Friday, October 30, 2015

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 10th, 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 17th 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.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Answering LGBT Objections to Biblical Marriage – Part 6

Betrothal, Marriage, and the Stoning of Non-Virgins in Ancient Israel

Mature Content Warning: This post contains frank and sometimes graphic language regarding sexual conduct and reproductive anatomy.

One of the most criticized aspects of the Bible has to do with civil punishments for the breaking of the Moral Law, specifically the death penalty. In many cases, the death penalty was prescribed for the breaking of the Moral law, including sexual sin. Of these cases, one of the most widely criticized laws has to do with the stoning of women who are not virgins at the time of marriage.

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 and the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
– Deuteronomy 22:13-21

At face value, this practice seems completely worthy of condemnation for being backward and anti-woman. Of course, such condemnations lack cultural and scriptural context.

To get a firm understanding of why a non-virgin was stoned, there needs to be an explanation about marriage practices in ancient Israel along with information about the culture common to that area in that time period.

In ancient Israel, marriage was a two part custom: Betrothal and Wedding.

Betrothal

The first part, betrothal was called erusin (the legal contract) and kiddushin (the betrothal ceremony). The closest thing we have in American culture today is engagement. Betrothal was a period of waiting and preparation before the actual wedding. It was primarily an agreement between families. The parents of the bride would make a marriage contract with the groom or his parents. During the ceremony, two things were agreed upon before the groom could take his bride: the dowry (Hebrew mohar), and gifts for the bride (Hebrew mattan).[1]

Ask me never so much dowry [mohar] and gift [mattan], and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.
– Genesis 34:12

When sons were married, they usually stayed with or near their father’s home and helped with increasing the holdings and working the property of their father. The sons would not form their own homes and separate families until after the father passed away and his inheritance was divided among his sons. The first born son would receive a double portion of the inheritance along with any titles or positions of authority held by the father. The first born was also responsible for supporting his widowed mother and any other women that remained in the household.[2]

When women were married, they left the home and became part of another household. Women helped with many vital tasks, so when a woman was married, her father lost labor as well as a valued member of the family.[3]

Because of this, fathers were more concerned with arranging marriages for their sons. When their sons were married, they brought their wives into the household which increased labor. When their sons had children, it increased labor. The dowry reflected the value that a bride had to her family in lost labor and also to the groom and his father in gained labor.[4] By the fifth century B.C., the standard dowry was five shekels,[5] which was about two week’s pay for the average laborer.

The human value of a woman was reflected in the practice of providing gifts (mattan) for the bride. The practice of giving gifts to the bride extends to this day in most cultures. In the west, engaged couples register for their wedding so that their friends and family know what they need to start a household. In ancient Israel, the agreed upon gifts would be provided by the groom so that the bride’s father would know the groom could care and provide for the bride.

Rather than turning women into simple property to be bought and sold, it actually enhanced her basic humanity. The dowry showed that she was valued by both her future husband and her father, the agreed upon gifts showed that both her husband and father cared for her.

Once the dowry and gifts were agreed upon, the betrothal ceremony took place. The ceremony was very similar to a wedding ceremony—vows were exchanged and a priest or rabbi would bless the betrothal. At the end of the ceremony, the betrothed couple would drink from a cup of wine[6] which showed that the betrothed couple and their families agreed to the contract.

Unlike modern engagement, after betrothal the couple was understood to be married in almost all respects. The bride could not be promised to another,[7] she was set apart only for the groom, and betrothal could only be broken by a formal divorce decree. The bride did not go home with the groom and they could not be sexually intimate.[8] The groom departed to prepare a place for his new wife in his father’s house. This period of separation usually lasted about twelve months in ancient times.[9] The waiting period was only three months in the case of a marriage to a widow or divorcee.[10]

If the woman was not a virgin at the betrothal ceremony, either because she had been raped or was previously married, she would not be expected to be a virgin on the wedding night. However, if the woman was never married and had never reported a rape, she would be expected to be a virgin at the time of the betrothal. Since she was considered to be the wife of the groom and was prohibited from all sexual conduct until marriage, it was assumed she would still be a virgin on the wedding night.

Wedding

The entire wedding tradition was called Nissu’in. Nissu’in is derived from the Hebrew word nesu which means to carry away.[11] The wedding began with the groom “carrying away” his betrothed bride to his father’s house.[12]

A procession followed the groom and his bride to the home of the groom’s father or to a predesignated place where the consummation of the marriage was to take place.[13] Jesus alludes to these processions in the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. The non-canonical book of 1 Maccabees records one of these processions.

And they lifted up their eyes, and saw: and behold a tumult, and great preparation: and the bridegroom came forth, and his friends, and his brethren to meet them with timbrels, and musical instruments, and many weapons.
– 1 Maccabees 9:39 (Douay-Rheims)

When the Jewish people were still nomadic people living in tents, the groom would take his bride into the tent to consummate the marriage. Laster, as Jewish people moved into brick and mortar homes, the marriage would be consummated in the section of the father’s house that was to be the son’s or an addition built by the son to be the place of the new couple’s home.

Many Jewish towns had buildings specifically built as public wedding halls which the Talmud refers to as Bet Chatanaim (House of the Bridegrooms). Wealthy families with large homes would use their own home for the marriage ceremony.[14] Part of the Bet Chatanaim was a room designated as the Bridal Chamber. In a private home used for a wedding, a room would be set aside as the Bridal Chamber. This was referred to as Chuppah. In the Talmudic Period (200 to 500 AD), the Chuppah evolved into an elaborate tent set up at the site of the wedding feast.[15] In modern Judaism, the Chuppah is an ornately decorated canopy, supported by four poles held over the heads of a Jewish couple as they make their vows.

Once inside the bridal chamber, the marriage was consummated while the guests waited outside. Once the marriage consummation was completed, the couple would go to the wedding feast and be presented as fully husband and wife. Wedding feasts lasted a week![16]

Sir William Russell-Flint,
Song of Solomon, 1909
Tokens of virginity

At issue are the “tokens of virginity” referred to in Deuteronomy 22 and the criticism of stoning non-virgins. The reason why the discussion of ancient Jewish weddings was necessary is because of what the “tokens of virginity” were possibly referring to.

Deuteronomy 22:17 says that the parents were to “spread the cloth before the elders of the city” to prove the girl was a virgin at the time of consummation. The Bible, history, and archaeology aren’t clear what the cloth was, so we’ll look at what various scholars have to say.

Many scholars believe that the “cloth” referred to the bed sheet upon which the couple consummated their marriage. According to the most widely accepted tradition, the sheet is used to clean the couple’s genitals after the consummation. Because a virgin’s hymen should be in tact before first sexual intercourse, the tearing of the hymen is often accompanied by blood.[17]

The tradition was that the couple cleaned themselves with the bedsheet and then the bedsheet was presented to the bride’s parents accompanied by witnesses and the parents would keep the sheet as evidence of her virginity. Most scholars agree that this is what is referred to by the “cloth,” but some say there are indications that the cloth was draped from the window of the marriage chamber for all the guests of the wedding feast to see.

Many scholars see a problem with these assumptions. A basic understanding of female anatomy, specifically the hymen, would indicate the biggest problem with this view. The hymen is normally just a fringe of tissue around the vaginal opening. During first intercourse, some women do experience some mild pain, tearing, and bleeding, but the hymen does not actually break. However, while there may be discomfort, not all women experience tearing or bleeding during first intercourse.[18] If blood flow during first coitus is the proof of virginity, many innocent women would have been put to death that had remained virgins prior to marriage.

There are at least three other problems with this view.

First, in order to accuse anybody of anything in ancient Israel, The Law requires that there be at least two witnesses to establish innocence or guilt in any legal matter brought before the elders (Deuteronomy 19:15). False witnesses were punished in a manner befitting the crime they were making accusation of (Deuteronomy 19:16-21). Essentially, if a woman was accused of infidelity, any witnesses against her could be put to death by stoning if they were found to be liars. In order to really prove that a woman had been unfaithful prior to marriage, she would have to have gotten pregnant or the witnesses would have had to physically observe the intercourse take place, which would beg the question: why did he wait until after the marriage to bring this testimony?

Second, the “tokens of virginity” were left in the hands of the parents. If at the wedding, the sheet was not “stained with blood,” and with no laboratory testing available, it would have been very easy for the parents or even the bride to falsify evidence.[19]

Third, if the groom made a false accusation to have his new wife killed just because he didn’t like her (Deuteronomy 22:13), if she was found innocent of the charges, not only would the witnesses he provided be put to death, the husband would have to stay married to her anyway and he would never be authorized to divorce her for any reason including infidelity (Deuteronomy 22:18).

Based on these problems, if the tokens of virginity were the bed cloth, then the Laws referred to in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 would have been nothing more than a cautionary tale to men who simply wanted to get rid of a wife they didn’t like. Better to get a divorce than to accuse your wife of infidelity and risk ending up married to her anyway and have at least two of your friends stoned to death.

Other scholars believe that the tokens of virginity had to do with pregnancy and menstruation prior to marriage. Because Israel was an inheritance based culture, families wanted to ensure property ownership remained in the family. Virginity was not of prime importance because a man wanted to make sure he had first access to a woman, but to ensure she was not pregnant at the time of marriage. If a woman was pregnant with a son at the time of marriage, a man’s inheritance could unknowingly be passed to a non-genetic heir. In other words, another man’s son inherits.[20] This is the reason divorcees and widows were later required to wait ninety days after her previous marriage to marry again.

If a woman had menstruated within a month of the consummation, there was very little chance that she could have become pregnant by the time of the marriage consummation. This line of thought says that if a man accused his wife of being unfaithful, the parents could bring the bride’s most recent menstruation cloth prior to the marriage to demonstrate that it was unlikely for her to have conceived prior to the marriage.[21] This second view is the minority view.

If a woman was found to have been sexually active with someone other than her groom during the time of betrothal, that was considered adultery. Sex with the groom during betrothal was frowned upon, but the only punishment for premarital sex between the betrothed was a fine and the marriage was moved up. The punishment for adultery was stoning for both men and women.

Some critics argue that Deuteronomy 22 unfairly puts the onus of virginity on women. A closer look at the Bible would demonstrate that both men and women were to be virgins for a first marriage. Divorcees (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) and widows (Deuteronomy 25:5-6) could remarry and they would not have been virgins, so obviously Deuteronomy 22 wouldn’t apply to them.

If a man had sex with a woman betrothed to another and it was consensual, they were both put to death (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). If a man raped a betrothed woman, only the man was put to death (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). If a man and a woman were to have sex without marriage or betrothal and they’re caught, the man had to pay an exorbitant dowry of fifty shekels of silver—equivalent to four month’s pay—to the father, they were forced to marry, and the man could never divorce the woman for any reason (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

As you can see, while stoning seems extreme as a punishment for not being a virgin, as a punitive requirement, stoning was equally and fairly prescribed for both sexes for not remaining sexually pure. It's also much different than honor killings committed in Islamic societies where a woman can be killed even if she is raped. Sex outside of marriage was clearly understood to be condemned and the result was a far greater respect for sexual purity than we have today. Along with sexual purity is lower incidence of all the pain that goes along with sexual promiscuity.

In modern western society and culture as a whole, we don’t take the holiness of sex seriously. Pornography is $14 Billion a year industry. The sexual revolution made empty promises of sexual gratification outside of marriage—empty promises that are still believed to this day. Men are losing their virginity at the average age of 16.9 years and women at the age of 17.4 years. Men have an average of seven sexual partners in their lives and women have an average of four.[22] More than half of all Americans will contract some kind of sexually transmitted disease in their lifetime.[23]

We don’t take the holiness of marriage seriously either. The idea of childbearing was something both men and women looked forward to. It wasn’t seen as a burden or something that held you back, it was a fulfilment of who you were. Women who couldn’t conceive were pitied in that society and suffered depression. You couldn’t have children without sex and sex was intrinsically attached to marriage. Today, marriage isn’t necessary to many couples. Couples have sex and children without ever entering into any kind of marriage, agreement, contract, or having a ceremony. Marriages, relationships, and even the children they produce are considered disposable.

The idea of penalizing a non-virgin today seems horrific because sex has become meaningless to so many people. If we were honest with ourselves, the lack of sexual purity in this country has hurt us. In 2013, there were 3,932,181 live births recorded in the United States. Of those, 1,595,873 (40.6%) were born to unwed mothers.[24] Fifty years prior, when the second sexual revolution was just beginning and people took issues of sex, marriage, and childbearing more seriously, the illegitimate birth rate was just 15.4%.[25] In 1935, illegitimate births were below 4%.[26]

These children often grow up never knowing their fathers. Because single mothers are rarely able to take care of a child on their own, many of these children enter foster care or are put up for adoption. Certainly adoption is better, but not all kids get adopted. Statistically, fatherless children end up poorer, more likely to become addicted to drugs and alcohol, have more emotional and psychological problems, have lower educational achievement, have a higher involvement in crime, are more likely to be sexually active outside of marriage and at a young age, and repeat the cycle.[27]

We like to think we are so much more sophisticated than we were 50 or 100 years ago, but as we stray farther and farther from godly living, we are reaping what we have sown. The sexual revolution promised fulfilment, but has left people empty, in broken marriages, with broken hearts, and more than 57 million children have been killed through abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973.[28]

I am not advocating for the death penalty for sexual immorality. The Bible is pretty clear that punishment for crime is a civil matter entirely up to a country’s government, not a church or an individual. Even if America became some kind of Christian theocratic government, the example of Christ where sexual sin was concerned was mercy in John 4 and John 8:2-11. The Puritanical government of the early American colonies recognized this and only two people, Mary Latham and James Britton were ever executed for adultery.[29]

I just wonder how much different America and the rest of the western world would be if we took sexual purity just a little more seriously.




[1] Jastrow, Marcus, and Bernard Drachman. "Betrothal." The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. 128. Print.
[2] Schauss, Hayyim. "Ancient Jewish Marriage." The Lifetime of a Jew Throughout the Ages of Jewish History. New York, NY: Urj, 1998. N. pag. My Jewish Learning. Web.<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/#>.
[3] Schauss, Hayyim. "Ancient Jewish Marriage." The Lifetime of a Jew Throughout the Ages of Jewish History. New York, NY: Urj, 1998. N. pag. My Jewish Learning. Web.<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/#>.
[4] Schauss, Hayyim. "Ancient Jewish Marriage." The Lifetime of a Jew Throughout the Ages of Jewish History. New York, NY: Urj, 1998. N. pag. My Jewish Learning. Web.<http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/#>.
[5] Chapman, David W. "Marriage and Family in Second Temple Judaism." Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Ed. Ken M. Campbell. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. 195. Print.
[6] Jastrow, Marcus, and Bernard Drachman. "Betrothal." The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. 128. Print.
[7] Gordis, Daniel H. "Marriage: Judaisms "Other" Covenental Relationship." Celebration and Renewal: Rites of Passage in Judaism. Ed. Rela M. Geffen. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. 109. Print.
[8] Gordis, Daniel H. "Marriage: Judaisms "Other" Covenental Relationship." Celebration and Renewal: Rites of Passage in Judaism. Ed. Rela M. Geffen. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. 123. Print.
[9] Jastrow, Marcus, and Bernard Drachman. "Betrothal." The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. 126. Print
[10] Schechter, Solomon, and Julius H. Greenstone. "Marriage Laws." The Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906. 348. Print.
[11] Wilson, Marvin R. "Jewish Insights into Marriage and the Family." Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989. 213. Print.
[12] Skolnik, Fred, and Michael Berenbaum. "Marriage." Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Vol. 13. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA in Association with the Keter Pub. House, 2007. 563-74. Print.
[13] Brayer, Menachem M. "The World of the Occult." The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychohistorical Perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1986. 31. Print.
[14] Bloch, Abraham P. "The Life Cycle." The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1980. 30. Print.
[15] Bloch, Abraham P. "The Life Cycle." The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1980. 32. Print.
[16] Bloch, Abraham P. "The Life Cycle." The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies. New York: Ktav Pub. House, 1980. 30. Print.
[17] Steinberg, Avraham. "Virginity." Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics: A Compilation of Jewish Medical Law on All Topics of Medical Interest ... Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2003. 1115-116. Print.
[18] Roye, Carol. "What Exactly Is a Hymen?" Our Bodies Ourselves. Our Bodies Ourselves, 14 Dec. 2008. Web <http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/what-exactly-is-a-hymen/>.
[19] Sicker, Martin. "Ki Tetze." The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses: The Book of Deuteronomy in Political Perspective (Part 2). Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, 2009. 33. Print.
[20] Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea. "Society, Part II: Private Life." Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998. 148-149. Print.
[21] Sicker, Martin. "Ki Tetze." The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses: The Book of Deuteronomy in Political Perspective (Part 2). Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, 2009. 32-33. Print.
[22] "10 Surprising Sex Statistics." Nbc.com. National Broadcasting Coporation, 22 June 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
[23] "Statistics - American Sexual Health Association." American Sexual Health Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015. <http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/statistics/>.
[24] Martin, Joyce A. Births: Final Data for 2013. Rep. 1st ed. Vol. 64. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015. Print.
[25] Natality Statistics Analysis United States 1963. Publication. Washington: Public Health Service, Ser. 21. No 8 (1966). VI. Print.
[26] Dunn, Halbert L. Birth, Stillbirth, and Infant Mortality Statistics for the Continental United States, the Territory of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands. Publication. Vol. 21st Annual Report. Washington: U.S. Department of the Commerce, 1937. 10. Print.
[27] "National Center for Fathering." National Center for Fathering The Consequences of Fatherlessness Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015. <http://www.fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/>.
[28] Abortion Statistics United States Data and Trends. Publication. Washington: National Right to Life Educational Foundation, 2015. Print.
[29] Mays, Dorothy A. "Adultery." Women in Early America: Struggle, Survival, and Freedom in a New World. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2004. 12. Print.