The Christmas Story

John 1:1-5; 9-14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Luke 1:5-38

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judæa, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.

Domenico Ghirlandaio, Annuncio Dell'angelo A ZaccariaTornabuoni Chapel, 1490

And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.

But the angel said unto him, “Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

And Zacharias said unto the angel, “Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.”

And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.

And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, “Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.”

He Qi, The Annunciation, 2001

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

And the angel said unto her, “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”

Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And the angel answered and said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.”

And Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”

And the angel departed from her.

Matthew 1:18 – 25

Gaetano Gandolfini, Joseph's Dream, 1790

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 1:39 – Luke 2:40

James Tissot, The Magnificat.
1886-1894

And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: and she spake out with a loud voice, and said, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.”

And Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.”

Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son. And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Fra Angelico, The Naming of John The Baptist, 1434-35

And his mother answered and said, “Not so; but he shall be called John.”

And they said unto her, “There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.”

And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, “His name is John.”

And they marvelled all. And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.

And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judæa. And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, “What manner of child shall this be!” And the hand of the Lord was with him.

And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,to guide our feet into the way of peace. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Thomas Cole, The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds, 1830

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, “Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.”

Sandra Botticelli, The Nativity of Jesus, 1473-75

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.”

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”

And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. 3And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Matthew 2

James Tissot, The Magi, 1894

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.”

When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

And they said unto him, “In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”

Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.

And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, “Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.”

When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.”

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”

But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.”

And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judæa in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Terrorism, Radical Islam, Radical Christianity, and Political Correctness

I don't know why people have such a problem with the phrase, "radical Islam." When I hear someone say, “radical Islam,” I don’t hear, “every Muslim on the face of the earth.” Instead, I hear, “groups like Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, and Hezbollah.”

George Stephanopoulos recently asked Hillary Clinton, “You have been reluctant to say we’re fighting radical Islam, isn’t it a mistake to not say it plain? That the violence is being pushed by radical elements in that faith.”

She responded, “Well, that’s a different thing, radical elements who use a dangerous and distorted view of Islam to promote their jihadist ambitions, I’m fine with that. I go after it all the time. I go after Islamists all the time. The problem is that sounds like we’re declaring a war against religion. And that to me is number one, wrong.”

Saying “radical Islam” shouldn’t bother Muslims any more than “radical Christianity” should bother Christians. Sometimes Christians will call themselves radicals, but only insomuch as they see themselves as peaceful forces of change with ideals out of the mainstream. I have heard people like Francis Chan and John Piper use the term radical to describe what Christians should be, but their definition of radical does not include violence. Most Christians feel that being a radical involves being a peaceful force for change, not being violent.

When government officials say “radical [fill in the blank]” they don’t mean people committed to peaceful change, they mean people who use or support terror as a means to promote their ideology. That being said, there are radical Christians out there who do use terror to promote their ideology.

·         The Lord’s Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony calls itself Christian. They are involved in terror, murder, abduction, mutilation, child-sex slavery, and forcing children to participate in hostilities. The current membership is estimated to be between 300 and 400.

·         The Army of God is an American terrorist organization that endorses the use of violence to end the practice of abortion. I couldn’t find any data on their estimated membership.

·         Ku Klux Klan is another American terrorist organization that uses violence to promote their racist ideologies. They also claim to be Christians. They have about 5,000 to 8,000 members

·         The Christian Identity Movement is another racist group. It isn’t a single organization, but rather several splinter organizations often differing in minor theological stances, but agreeing on the basic principle that the original Jewish people (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) were white and the lost tribes became the Scandinavian nations. Most of them don’t espouse terror, but a Christian Identity organization in South Africa was responsible for the Soweto bombings in 2002.

There are many more Christian based organizations and ideologies that use terror to promote their ideologies. Even though Islamic terrorism has caused more than 90% of the terror related deaths in the United States, the majority of terror attacks in the United States in the past 35 years have been committed by radical Christian terrorist groups or individuals. So, if the government were to say, “We’re going to fight against radical Christianity,” I wouldn’t feel like they were declaring war on me or most Christians at all.

While I have political ideologies that may seem extreme to my friends on the left, they all know well enough that I do not approve of violence to promote my ideologies. The vast majority of Christians in the United States would agree that while things need to change, terrorism is not the way to get it done, if for no other reason than Christ’s command was to be a witness (Acts 1:8), teach (Matthew 28:19), preach (Mark 16:15), baptize (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16), and when struck, to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39).

If the government began waging a war against “radical Christian terrorism,” I wouldn’t be offended by that term. I am more offended by the fact that such groups and individuals exist. I am more offended by the religious leaders who do not speak out against such extremism. By the way, every pastor of every church I have been a member of has spoken out against violent Christian extremism.

If the government were to use the term “radical Christianity,” there will be some Christians who get offended. That’s just the culture we live in. Everybody gets offended by something. You can’t say, “Boo,” without somebody getting offended. Even though nobody gets offended by “boo” somebody will probably write an Op-Ed saying that the word “boo” is insensitive to ghosts and someone else will write an op-ed saying that ghosts are white and the word “boo” is used to scare, so the word “boo” promotes white privilege and white supremacist terrorism. That may sound crazy, but in a world where PETA is suing for the intellectual property rights of monkeys and a college counselor shredded the United States Constitution because a student claimed it was a trigger, it doesn’t sound very far-fetched.

Many words and phrases have entered our cultural vernacular and are not meant to be insensitive or offensive. Many words and phrases didn’t even become politically incorrect until somebody, somewhere got offended and had their feelings hurt. Sometimes, offense is manufactured. Consider Melissa Harris Perry’s assertion that the term “Hard Worker” is somehow racist when Martin Luther King, Jr. himself used the term in speeches and sermons. Maybe Melissa Harris Perry was asserting that “Hard Worker” was a racist term used by African-Americans? Yeah, I know it’s a stretch.

I don’t see the benefit of wasting time developing carefully nuanced terms and phrases for use by the masses because no matter what term or phrase we use, we are going to offend somebody. The truth isn’t always politically correct, but the truth is always correct. Telling the truth is going to upset somebody, but a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will reveal that in America, we have the right to life and liberty, but we do not have the right to happiness, only its pursuit. That means we do not have the right to not be offended.

This world is not fair. You will not always be happy. You will never be able to make everyone happy. So quit with the political correctness and just be correct. I work at a community college and watching people try to be politically correct is frustrating because they look like they have a speech disorder. It's almost impossible for them to clearly communicate. For those who want to be offended and triggered by everything under the sun, grow up. The real world isn’t politically correct and not everyone is trying to intentionally offend you.

When you grow up, life gets easier. Trust me. I used to be part of the association of the perpetually offended. "Watch your language," "Don't say that," "Don't wear that," "Don't do that." What I found by being part of the culture of the offended was that everyone constantly walked on egg shells around me, I was isolated and avoided. Now days, I make no secret that I am a Christian and people will automatically try to watch themselves around me. When someone apologizes for dropping an F-bomb, I tell them, "Hey, I appreciate that, but I was in the Navy for 20 years. You'll have to do a whole lot worse than that to offend me."

People will still apologize, but they know I'm approachable and they can communicate with me when they need to without watching their language. Some people don't know how to communicate without using language that would be considered offensive in "decent society." When you're frustrated or need help, it's hard to communicate if you can't be completely open. Let it roll off you, man. Grow up!

Some people are going to get offended. People may get mad at you and shout you down. Politicians may lose votes. The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will utilize their first amendment rights to hold a press conference to let people know they’re offended when the terms “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorism” are used. The Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Center for Law and Justice may do the same thing if the terms “radical Christianity” or “Christian terrorism” are used.

The fact is that if a person, because of their Christian ideology bombs an abortion provider’s car, that person is a “radical Christian terrorist.” Similarly, if a couple because of their Muslim ideology illegally converts their rifles into assault weapons, build more than a dozen improvised explosive devices, then kill 14 people and injure 23 more, those people are “radical Islamic terrorists.”

If that offends you, too bad.

Answering LGBT Objections to Biblical Marriage – Part 8

Victims, Captives, and Slaves

A Note About Bible Versions

George Cattermole, The Scribe

Before getting into the last of the objections to the biblical model of marriage, I wanted to address translation issues and Bible versions because one of the objections I am going to deal with is based on a bad translation instead of a cultural misunderstanding. Many criticisms leveled against the Bible are based on a very superficial reading of the scriptures and are usually based on a face value reading of a verse or passage from one translation that seems to support the critic’s agenda.

There are several problems with taking any verse or passage in any modern language version of the Bible at face value. The Bible was not written in any modern language. The Old Testament was written in biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The Bible was also written in a different era, to different people, in a different country, with different cultural ideas, traditions, and linguistic colloquialisms. We tend to look at their cultures with confusion and sometimes in disgust. It should be pointed out that many of those cultures thought they were very culturally advanced and might have viewed us as barbaric. In 1,000 years from now, historians may look back on us in much the same way.

When studying the Bible, it is important to understand that many modern Bible versions are not, in fact, formal translations, and, with the exception of interlinear Bibles which show the original language with each word transliterated, no Bible is a strict, literal, word-for-word, translation, not even the King James Version, which the King James translators pointed out in their preface.

In the translation process, translators often use what is called dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is used when a single foreign word carries a bigger idea than a single English word can communicate, or a colloquialism is used that, when literally translated, would not be understood by the intended audience. Different Bible versions use more or less dynamic equivalence depending on what kind of translation the publishers are going for and who their intended target audience is. The result is that there are essentially three kinds of Bible versions.

The first kind of Bible version is the formal translation. Until the 20^th century, all Bible versions were formal translations. In this kind of Bible version, the translators try to avoid dynamic equivalence as much as possible and attempt to create a word-for-word translation. Formal translations include the English Standard Version (ESV), the King James Version (KJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the New King James Version (NKJV), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV), to name just a few.

The second kind of Bible version goes to the other end of the spectrum and uses a lot of dynamic equivalence. These versions attempt to give more of a phrase-for-phrase or thought-for-thought paraphrase of the Bible rather than a word-for-word translation. Personally, for the most part, I can’t stand these kinds of Bibles. They tend to be dumbed down, filled with agenda driven language based on the theology of the interpreter, and end up being just plain wrong in many cases. I have a hard time even typing a capital “B” when referring to these kinds of Bibles. Paraphrase Bibles include the Easy to Read Version (ERV), God’s Word version (GW), the Good News Bible (GNB) also called Today’s English Version (TEV), The Living Bible (TLB), and the New Living Translation (NLT). I have a real problem with the New Living Translation because it is not anywhere near a translation. It is an updated version of the Living Bible which is a paraphrased interpretation at best. To call this version a translation is just plain dishonest.

While it is important, when studying the Bible, for a student to be able to paraphrase the Bible for themselves, this requires a deeper level of understanding than a paraphrase Bible can give. These paraphrase Bibles tend to skim the surface of theological issues and students of these Bibles only attain a superficial understanding of God’s Word.

The third kind of Bible falls in the middle. They combine formal, word-for-word translation with thought-for-thought or phrase-for-phrase dynamic equivalence while trying to remain an actual translation. There is no conscious effort either way. While some of these Bibles can be unreliable in places, the translators attempt to be faithful to the original languages as much as possible. Examples of this kind of Bible are the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the International Standard Version (ISV), the New International Version (NIV), and the New English Translation (NET Bible). I’m also not a fan of this third kind of Bible, but they’re not as bad as the paraphrase Bibles.

Emile Wauters, Scholar at the Table, 1865-1867

When a person approaches the study of the Bible, they should, as often as possible attempt to compare as many versions as possible. Yes, even though I don’t like them, it’s a good idea to compare paraphrases too. Many versions are available freely online at www.biblegateway.com. Additionally, there are many original language resources at www.biblehub.com, www.blueletterbible.org, and www.scripture4all.org.

Other resources available to students of the Bible are Bible commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Bible encyclopedias, and a multitude of historical and archaeological references. Many of these resources are freely available on the internet as well. www.e-sword.net has a full, free to download, bible and reference software package. For more complete reference libraries, Logos Bible Software has Bible and reference packages that if purchased as a printed library would be worth thousands of dollars. Their cheapest package is $250.00.

In addition to studying a passage in the context of the entire Bible, it is important to utilize these resources wherever and whenever possible to expand the context of the passage being studied. Without understanding the cultural, historical, scriptural, and linguistic context of the words, verses, or passages being studied, it is very easy to come to an incorrect interpretation of the scripture. Critics of the bible begin with their criticism and then find a translation that fits their agenda, completely ignoring the underlying context of the verse.

The old saying is true, “A text without a context is a prooftext for a pretext.”

Forced Marriage of Rape Victims and Rapists

Eustache Le Sueur, Rape of Tamar, c.1640

Throughout this series, I have sought to dissect the original languages and culture while also looking at other relevant scriptures to help gain a deeper understanding of why the criticisms are baseless. The criticism of a rape victim being forced to marry their rapist is based on many of the modern translations that use the word “rape” in Deuteronomy 22. Consider the New International Version rendering of this passage.

²⁸ If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

– Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

Some of the other modern English versions that translate this passage similarly include God’s Word Translation (GWT), Good News Translation (GNT), Holman Christian Standard Bible (HSCB), International Standard Version (ISV), Living Bible (LB), Names of God Bible (NOG), New English Translation Bible (NET Bible), and The Message Bible (MSG).

At face value, Bible critics are correct to condemn this passage. The Skeptics Annotated Bible has symbols indicating that these verses are advocating injustice against women. I am surprised that they don’t have the symbol for absurdity there as well. Who, in any era, would worship a god that allowed such horrors to be perpetrated on any person?

The biggest problem is that there is no word in the original Hebrew text that could legitimately translated “rape” in this verse. Any version that uses the word “rape” is using dynamic equivalence based on a superficial understanding of the wording of the verse. A more literal word-for-word translation would be:

²⁸ If a man finds a virgin maid who is not betrothed and he grasps her and has sex with her, and they are found, ²⁹ then the man that had sex with her shall give to her father fifty kecef (shekels of silver), she shall become his wife and because he humiliated her, he shall not be able to divorce her for all of his days.

Formal translations render this verse similarly. Even so, the phrase “and he grasps her” seems to indicate that force is involved. Without any other context, it sounds very much like rape is involved.

Many modern translators utilize context cues to determine what the original languages are trying to communicate. The result is an interpretation instead of a translation. When other cues and context clues are ignored, the interpretation ends up being wrong. As I will demonstrate, modern translations that use the word “rape” in this passage have interpreted the intent of the verse incorrectly and therefore the translation is wrong.

The first thing to do is look at the word translated “rape” in Deuteronomy 22:28. The Hebrew root word is תָּפַשׂ (taphas) and rendered here as וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ (utphasah). The root word can mean to grasp, to catch, to hold in order to use, to use skillfully, and according to James Strong, it can also mean to manipulate.[i] The sense of taphas does not include force or violence. If the idea of violence of force was being communicated here, a more appropriate word would be חָזַק (chazaq) which is the word used in Deuteronomy 22:25.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

– Deuteronomy 22:25 (KJV)

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

– Deuteronomy 22:25 (NIV)

Formal translations render chaqaz either as “take hold” or “force,” and paraphrases use the word “rape.” In this verse, rape is clearly indicated because the penalty is death.

The second thing to look at is the last phrase in verse 28, “and they are found.” This is really the most important key to this passage. Instead of “He is found,” the writer says, “they are found.” Deuteronomy 22:28 is showing that both parties are mutually involved in the act. In other words, it’s consensual. Utilizing those clues, we can begin to see that the man didn’t force the woman, but rather a colloquialism for seduction is being communicated.

The Common English Version took these contextual clues into account and paraphrased the passage more appropriately.

²⁸ Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, ²⁹ they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price and can never divorce her.

– Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (CEV)

This is not a simple inference either, but is the position held by Old Testament scholars for centuries.

                18^th Century Theologian John Gill

“and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:”[ii]

James B Jordan

At first sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb “seize” is a weaker verb than the verb for “force” used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11). ImpIied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27.[iii]

Charles Foster Kent was an Old Testament Scholar and Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature at Yale, placed Deuteronomy 22:28-29 with Exodus 22:16-17 under the heading “Seduction” in his book, Israel's Laws and Traditional Precedents.[iv]

The third key to guide our interpretation is to look at this verse in the context of the rest of the Bible. The purpose of Deuteronomy is not to replace any of the previously given laws. Instead, Deuteronomy records Moses’ final sermons prior to his death as Israel prepares to enter the Promised Land. The statutes contained in Deuteronomy do not replace The Law as it has already been given, but rather it reiterates and augments it. So, when we read Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it has to be in the light of previously existing statutes within The Law.

¹⁶ And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. ¹⁷ If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

– Exodus 22:16-17

Whether or not Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is referring to rape becomes a non-issue when taken in the light of Exodus 22:16-17. The father could refuse to allow his daughter to be married to someone he didn’t approve of. Exodus 22 clearly deals with seduction and consensual sex and the father can forbid his daughter to marry the man who seduced her. Would any good father allow his daughter to marry a rapist? No. Why then would anyone think that the Bible would force a rape victim to marry her rapist? Even though a father had a final say in who he would allow his daughter to marry, the daughter was traditionally consulted as well as to whether or not she would want to be married to the intended groom (Genesis 24:57-58).[v]

To say that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 advocates a rape victim marrying her rapist is nothing more than agenda driven nonsense based on sloppy hermeneutics, ignorance, or dishonesty.

Let me play the devil’s advocate here for a second and assume that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does mean a rape victim has to marry their rapist. This situation doesn’t work out well for anyone. The rapist is stuck with a woman he really didn’t want to marry in the first place because he is prohibited from divorcing her. On top of that, he’s going to have to sleep with one eye open for the rest of his life (Judges 4:12-22).

Female Prisoners of War

James Tissot, The Women of Midian

Led Captive by the Hebrews, 1896-1900

There are two passages regarding the handling of female prisoners of war that are controversial—Numbers 31:18 and Deuteronomy 21:11-14. These two passages are controversial because it seems to imply that women were forced into marrying their captors. The verse in Numbers 31 has very little, if anything, to do with marriage and the passage in Deuteronomy 21, rather than being oppressive of women serves two purposes—the first is to regulate a situation that God did not intend, and the second purpose is to protect women in such situations.

Numbers 31:1-18 is controversial for a whole slew of reasons I’m not going to address because of the theme of this series. This is why I’m only going to address verse 18.

¹⁸ But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

– Numbers 31:18

This verse comes at the end of a major battle with the Midianites. Moses gives several instructions regarding the handling of the prisoners of war and finishes with this verse. This verse is actually not referring to marriageable or marriage-age women. The term “women children” is translated from the Hebrew words הַטַּ֣ף בַּנָּשִׁ֔ים (hataf banashim) from the roots טַף (taph) and אִשָּׁה (ishshah) respectively.

The word ishshah is rendered “women” in most formal translations, but also means “female.” What is most important in this verse is the Hebrew word taph which is translated “children” here. In the King James Version, taph is most commonly translated “little ones” meaning very young children. In the Young’s Literal Translation, Robert Young transliterated taph as “infants”.

and all the infants among the women, who have not known the lying of a male, ye have kept alive for yourselves.

– Numbers 31:18 (YLT)

The consistent interpretation of this text is that it is not talking about marriageable age women, but very young girls. They were probably kept as handmaids and would have been raised and trained in Jewish culture to become wives later on.

Because there are so many issues to address in Numbers 31, rather than dealing with this particular verse, I’m going to move on to Deuteronomy 21:11-14, because it goes into greater detail regarding the handling of female prisoners of war.

¹¹ and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; ¹² then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; ¹³ and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. ¹⁴ And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

– Deuteronomy 21:11-14

One thing to remember when reading this passage is that God already told the Israelites not to take wives of foreign nations.

¹ When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; ² and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: ³ neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. ⁴ For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

– Deuteronomy 7:1-4

God was less concerned with the issue of international or interracial marriages as he was about interfaith marriages. God was worried that interfaith marriages would result in Israel turning to false gods. As scripture records, God’s concern about interfaith marriages was justifiable as I discussed in a previous post (link).

In the ancient world, warfare usually ended with the defeated nation becoming tribute to the victor and often, the victorious nation would take slaves from the defeated nation. God knew that this would occur and that men, being men, would see an attractive female and want her to be his wife. This would almost always result in an interfaith marriage. God knew that, just as in the case of divorce, His people would not obey him concerning interfaith marriages and so He regulated it.

Interestingly, in regulating this kind of marriage, God not only recognizes the basic humanity of captives, but also raises any female prisoner of war who becomes a Hebrew’s wife to full citizenship status within Israel.

First, after she is captured, if a man wants to take her as a wife, she is given a month to mourn her family (Deut. 21:13). Second, once she is married to a Hebrew man, she becomes a full citizen of Israel with all the normal rights of a wife and woman within that culture (Exodus 21:10). If, at any time, her husband decides to divorce her, she cannot be sold as a slave, but must be let go free (Deut. 21:14).

I have to admit, I wouldn’t want to marry a woman from a country I defeated, especially if the war was responsible for her family’s death. I would probably have a hard time sleeping if I was married to such a woman. However, in every war, there are those who collaborate with the enemy.

Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Escape from Rahab's House, 1860

In the Book of Joshua, chapter 2 we read about a Canaanite woman named Rahab who collaborated with Israelite spies as they gathered intelligence for the impending Battle of Jericho. As part of her collaboration, she made a deal with the spies to save her and her family during the battle (Joshua 2:12-14). When the Battle of Jericho finally occurred, Rahab and her family were saved (Joshua 6:17, 23) and became citizens of Israel (Joshua 6:25).

Rahab’s profession is described as a harlot (Darby, Douay-Rheims, ERV, KJV, NASB, YLT), or a prostitute (ESV) and was almost certainly an adherent of one of the Canaanite cults. Not only was she allowed to become a citizen, but she also married a Hebrew man named Salmon and became an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:5). So, it is likely that she became a Hebrew proselyte. In the case of a convert to the Jewish faith, a foreign marriage would not violate The Law because Jewish converts essentially became de facto citizens of Israel.

Rahab wasn’t necessarily a prisoner of war and she probably didn’t have to shave her head. However, in circumstances such as this, the regulation concerning female prisoners of war would have been applicable.

Marriage Between Slaves

² If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. ³ If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. ⁴ If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. ⁵ And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: ⁶ then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 21:2-6

The criticism of this passage is, once again, based on imposing a modern view of marriage on the Ancient Near Eastern view of marriage.

When a woman was sold into slavery, the amount paid to the girl’s family was seen as a bride price and woman became either the wife of the man purchasing her or his daughter if he was given to his son. A man who bought a female slave, had no intention of giving her to a son, had no son, was already married, or married after he bought a female slave, would still be required to provide for her as a wife in all respects, including “her duty of marriage” which means to have sex with the expectation of procreation (Exodus 21:10). If he was unwilling or unable to perform her “duty of marriage” he could give her to a male slave to perform the “duty of marriage” (Ex. 21:4)[vi] or he had to let her go free (Ex. 21:11).

Because marriages, especially within slavery were not based on romance or love, the separation of husband and wife may not have been as traumatic as we, in modern times might expect. Even so, Exodus 21 indicates that intimate relationships did develop between slaves. While Exodus 21 only shows one option for male slaves who wanted to remain with their wives married during servitude, there were actually two options.

The first option, found in Exodus 21:4-6, is that the man, rather than going free, elects to remain in permanent servitude to his master. When we think of slavery today, we imagine the American antebellum South and the horrific and inhuman treatment of African slaves. With that kind of imagery, it would cause us to think that a slave actually electing permanent servitude has some kind of Stockholm syndrome. Slavery, as the Bible regulated it, was nothing like the slavery practiced in pre-Civil War America. Biblical slavery more closely represented indentured servitude, but slaves were still better treated. They lived in the home, much like family. With that understanding, it is easier to understand how a person, especially someone with little or no other financial support could freely volunteer to be a slave for life.

The second option would have been that he could go free, in which case his wife would be retained by his previous master. However, he could make a contract with his previous master to purchase his wife’s freedom. Since a female slave was considered a wife or a daughter, this would have been much like a marriage arrangement. He could stay on as a free servant like Jacob did with Laban and serve for a predetermined amount of time to earn the bride price (Genesis 29), or he could go out and raise the funds himself and return to redeem his wife and children at a later date.[vii]

12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: 14 thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

– Deuteronomy 15:12-14

Deuteronomy 15:12-15 not only required a slave to be set free in the seventh year, but also required a slave owner to “furnish him liberally” (Deut 15:14) with livestock, a share of crops, and wine. The idea was to prevent a person from having to sell themselves back into slavery at a later date. However, a man could negotiate the terms of his manumission to include his wife and children at the expense of the normal manumission gifts which would then be seen as the bride price.

Exodus 21 seems to leave a freed slave no hope of ever seeing his wife and children again unless he chooses to remain a slave. However, in the light of the rest of scripture and the culture of the time, we can see clearly that was not the case.

---

[i] Strong, James. "H8610 תָּפַשׂ." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009. 1593. Print.

[ii] Gill, John. "Deuteronomy 22 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition on the Whole Bible." StudyLight.org. StudyLight.org, 1999. Web. <http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?book=de&chapter=022&verse=028>.

[iii] Jordan, James B. "Chapter 8 'Faithfulness'" The Law of the Covenant. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984. 149. Print.

[iv] Kent, Charles Foster. "Seduction." Israel's Laws and Traditional Precedents. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907. 118. Print.

[v] Schauss, Hayyim. "Ancient Jewish Marriage." The Lifetime of a Jew Throughout the Ages of Jewish History. New York, NY: Urj, 1998. My Jewish Learning. Web.<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/#>.

[vi] Sarna, Nahum M. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1991. 119. Print.

[vii] Westbrook, Raymond, and Gary M. Beckman. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2003. 384. Print.

Answering LGBT Objections to Biblical Marriage – Part 7

Polygamy

When defending the biblical model of marriage, one will invariably hear the claim that the Bible doesn’t only prescribe monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

On July 10^th, 2015 Fort Worth newspaper, The Star Telegram published an op-ed with a title typical of the critics of biblical marriage—The Bible does not prescribe only one model for marriage[1]. In the editorial, Warren Carter writes, “Marriage, however, takes various forms in the Bible. The Bible does not offer a ‘one-size-fits-all,’ single version of marriage.”

The hermeneutical mistake that Warren Carter and critics like him make is failing to differentiate between what the Bible prescribes and what it describes. Critics also fail to differentiate between what God originally intended, what He allows, and what He prohibits.

At no point in the Bible do we find the words, “Thou shalt not take more than one spouse.” The Bible never specifically condemns polygamy and the Old Testament Law even contains some regulations regarding how polygamy is to be practiced. Some would say this clearly shows that God approved of polygamy and some ride the fence saying it’s a gray area.

There are many “gray areas” in the Bible such as drinking, dating, kissing, gambling, smoking, clothing, music, movies, television, the internet, birth control, dancing, spending your money, home schooling, working moms, and many others. These are gray areas because the Bible doesn’t mention them at all, or only briefly touches on them. Even though the Bible doesn’t specifically address many issues, there are still scriptural principles to be found that give us an idea about what God intends.

When it comes to movies, television, and the internet, obviously they hadn’t been invented when the last word of the Bible was penned, but we can find a scriptural principle such as Psalm 101:3 which says, “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.”

When we address the issue of marriage, whether it is monogamous heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage, or the issue of polygamy, we can also find similar scriptural principles.

The Old Testament

We can see from the original creation that God intended marriage to consist of one man and one woman.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

– Genesis 2:24

A critic may point out that while God’s intent may have been one man and one woman, the Old Testament not only describes polygamous marriage, it regulates it. The conclusion is that if God regulated polygamous marriage, then He must have approved of it.

Before the giving of The Law on Mount Sinai, the regulation of polygamy was based primarily on regional traditions and what was culturally acceptable. The first polygamist in the Bible was Lamech who had two wives, but we can’t really lift him up as an example to follow because he was also a murderer (Genesis 4:19-24). The first polygamist patriarch was Abraham. Can we look at Abraham’s life and see the blessing of God or His approval on Abraham’s polygamist practices? Not really.

Matthias Stom, Sarah leading Hagar to Abraham, 1638

Abraham’s first foray into polygamy began when his wife, Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid, Hagar to conceive with since Sarah thought she was infertile and was past childbearing age. The tradition of the time was such that if a man was given sexual access to a woman other than his wife, the other woman was lifted up to an equal position in the household as a wife.[2] This is reflected in the language of the Bible.

And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian… and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

– Genesis 16:3

After Sarah gave Abraham Hagar to be his wife, Abraham had to put up with jealousy between Sarah and Hagar. Ultimately, Sarah forced Abraham to banish Hagar with his son Ishmael (Genesis 21:9-14). Because second wives and their offspring were not legitimate heirs, tradition also required they be sent away before the sons of the first wife came into their inheritance (Genesis 25:1-6).[3]

God also specifically stated that He wasn’t going to fulfill His promise to Abraham through Ishmael (Gen 17:15-19).

Abraham’s polygamist practices resulted in him living with two bickering women and sending away all of his children except Isaac. His polygamist practices came back to haunt Isaac and his offspring as the other sons of Abraham became the fathers of nations that persecuted Israel and not just Ishmael’s sons. This persecution continues to this day (Galatians 4:29).

Josef Ritter von Führich, Jacob Encountering
Rachel with her Father's Herds, 1836

The next polygamist patriarch was Jacob. Unlike Abraham, I would call Jacob the reluctant polygamist because there is no indication he ever wanted to be a polygamist. He wanted to marry Rachel (Genesis 29:18-20), but was tricked into marrying Rachel’s sister, Leah (Genesis 29:21-26). Since Jacob was already married to Leah, still wanted to be married to Rachel, and polygamy was perfectly acceptable in that culture, Jacob went ahead and married Rachel too (Gen 29:27-30).

While some guys might think it would be a great deal to be able to marry sisters, Jacob wasn’t thrilled about it and neglected Leah. Rachel wasn’t able to get pregnant at first, so Jacob conceived with Leah and had four sons by her (Gen 29:31-35). Rachel was so desperate for a child that she said she would rather die than go childless (Gen 30:1). Since she wasn’t having any luck conceiving, she did the same thing Sarah did and gave Jacob her handmaid, Bilhah and Jacob had two sons by her (Gen 30:3-8).

That’s where Jacob’s life starts going off the rails. Leah and Rachel start vying for Jacob’s affection by sharing their handmaids with Jacob. In the end, Jacob had twelve sons, six with Leah, and two each with Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah. There were daughters as well. When Jacob’s wives and concubines stopped having children, Jacob’s problems didn’t end. The problems continued on with his own children. Reuben had an affair with Bilhah (Gen 35:22), they conspired to sell one brother, Joseph, into slavery (Gen 37), and Judah, also a polygamist, had sex with his daughter-in-law because he mistook her for a prostitute (Gen 38).

While correlation does not imply causation, it’s hard to miss the fact that a lot of Abraham and Jacob’s problems could have been avoided by simply avoiding polygamy.

In spite of the fact that God did not intend for men to be polygamists and there being some obvious negative aspects of polygamy, God still allowed for it and regulated it. So the question has to be asked, if God didn’t approve of polygamy, why did He allow it?

In the New Testament, Christ, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 addresses why God regulated things He did not approve of or intend. Jesus said divorce was allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of mankind and added that “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt 19:8; Mark 10:5-6). In other words, God did not intend for people to be divorced, but since He knows that fallen mankind is going to get divorced anyway, there needed to be regulations to protect women in a patriarchal society.

That’s right! The regulations were not designed to subjugate women, but to protect them!

Currently the birth ratio of boys to girls is about 107 boys to 100 girls.[4] While the birth ratio of boys to girls is slightly higher, the ratio of men to women in the Ancient Near East was actually lower because men had a shorter average life span due primarily to warfare. In a society where women were often relegated to second class citizens and were often unable to make a living outside of the home without a husband, father, brother, or other male relative to provide for them, providing for their care and safety would have been important to God.

God could have ended polygamy with an appropriate law, but because of mankind’s fallen nature, He could not have prevented future warfare without destroying all of creation and starting from scratch. God gave Moses the creation account in Genesis to show that His original intent was for man and woman to be monogamous and equal partners in marriage and life. However, even with laws, cultures don’t change overnight. So, God made provision for women in the existing culture.

Slave Wives

¹⁰ If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. ¹¹ And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

– Exodus 21:10-11

Exodus 21:10-11 deals with slave women who were married to free men. Slavery as described by the Bible was much different than what modern Americans think of slavery. As with other things that God regulated, slavery wasn’t an ideal condition, but it was common enough and people often sold themselves and their family members into slavery (Exodus 21:7).

The point of Exodus 21:10-11 is that if a woman who was a slave is made a wife, she is raised up in status to the full rights of a free woman. She must be cared for as any other wife would be cared for. If a man who was married to a slave wife takes another wife, he must fulfill all of his duties to his slave wife or she must be set completely free. Once free, she would enjoy all rights and benefits as a citizen of Israel.

Laws of Inheritance Regarding Polygamist Offspring

¹⁵ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: ¹⁶ then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: ¹⁷ but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

– Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Deuteronomy 21:15-17 deals with a man who is in Jacob’s position, he is married to a woman he doesn’t like. Whether he married a second wife because he was forced into the first or because he got bored of the first and wanted a newer model, a man was prohibited from showing favoritism to his new wife.

At issue here, as with many issues in the Old Testament is the inheritance of a man’s property. A man could choose any of his sons to be proclaimed the first born. The Hebrew word translated firstborn means just that, but it was also a colloquialism referring to the son named as the heir. Typically, the first born was the oldest son, but through a testament, a man had right to proclaim a younger son as the first born. Whichever son a man proclaimed as first born, that son had to come from his first wife if he was in a polygamous marriage.

Levirate Marriage

5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. 7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother. 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; 9 then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

– Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes what is called levirate marriage, from the Latin word levir which means brother-in-law. The criticism of levirate marriage is a criticism, not of the Bible, but of the existing culture of the Ancient Near East. This practice may seem ridiculous, backwards, and offensive to the modern mind, but in the Ancient Near East, this practice was not only acceptable to women, it was often expected and desired (Genesis 38, Deuteronomy 25:7).

When a woman was married, she was essentially transferred from her father’s family to her husband’s. Because of the nomadic nature of people living in the Ancient Near East, it was often impractical for a wife to go back to her own family if her husband died. Because of the value of virginity in the Ancient Near East, it was likely that a woman may never marry again. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 ensured that a woman’s association with her husband’s family didn’t end when her husband died. It also created a legal obligation for her husband’s family to care for her when her husband died.

Sons not only secured a man’s inheritance through his offspring and preserved his name, but it also provided future security for a woman in the case of her husband’s death[5]. Not only was a woman with no children pitied, she also became a dependent of the community and often seen as a burden.[6]

If a man refused to marry his brother’s widow, a ceremony called halitzah was performed. Halitzah means “taking off the shoe” and is a public observance that informs the whole community that the man refused to do his duty toward his own brother (Deuteronomy 25:7-10).

If a man died leaving children, then his wife would remain in her husband’s home until her sons came of age and the responsibility of caring for the woman passed to her sons. If a man died without sons, his wife would pass to his brother in order to bear the man a son who would continue his name and who would be able to inherit his property. If there were no brothers, then the wife would pass to a kinsman redeemer and the inheritance would pass to her.[7] The kinsman redeemer is described in detail in Leviticus 25:47-55 and 27:9-25. Essentially, the kinsman redeemer would marry the widow. The best illustration of the kinsman redeemer can be seen in the Old Testament book of Ruth which also has a romantic element to it.

While levirate marriage often resulted in polygamist situations, women were also not always forced into an actual or permanent marriage.[8] Often, a man would cohabit with his brother’s widow until a son was born and then she was released from levirate situation. A father could prohibit his son's widow from marrying his other sons, and could also adopt her as his own daughter and giver her to be the wife of a man from another family.[9]

There are several things that need to be taken into account when considering the issue of the regulation of polygamy in the Old Testament. Polygamy, slavery, and levirate marriage regulations, as well as many others, were part of the civil code, not the Moral Law. The civil code was only binding for that culture, in that era, in that location. We are under no such obligations today.

Marriage was almost never about romantic love, it was about securing property for future generations and marriages were almost always arranged. In that situation, if a brother died, one brother was as good as another. In the modern culture of the West, marriages are based primarily on romantic love. There are a variety of legal means to protect and ensure a man passes his inheritance to whomever he wants. There are also a variety of means of supporting women, not the least of which is that women have the complete legal and cultural right to enter the workforce and support themselves.

                                                                                                                                 

People of the Ancient Near East didn’t have the technology we have today. There was no such thing as artificial insemination.[10] In order for a woman to have children, she had to have sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse in that culture could only legally happen within the bond of marriage.

Even though the Bible regulated polygamy, monogamy was the norm in ancient Israel.[11] Even in the surrounding countries of the Ancient Near East monogamy was the norm. For instance, section 167 of The Code of Hammurabi practically takes monogamy for granted. The Code of Hammurabi provides exceptions that allow for polygamy, but only in extreme cases (§141, 144-145, 146-148).[12]

Kings Prohibited From Practicing Polygamy

¹⁴ When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; ¹⁷ Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away… ¹⁸ And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: ¹⁹ and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: ²⁰ that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

1 – Deuteronomy 17:14, 17-20

While the system of government instituted in Moses' day was a judicial theocracy, God knew that one day Israel would institute a monarchy. Polygamy was very common throughout the world in sealing treaties between countries and their kings.[13] Even though this was the practice of the much of the Ancient Near East, God made it clear that when a monarchy was established, the kings of Israel would be legally prohibited from practicing polygamy. To ensure this, God also instructed that a copy of The Law was to be kept on hand so the king would be familiar with it and without excuse if he broke the law.

In spite of the clear prohibition against kings taking multiple wives, the kings of Israel were notorious polygamists.

Some see a kind of approval of polygamy in the language of 1 Samuel 12.

And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.

– 1 Samuel 12:8 (ESV)

Artemisia Gentileschi, Bathesheba, Early 17^th Century

While this verse seems to indicate that David was given multiple wives by God, that’s really not the case. The wording is “I gave you your… master’s wives…” While one could assume that David was given sexual access to Saul’s wives after his death and since the house of Saul and the Kingdom of Israel was delivered into David’s hands, obviously God approved of polygamy. The context of the verse is the prophet Nathan's condemnation of David after David had sinned by directing Uriah to be murdered so he could cover up his adulterous affair with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11).

In dealing with this passage on The Bible Answer Man radio show, host, Hank Hanegraaff responded with an article expanding on his on-air answer. In the article he writes, “if Nathan’s words are anything at all, they are ironic. David had just murdered a man in order to have another woman appended to his harem. Despite the generosity of the very God who had made him sovereign ruler of the land, the king had stolen the wife of a servant and that to satisfy his carnal lust. Thus, in language that dripped with irony, Nathan the prophet pronounces judgment against Israel’s king. As such, 2 Samuel 12 hardly constitutes divine approval for the practice of polygamy.”[14]

But wasn’t David a man after God’s own heart? 1 Samuel 13:14 implies and Acts 13:22 confirms that he was. When Samuel told Saul that God was searching for and had found a man after God’s own heart to be the King of Israel (1 Samuel 13:11-14), David had not yet been anointed king. 1 Samuel 13 records Saul’s act of disobedience that resulted in the kingdom being taken away from him and given to David.

The reason why David was called a man after God’s own heart was because he put his faith in God alone for every aspect of his life. Saul put his faith in himself. When Saul was confronted with sin, he made excuses and if he was sorry at all, it was only because he was caught. On the other hand, when David sinned, he always confessed to his wrongdoing without making excuses and begged God for forgiveness. Being a man after God’s own heart doesn’t mean that David was perfect, without sin, and that God approved of all of his actions.

While David began as a godly youth who followed after God, after he became king, he quickly began to disobey God concerning polygamy. He was first married to Michal, Saul’s daughter (1 Samuel 18:20-27). During his exile while Saul was still king, he also married Nabal’s widow, Abigail and a Jezreelitess named Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42-43).

After assuming the throne, the pressures of diplomacy pushed David further into polygamy, taking wives to seal various political deals. The first recorded foreign wife was Maacah who was the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur, a small region in what is now northern Israel. David probably married Maacah to seal a tributary treaty between Israel and Geshur.[15]

Just like the patriarchs, both David and Solomon, who are both recorded in the Bible as being great kings, their practice of polygamy resulted in their lives being plagued with misfortune.

David’s son Amnon through his wife Ahinoam, raped his half-sister Tamar, David’s daughter through Maacah. When David refused to punish Amnon, Tamar’s brother Absalom killed Amnon and fled to his grandfather, King Talmai’s house (2 Sam 13). After Absalom was allowed to return to Jerusalem (2 Sam 14), Absalom conspired against David (2 Sam 15) and led a coup against him (2 Sam 16). He slept with David’s concubines and usurped the throne (2 Sam 16). Finally, Absalom was killed at the Battle of Ephraim’s Wood (2 Sam 18).

David’s wife Maacah served as queen mother to David’s great-great-grandson Asa when he assumed the throne as the third king of Judah (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:13). Maacah had instituted pagan worship in Judah which was one of the reasons God forbade marriages to foreigners (Deut 7:1-6).

Bernard Gilardi, All My Wives, 

While David remained essentially Jewish his entire reign, Solomon, after marrying 700 wives and 300 concubines, turned away from following God (1 Kings 11:4). Solomon was granted great wisdom by God and he squandered it by violating God’s statute concerning the behavior of kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. He multiplied possessions including horses (Deut 17:16), and wives and treasure (Deut 17:17). Just as God said would happen, his heart was turned away from God.

Nowhere can we find evidence in the Old Testament of God’s approval or blessing on the lives of men who practiced polygamy.

The New Testament

The New Testament cannot and should not be divorced from the Old Testament. The Old Testament lays the foundation for everything that happens in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains the Moral Law contained in the Ten Commandments. The Moral Law is a reflection of God’s holy character. However, the consistent theme of both the Old and New Testaments is not only does keeping The Law not guarantee mankind of salvation, no person can keep The Law perfectly.

Because of mankind’s failure under The Law, a new Law was needed. A better one. Christ became a better High Priest because the old priesthood made imperfect sacrifices of animals. Christ sacrificed himself and now we no longer need a priesthood (Hebrews 7:20-25). Now there is a better covenant with better promises (Hebrews 8:6-12).

The whole of the New Testament is better than the Old, but we do not cast aside the Old Testament because there are still principles to be found and because the New Testament can’t even be understood without the foundation of the Old Testament. The New Testament way of sure salvation through Christ’s sacrifice is better than the Old Testament way of unsure salvation through the sacrifice of animals. The New Testament way of life is better as well including the injunction to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

James Tissot, The Pharisees Question Jesus, 1886-1894

When Jesus was asked about divorce and remarriage, he appealed to the creation account and said that God’s intent in creation was not only that marriage should be between one man and one woman, it should be for life.

2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

– Mark 10:2-12

While the Old Testament allowed for divorce and remarriage, Jesus took the issue of marriage a step further and said that if a couple divorces and remarries, they are committing adultery. He also said the only reason God allowed divorce in the Old Testament was due to mankind’s hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8, Mark 10:5).

Paul, when writing about the issue of sexual sin said that sex in marriage was the only way to avoid sexual sin. He said it was the duty of both spouses to fulfill the sexual desires of the other spouse.

² Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ³ Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. ⁴ The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

– 1 Corinthians 7:2-4

Paul does not refer to wives or husbands. There was one wife and one husband. The New Testament implication is that marriage is to be monogamous.

Marriage also stands as a symbol of Christ’s relationship with The Church. While there are many sects of Christianity, there is only one Church. I do not mean that one sect of Christianity has the monopoly on the truth either, nor does each sect represent another separate church. The Church consists of all truly repentant born again believers regardless of what sect or denomination they belong to. Therefore, when Christ refers to The Church, He is referring to all people who have truly converted to faith in Him.

Christ, in his teachings in the gospels refers to himself as the bridegroom and The Church as the bride (Matt 9:15; 25:1-13; Mark 2:19-20; Luke 5:34-35). John the Baptist calls Jesus the Bridegroom (John 3:29). In John’s Revelation, The Church has become the New Jerusalem and is symbolically represented as The Bride (Rev 21:2, 9).

Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians says the marriage relationship should attempt to approach the ideal relationship between Christ and the Church. The wife should submit to the husband just as the church should submit to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-24). Husbands should love their wives so much that they should be willing to die for them (Ephesians 5:25, 28-30, 33). The marriage relationship is a symbol of Christ’s relationship with The Church (Ephesians 5:26-27, 29-30).

In all of this, we see a repeated theme: One Lord – One Church, one husband – one wife. Just to make sure that the point is driven home, Paul goes back to the very beginning and once again appeals to God’s original design for marriage.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

– Ephesians 5:31

Paul also writes that Church leadership should not only be married, but be in monogamous relationships.

A bishop then must be… the husband of one wife…

– 1 Timothy 3:2

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife…

– 1 Timothy 3:12

If any be… the husband of one wife…

– Titus 1:6

There is really no question that the New Testament’s teaching on marriage is to return to God’s first created ideal in Eden of one man and one woman for life.

The Final Authority

Many critics of Christianity will point to varying places in history where the church has blessed unions other than monogamous heterosexual marriage. Examples include the supposed marriage of Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus[16], Martin Luther giving permission to Phillip of Hesse to take a second wife,[17] and other proclamations of early Protestant movements allowing for polygamy.

I would love to go into greater depth about each of these issues. For instance, there is very little evidence to show that Sergius and Bacchus ever existed. I would also like to address the scientific findings that show conclusively that monogamous heterosexual marriages are always better for society than any other model.[18] Rather than spending time in this article breaking down every supposed instance of a church blessing a union other than a monogamous heterosexual one, or looking at the scientific data, I would rather point the reader back to the Bible.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

– Matthew 4:4

For the Christian, there is only one authority in life and it is not tradition, history, opinion, or even logic and reason. The only authority for the Christian is the Holy Scripture contained in the Bible. For non-Christians or for liberal Christians who don’t believe the Bible or its sole authority, appealing to scripture alone is pointless.

If we are going to have a discussion on what the Bible says about marriage, then it is important to determine what the Bible actually says, not what our agenda makes us want it to say. I understand that everyone has an agenda, including myself. I’m a Christian and I believe the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. I now have an agenda to prove the Bible only supports heterosexual monogamous marriage. However, I didn’t always believe that way. Ultimately, reading the Bible and studying it in its cultural context convinced me that God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman for life.

---

[1] Carter, Warren. "The Bible Does Not Prescribe Only One Model for Marriage." Editorial. Star Telegram 10 July 2015: n. pag. Print.

[2] Ochser, Schulim. "Pilegesh." Jewish Encyclopedia. By Emil G. Hirsch. Vol. 10. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. 35. Print.

[3] Benson, Joseph. "Genesis 25." Joseph Benson’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. Vol. 1. N.p.: G. Lane & C.B. Tippett, 1847. N. pag. Print.

[4] "FIELD LISTING: SEX RATIO." Central Intelligence Agency - The World Fact Book. Central Intelligence Agency, n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.

[5] Burrows, Millar. "The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940): 3-4. Print.

[6] Demptster, Stephen G. "Widows." Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Grand Rapid, MI: Baker, 1996. 1272. Print.

[7] Burrows, Millar. "The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940): 5. Print.

[8] Burrows, Millar. "The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940): 7. Print.

[9] Burrows, Millar. "The Ancient Oriental Background of Hebrew Levirate Marriage." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 77 (1940): 5. Print.

[10] Ombelet, William, and Johan Van Robays. History of Human Artificial Insemination. Rep. Wetteren, Belgium: Universa, 2009. Print.

[11] Geffen, Rela M. "Marriage." Celebration and Renewal: Rites of Passage in Judaism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. 94. Print.

[12] The Code of Hammurabi. Trans. Leonard William King. N.p.: Paulo J. S. Pereira, 2009. 21. Print.

[13] Cline, Eric. "Hittites." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Ed. Donald B. Redford. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Print.

[14] Hanegraaff, Hank. "Does 2 Samuel 12 Approve of Polygamy? - Christian Research Institute." Christian Research Institute. Christian Research Institute, 05 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2015. <http://www.equip.org/hank_speaks_out/does-2-samuel-12-approve-of-polygamy/>.

[15] Smith, William. "Talmai." Smith's Bible Dictionary. 1901. Print.

[16] Duffy, Jim. "Did The Catholic Church Ordain Gay Weddings?" Did The Catholic Church Ordain Gay Weddings? Rense.com, 4 Mar. 2004. Web. 30 Oct. 2015. <http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm>.

[17] Luther, Martin. "Un Den Landgraffen Phillip Von Hessen." Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben Und Bedenken, Vollständig Aus Den Verschiedenen Ausgaben Seiner Werke Und Briefe, Aus Andern Büchern Und Noch Unbenutzen Handschriften Gesammelt. Ed. Johann Karl Seidemann. Vol. 6. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1825. 238-44. Print.

[18] Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson. "The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 367.1589 (2012): 657-69. Print.