Was it OK for Jacob to have four wives (two of whom were sisters)? Was David really a man after the LORD's heart (1Sam. 13:14) despite his five or so wives? The answer to both questions is "Yes," but not because the two men had exemplary sexual ethics for their time. A few principles of interpretation explain my take on the sexual ethics of the OT.
1. The OT builds a story line that does not always say everything we would say, were we writing about the same material. As Hebrews makes clear, God always expected that saints live by faith in him - faith expressed in a general pattern of obedience and seeking God. All saints were sinners who related to the LORD on the basis of his electing grace; works were never the foundation for relating to God (this is important for understanding how the NT talks about "works of the law"). So, the general pattern of faith might include some glaring sins that did not ruin the pattern of faith, especially when we consider when the different saints lived in the process of God's story. For instance, Jacob would not have been allowed to marry sisters if he had lived during or after the Exodus generation (Lev. 18:18). But his awareness of God's standards for living were likely quite limited. He might not have been aware of the Adam and Eve start to the human race. Jacob's polygamy and associated sexual practices were still sinful by God's standards (Rom. 5:12-14), but Jacob was (possibly) blissfully unaware. His conscience might have told him something was wrong; his chaotic family certainly proved the point.
2. The OT Law is an interesting mix of instruction (=torah, the Hebrew word usually translated "law" - think the Ten Commandments), statutes with penalties prescribed, rituals and religious rites that picture the ubiquitous sinfulness of God's people, and descriptive stories that must be carefully evaluated in their contexts and in light of other clear passages. A few illustrations might help unpack this. Though Genesis 1-2 are descriptive passages, they describe God's perfect design - the way things ought to have been - and thus, they can serve a prescriptive role. That was how marriage and sex were designed to work. Jesus confirms this use of Genesis 1-2 when he gave his take on divorce in Matt. 19:3-9. The seventh "principle" in the Ten Commandments seems to me to convey a broad application of the Genesis 1-2 model for marriage - "Don't violate this relationship." Specific ways of violating the Ten Commandments get treated in other places in the law as statutes with prescribed penalties. However, not all possible ways of violating the general principles receive specific treatment with punishments. Some violations of the Ten Commandments are not addressed with punishments or even with prescribed sacrifices, but this does not mean that they are not therefore violations. Take the tenth of the Ten: do not covet. How could this principle be enforced as a statute with specific penalties?
I would guess that there were at least two reasons that some ways of violating the Ten Commandments were left unpunished and without specific requirements for atonement in the Law. First, sinful man's inability to keep the Law almost necessitated that not every violation of the Ten Commandments be punishable by human government. By this I mean carrying out judgment would be terribly difficult for every violation of the Ten Commandments, much less all the additional commands and statutes. Second, the Law was both the religious instruction and the political constitution for Israel. Before CSI, many ways of violating the Ten Commandments were invisible to the public eye, and we know that the Law requires witnesses. Again, think coveting - how could a human judge even approach the subject? Similarly, some sexual sin could not be easily investigated.
I'll address polygamy in another post, along with the discrepancy between sex before marriage and sex outside of marriage in the OT.
No comments:
Post a Comment