Friday, November 6, 2015

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 20th 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.

                18th 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment