  In fact, if there weren't any differences, than the only thing you could compare with an analogy is identical things!  The only thing you could say the state of Arizona is like, for example, is wait for it... the state of Arizona –which of course is not an analogy, it is a meaningless tautology.  Debunking an analogy means showing they are different in the precise way something is being compared.  It would mean showing that marriages are not ontologically equal or functionally distinct like the Father and the Son or vice versa.

Not all analogies are created equal.  But their real function does need to be understood before we can starts offering specific and meaningful critiques.  Ultimately, absorbing the doctrine of the trinity requires more than precision with how you talk about various categories of being.  I might even suggest it requires a little wonder and imagination.  And of course the best place for that to begin is through power of a simple analogy.