Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 15 -- Divorce

Probable the most significant development in the Law of Moses is the idea of divorce. Up to this moment, there has been no mention of the idea of divorce in the Scripture; then Moses adds a marriage law that dissolves marriage -- divorce. The Law of Divorce basically gave the man the power to send his wife away if he was no longer pleased with her. All he had to do was give her a writ of divorce. Once divorced he could take her back unless she married someone else in the interim. There is no record that women have this right to divorce.

one of the interests for me is how this reflects back on what marriage is -- it becomes a legal matter or contract that can be broken. This is a far cry from conceiving of marriage as being one flesh. It is simply a matter of law.

Next: The Law and Marriage

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 14 -- Other Laws Regarding Wives and Marriage

Now in the law there are many sundry laws regarding women and marriage that do apply to the discussion.
1. Exodus 20:17 includes not coveting a neighbors wife -- right up there with the rest of his possessions.
2. In the bond slave law Exodus 21:10 basically says that if a man takes a second wife he cannot reduce the rights of the first wife -- including sexual rights. A woman had sexual rights to her husband -- wonder if God was thinking of Leah?
3. Exodus 22:16 requires a man who seduces a virgin to take her as his wife and to give up his right to get rid of her. Deut. 22:19 and 29 restate this. I wonder what this would do to the unwed mother problem?
4. Leviticus 18 provides a life of relatives and relationships in which marriage is not allowed. A couple of interesting ones that a person is not allowed to marry a mother and daughter together or sisters together (Leah and Rachel?). Polygamy is assumed but now has some restrictions. Note: Both Abraham and Jacob would have been in trouble by these laws.
5. Leviticus 20:21 eliminates taking a brother's wife while he is still alive. If divorce takes place then a brother cannot have her. The law of a brother being required to take his older brother's wife to raise up inheritance still stays however.

What gets interesting is what is not condemned: polygamy. In fact there are some laws that assume its existence.

Next: Divorce

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 13 -- Wives as Possessions

What gets interesting as you get into the Law of Moses is the dealing with the idea of a woman as a wife also being a possession of the husband.
1. If a slave is given a wife for instance the wife still belongs to the owner unless the slave decides to bond himself to his master permanently.
2. Divorce is only one way -- it is almost like giving up title to a car today the way the law for divorce reads in the law.
3. Up till now wives are given and taken but there is almost no provision in the Bible for a woman to decided by her choice who she is to marry and the opposite is true for men.
4. The handmaiden laws and customs meant that in a sense the handmaiden was property of the mistress unless she gave that handmaiden to her husband -- then she became his.

Now this would change as we go along, but up till now what is presented by the Bible both in example and the law is women as a special kind of property. With some rights but not as much as men. We are still far from the end of this study, but if we were to stop here we would have to conclude women are a kind of property. Protected and valued, but property nonetheless.

Next: Other Laws Regarding Marriage and Women

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 11 -- Joseph's Wife

Joseph's Wife was an Egyptian given to him by the Pharaoh. Two issues that merit a look:
1. The mixed marriage issue seems suspended at this point. God is not upset and the two half tribes do come from this woman
2. The idea of a person giving another man a wife and the woman not having much choice about it (or even the man in some cases) -- we will see this more in the future especially next post. You know you almost think women before they were married in this culture were like assets or trading cards. Not exactly the high view of person hood that many believe in today.

Next: The Giving of Wives

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 10 -- Judah and Tamar

The story of Judah and Tamar actually illustrates several points.
First, it introduces the custom of a younger brother raising up seed for his older brother. A custom that will later become part of the Law. Basically if the oldest brother died the next older brother would take his wife as his own wife in an attempt to raise up children for the inheritance. Marriage for other legal purposes is what is represented here. Not a lot of romance there but God actually sides with the idea because the guy who does not cooperate with the custom is killed by God.

Secondly, it introduces a possibility. If the second brother already has a wife this was not considered an exception to the rule. The second oldest brother would still have to take her as wife number two. Polygamy enforced by God and the Law.

In the story Tamar eventually has to take matters into her own hand and gets Judah to conceive a child with her by playing the prostitute. In the end, Judah becomes her husband although he never touches her again. Marriage here is about fulfilling the desires of culture to produce heirs as well as God's purpose in making sure this is done.

For me, this is starting to show a difference between people becoming one flesh -- husband and wife and marriage for other purposes. Judah and Tamar were married but were they united in the end as husband and wife? One Flesh? Probably not.

Next: Joseph's Foreign Wife

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 9 -- The Intermarrying Issue Again!

Of all the people in the Bible that most interpreters of Scripture get it wrong about, I think Simeon and Levi when they kill Hamor and Schechim and their men get the worst look of all.  The real idiot of the story is Jacob -- a) He does not seem to care one whit for his daughter getting RAPED and b) when he comes back from Laban he does not camp where he promised God he would (Bethel); had he done, so none of this would have happened.  Lesson: keep your promises to God and you don't open yourself up for this nonsense.  It also points out one of the flaws the family had -- favoratism.  Dinah was after all the daughter of Leah.

The reason I say this is that when Jacob curses both at the end of his life neither curse seems ot work and when you look at the Law of Moses later they actually fulfill it on two count's 1) The punishment for rape in the Law is death which is what Schechem recieved along with all those who would have protected him and 2) The Law will later specifically forbid intermarrying of the children of Israel with outsiders who are not Israelites with only one acception -- girls who were virgins from foreign lands who they conquered.  Jacob would allowed the violation of both principles.  Simeon and Levi will not allow it and through cleverness (they are outnumbered) they exact the proper punishment. 
 
In the end, history vindicates both Simeon and Levi.  Levi's tribe becomes the preisthood for Israel and Simeon does indeed get an inheritence in the land in the end.  In short Jacob's curses don't work.

The quesiton of intermarriage is not a race one; it is about faith and worship.  The issue is the draw of pagan spouses on their husbands or wives that would cause others to leave their faith in God.

Next: Judah and Tamar

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 8 -- Lest We Forget Esau

Esau is ultimately removed from God's plan.  Because he was a polygamist?  No.  Although he did marry several women including some daughters of Ishmael as well as a few local girls.  Esau's major grief to his parents when it came to his marriages was not how many, but who.  In short, Esau married women he did not consult his parents about and women who were idoloters.

What I think this illustrates is marriage can be bad by simply one thing -- having no consideration of the spiritual leanings and strength of your future spouse.  This draws the issue of marrying beleivers vs. non-beleivers into the discussion as well as parental involvment in a marriage.

Next: The Intermarrying Issue Again Already!

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 7 -- Jacob, Necessary Polygamist?

Changed the title because as I thought about it Jacob's polygamy, though he was tricked into it, becomes used by God to build the nation of Israel.  It is in fact the how of there are twelve tribes is due to Jacob's many children, possible becasue of his four wives. 

There are also several issues in this like Leah's basically being handed off to a man who didn't want her.  Still married but were they husband and wife?  Was their really a 'one flesh' relationship beyond the sexual between them?  Based on what happens -- probably not.  So what was their 'marriage'?   

One thing that does need to be considered is what would have happend had Jacob only had one wife and produced all his children through her.  Genetically, there would have been problems if this had been the case.  With four wives genetics spreads out and allows for more latitude.

The one thing that the story of Jacob's family does illustrate is the problems of a polygamist household.  Leah and Rachel basically have a baby making contest and when they can't do it anymore they involve the handmaidens.  But is this really a problem of polygamy itself or simply the way these marriages came about?  More likely the later.

Next: Lest We Forget Esau

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 6 -- Isaac's Arranged Marriage

Arranged Marriage. To many Westerners such a concept is repugnant but in the ancient Near East and in much of the world today it is actually the most common way a couple gets married. When you get down to it though this would cut through a lot of the garbage associated with 'finding the one".

Isaac's Father Abraham is the one with the idea and in the end the story is one of God's guidance although it will cause problems for one of Isaac and Rebecca's children later with a relative Laban. Overall, Isaac and Rebecca's' Marriage seems to be a happy one other than them each taking sides over their children.

Perhaps bringing in one's parents to help decided who you should marry isn't such a bad idea.

To recap so far, we haven't really passed the middle of Genesis and so far we have the following issues.
1. Marriage vs. Husband and Wife
2. Polygamy
3. Arranged Marriage
4. Marrying Relatives

Getting to be an interesting ride.

Next: Jacob, Super Polygamist?

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 5 -- Abraham the Polygamist

Now one thing that is often overlooked is that Abraham too was a polygamist but through a new concept at this point in the Bible -- concubinage. In the first case Hagar is offered to Abraham by Sarah (I always like to point out to people this was Sarah's idea). In Abraham's day this was common practice if the wife could not produce an heir, always nice to have a backup womb. Now we might argue that this was them not acting in faith. Maybe so but for the rest of Hagar's life she is considered to be Abraham's concubine/wife. In addition this is not the only concubine Abraham will take. After Sarah's death in Genesis 25, while Issac is being comforted by his new wife, Abraham takes a second concubine -- Keturah. She bears Abraham six children. Hagar is still alive. Two concubines for Abraham and the second one is by his own choice.

What this introduces to our discussion is the issue of concubinage -- the second class wife if you will. Basically, such wives are wives of convenience or necessity. They are their to bear the husband children but they and their children do not receive any inheritance after the husband's death should the first wife bear an heir. In Abraham's case both his concubines received stuff while he was alive but after he was dead only Isaac received the rest of his Father's inheritance. This is clearly a case of contractual obligation in a marriage and maybe defines the difference between a husband wife relationship by choice and a marriage agreement for practical purposes.

Next: Isaac's Arranged Marriage.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 4 -- Abraham Marries His Sister

You know for all the talk of how Issac was the child of promise and he is, one of the interesting things about his parents Abraham and Sarah was that they had the same father. Two different mothers (another polygamist relationship) but they were brother and sister as well as husband and wife. Incest by the time Moses writes the Law but at this point apparently there is no such thing.
Who one can and cannot marry based on family relationship is something the Bible does deal with but the interesting thing about Genesis is that such concerns do not seem to be prevalent. The issue of why Sarah could not conceive may be as much an issue of family genetics as it was her own biology. Even to today the most common arranged marriage in many countries is to a member of the family.
The biblical issue is what is allowed and why. As time goes on the Bible becomes restrictive about who one can marry in the family but it does not completely get rid of it. If Moses is using Genesis as a basis for the Law that follows then it is interesting that Abraham's marriage to His sister will be illegal later. Changing nature of the God-man relationship? Probably.

Next: Abraham the Polygamist

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 3 -- Lamech and His Two Wives

Probably one of the most significant things about about the story of Lamech is his belief that God protected him because he was somehow greater than Cain even though he had murdered two men, although based on what he says is could have been self defense. In any case, that is not what is significant for this discussion. What is significant is Lamech is the Bible's first recorded polygamist. This introduces polygamy very early into our discussion on marriage.

One of the arguments I have read from several sources against polygamy is that Lamech was of the line of Cain and therefore polygamy's origins are suspect in an ungodly line. I find this argument a little unsatisfying because it is an argument from silence. Just because no one in Seth's line is referenced to have more than one wife does not mean it didn't exist. All the children's names are not mentioned either so it does not mean they didn't have names. In addition the text itself does not say Lamech was the first polygamist ever; the only reason he is being recorded is because of his belief he would be revenged seventy fold, he just addressed this to his two wives so their existence is recorded.

In addition, if we refrain from everything that the line of Cain invented then we need to stop: Living in tents and herding livestock, playing music, doing metalwork, etc. because it was the line of Cain that invented all these things as well.

What is really curious is that God is silent about the issue. The mention of multiple wives seems to be as matter of fact as if he had told people Lamech was bald. The morality of polygamy really is not an issue here, the only thing we can really say is that polygamy has been around for a LONG time.

Next: Abraham Marries His Sister

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 2 -- Were Adam and Eve Married?

It is an interesting question because we have certain notions of what it means when people get married but in the story of Creation none of those notions really exist: No ceremony, no vows, no license with a civil authority, etc.

What we do have is a statement by Adam -- "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man." Not exactly classic vows are they? And Eve says nothing. What follows are verses 24-25 which are commentary by Moses in a way -- "For this reason..." tells us that this story guided Moses' understanding about the significance of this action. He gives three things that seem to constitute a couple becoming husband and wife:
1. The man leaves his mother and father -- there must be a desire by the man to form his own household. He desires to take authority and start a family.
2. The man is joined to his wife -- now 'joined' could have multiple meanings but to put it in basic terms the couple forms their own household together and has sexual intercourse which makes them....
3. They become one flesh -- What God took apart is put back together and made one.
4. From then on they are naked and unashamed -- their relationship is open with no fear.

Notice that all that really matters is the formation of a household that is separate, sex and openness with no shame toward each other. Not a whole lot of romance in this story but then again if Eve asked Adam -- "Do you love me?" his response is -- "Who else?" There is also not a lot of cultural garbage attached to this either. No vows indicates Adam and his wife simply understood what it meant for them to be together. No ceremony meant they didn't real pronounce to any community other than the two of themselves and God that they were married. No licence indicates there were no obligations to law. They only had spiritual obligations to each other and God.

Husband and wife -- yes. Married -- by our cultural and religious standards -- No. Just a couple who just starts being together intimately in all senses right out of the gate. Maybe by God's standards, but the question of marriage isn't answered here. Marriage may be all the vows and crap, but being husband and wife is far more a constant thing and that is the nature of the question.

Next: Lamech and his two wives.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 8 -- Tough Question #2 -- God's Justice and Damnation.

The real issue involving Hell is twofold when it comes to God.

1. How can a God who is just not punish the wicked and do away with evil?

2. How can a God who is love punish people for all eternity for some thing they did in only a short time?

I want to use this post to deal with the first problem.

There are many people who look at this evil world and wonder where the justice is. The cold reality is many time people do thing that are wicked and evil and get away with it. They don't just do small things either. There are the mass murders, rapists and serial killers of the world and for many people the thought is that god will put it all right when it comes to His justice. The simple belief for many Christians is that even if a person escapes justice in this world, they will not escape the justice of God. Hell is part of this belief in justice, in particular that the punishment will fit the crime. I think it becomes morally unsatisfying if a mass murderer, like Hitler, simply gets winked out of existence.

This is one of the problems with the annihilation theory -- it simply stands by itself with no way of God meeting out true justice. It may ultimately be bad for the person who is annihilated but what of the victims and their satisfaction. God is very clear about the 'eye for and eye' thing as a standard of justice -- He wrote it. And what of the martyrs in Revelation who cry out for vengeance for their blood? Simply put annihilation just does not answer the problem of justice -- of the punishment fitting the crime. It seems too light a punishment for evil.

This is where those who believe in torment have a case -- people who are wicked face real pain for what they have done and satisfaction is given for the victims of their sins. The only problem is what about the love of God and the standard of justice being 'eye for eye' is that at what point is it gone past equality and into the realm of torture. But that is the subject of the next post.

Next: God's Love and Damnation.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 13 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness

Back to the Garden of Eden. After rereading all my posts on this subject and considering all of what Scripture has to say on the subject I have to conclude that our definition of nakedness -- that is 'without clothes' is completely wrong. Nakedness, Biblically, actually has very little to do with clothes; it is a question of spiritual condition. Is it reflected in a person's felling about being with out clothes -- Yes, but at the same time the source of the feelings of nakedness are spiritual not physical.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed, after it they are naked and ashamed. Their nakedness did not change, what changed was their perception because of the change in their spirits due to sin. They were just as naked after as before. They had become spiritually vulnerable and exposed and thus their physical vulnerability and exposure began to reflect this in feelings and fears.

As I have examined this topic there were a couple things that I had problems with reasoning out -- 1) Why would a husband and wife who were not ignorant of each others nakedness suddenly be ashamed of each other's nakedness. Why would they make clothes for themselves; exactly who were they trying to cover up from? I had to conclude that both the making of clothes and hiding in the bushes from God were part of the same problem -- shame and exposure for disobedience -- not some inherent problem with the human naked body. There problem was not with each other's nakedness but their own nakedness before a holy God. It was a God-mankind problem not a male-female problem. The fact is that in a few verses of leaving the garden man 'knows' his wife and she conceives -- did they do that in the dark? No -- the issue is the shame, exposure and vulnerability that their sin has caused before God and it is this spiritual state that is reflected in a change in their understanding of physical nakedness. They cover their flesh in hopes of covering up their spiritual vulnerability and shame before God. Nakedness is both spiritual and physical but it is the spiritual that determines the understanding of the physical. The physical feelings of nakedness are caused by spiritual nakedness.

2) Romans 8:35 -- that the love of God cannot be stopped by our nakedness. This is not possible if nakedness in and of itself is a sin. Nakedness is a result not and action; a state not a act of disobedience. This means you can stand naked in the shower and still be loved by God. You can also be sin free and be naked before God.

These two factors along with the Old Testament prophets constantly referring to nakedness as exposure, shame and vulnerability lead me to formulate the following definition from the Bible concerning nakedness.

A Biblical Definition of Nakedness: The spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that caused by sin and a human is made aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God.

It is often reflected physically but not necessarily so. A person can still be exposed by their sin before God even when fully clothed. Likewise, a person who is devoid of clothing may still be covered by the righteousness of Christ and thus naked and not ashamed. Physicality is only a reflection and consequence not the state itself which is spiritual.

This definition is constantly repeated as God speaks to his people -- The idea of His punishments being exposing His sinful bride Israel to the world in naked shame is repeated over and over again.

There are several implications that now can be made when looking at nakedness of the physical and spiritual sort in our world when compared to this definition. My next three posts will reflect on these issues:

1. Art vs. Pornography

2. Public Nudity and the Christian

3. Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 4 -- Uncovering the Nakedness of Others.

Now the next significant verses in the Bible that deal with the subject of nakedness are found I Leviticus 18. This entire chapter is dedicated to who you are not supposed to uncover the nakedness of. The list is long and their are other commandments involving sexual practice. The interesting thing is this expression: 'Uncover the nakedness'. The interpretive problem is that this cannot mean strip off clothes or look on a naked body because in Leviticus 20:11 we get a definition:' If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

This makes it pretty clear that this expression is referring to sexual intercourse and who you can and cannot have it with. This also puts limits on who you can and cannot marry.

I am going to tell you this does not help the discussion of what constitutes nudity or nakedness from the Bible's point of view. In short, that is not what these passages are talking about but they are dealing with proper sexual relationships for the People of God Israel. Much of what follows in the rest of the Law of Moses is the same thing repeated over and over.

What gets interesting is when the Spirit of God causes a couple kings to be naked for different reasons.

Next: Saul and David: Naked in Public

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 3 -- Sundry Verses on Breasts and Priests

A few things first before I begin. I want to address two issues: 1) Why I talk about this -- my personal motivation and 2) some things I have seen regarding Noah (last week's post on this topic) that I think are bad interpretations.

Why? Well I can tell you what it is not -- I am not trying to find justification for myself because I have some habit that I am trying to justify. I know my limits because I have been down that road before and no its pitfalls. Nor am I seeking to justify those who do such things as well. What i am doing is looking at our world and realizing that some day in the very near future it may be impossible not to look at other people's 'nakedness'. I simply want to know what that constitutes nakedness Biblically so i know when to truly turn my head and avoid sin. I also am a weightlifter following a bodybuilding style and I like feedback. To this end i have started posting pictures of myself at Bodybuilding.com and I don't want to be a stumbling block to others, but i am, beginning to see that most Christians' problem with nakedness and nudity involves a bad definition of what nakedness is.

Regarding Noah. One thing I saw was an interpretation that it is a sin to see some one's nakedness because of what happened to Ham. I submit to you Ham seeing his Fathers nakedness was not a sin but what he did about it afterwards that was a sin -- he exposed his father's nakedness.

For instance, if I walk into a bathroom in some one's home not thinking anyone is there and upon opening the door I see my neighbor's wife standing there naked because she has just got out of the shower and forgot to lock the door, have I sinned? No. It was an accident. I sin if I lust after her because of it or expose my neighbor's wife to shame by my reporting it to others. The godly things to do is quickly shut the door and apologize to her through it and then not mention it to anyone and cover her. Ham does not do this toward his father. His father is laying there naked and if he had looked away and then did what his brothers did and covered his father's nakedness he would be remembered as one of the righteous and blessed by his father. The looking on some one's nakedness in and of itself is not a sin. It is the lust and/or desire to expose that nakedness to others that is sin. Sorry to be so technical but I have had a few things happen to me where I have seen other women naked in part or in whole with no intention of doing so -- it just happened. I don't think this is sin. It is lust and slander that are the sin here.

That said as we continue on through the Bible we hit our issue in a multitude of quick things in various verses

Genesis 49:25 talks about the blessing of the womb and breasts. It is Jacob blessing his son Joseph and it is about blessing the tow aspects of motherhood -- the womb and the breasts. It actually does support the notion that when it comes to female breasts that the Bible seems to link them with motherhood and not sexuality of the female. It does not talk about the breasts in a negative way.

Exodus 20:26 talks about the fact that God wants no steps to his altar because he does not want his priests to expose themselves walking up them. This is a clear case of defining nakedness as the lower half of a man -- probably his genitalia. Exodus 28:42 talks about covering the bare flesh of Aaron and his sons as they minister before the Lord. The problem with both of these is that they are very specific in their context -- the priests in ministry before the Lord in the tabernacle. This may provide a principle for being dressed in church but then again it does not help us in the discussion of nakedness in society otherwise.

Next: Uncovering the Nakedness of Others

The Law, Christians and the Selective Authority of Scripture

I have often been amazed at how selective Christians can be in applying the law of Moses when it comes to issues in the culture. In two incidents one recently encountered and one an old one we can see this.

1) Many years ago a doctor refused to treat a young girl because her mother had a tattoo. The basis for this was Leviticus 19:28. The interesting thing is that his white robe is made of blended fabric which is also against the law of God. In the same chapter, God forbids his people to trim their beards -- I wonder if he refused to treat someone who shaved?

2) Recently I was reading a work of fiction where the main character is a wizard that is confronted by Exodus 22:18 -- suffer not a witch to live. He returns that the same passage also says that a person should not lend money at interest, that whoever lies with a virgin should marry her and that people should be killed that have sex with animals, worship any other god but Jehovah and oppresses orphans. He then pointed out to the people he is talking to how selective people are about the Bible. He has a point.

I have found an interesting but common phenomena among Christians. When we are arguing about something that we are trying to bring about in our culture we have no fear about quoting the Law of Moses, but then when someone confronts us in the fact that we also practice things that are against the Law of Moses, we are quick to point out that we are not under the law but under grace. I think this is why no one listens to us that much any more.

I know thousands of Christians that have no problem with eating pork any day of the week but use the tattoo passage on their kids. I know many who do not have a problem with working on Saturday (the Sabbath) but will absolutely insist that their family be in church on Sunday.

The point is that most Christians are selective in what they consider authoritative. When a verse confirms our behaviour or more importantly condemns what we think is bad behavior we are quick to embrace it, but when a verse contradicts our own behavior we are quick to call upon grace. It is this hypocrisy and lack of a consistent mode of Biblical interpretation that continues to be a our down fall.

If you are going to insist that people are going to keep all the law then do so yourself -- GOOD LUCK because the whole point of Christ is that we need grace cause we all fail to obey the law.

If you are going to give yourself the grace argument you better be willing to give grace to others on other things of the same nature. Anything else smacks of self righteousness. And self righteousness is what Got the Pharisees in trouble. Make no mistake, I do not believe that we should sin that grace may abound but it not our job to be the moral watchdogs of society -- it is our job to live the grace and holiness of God. as Christians. Part of that is to be consistent in what we consider the authority of Scripture to be over our lives. It is also our job, to recognize what parts of the Word are authoritative because we fall under that particular covenant and what parts have changed because of the new covenant with Christ. It is also required for us to love our neighbor as our self -- something the doctor forgot.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 2 -- Noah: Drunk and Naked

Genesis 9:20-27"Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."

This is an odd story. 1) Noah gets drunk and God does not think it ill and 2) God honors his curses and blessings of his sons.

The first I think is explained in the fact that the world Noah now lives in has changed. Before the Flood there is no rain or seasons, but after it there is. This indicates a change in the climate and nature of the world. The flood has removed whatever preserving power of life the world had in its makeup. Evidenced by the fact that the ages of people drop off very fast afterwards and seasons mean there is now weather and natural disaster because of it. I think Noah has no idea that the wine he would make would be alcoholic. He may not have even knew what it was.

The second weirdness has to do with Noah's nakedness. Drunk as he was an perhaps an unwilling participant in this drunkenness. He uncovers himself. I think this refers to full nakedness as when working on the ark the men probably stripped down for work -- Like Peter does in John 21. It is not that these men have not seen most of each other when working and so it is probably the case that Noah is completely naked exposing himself.

The issue here is not so much nakedness as respect. By seeing the nakedness of His father and then telling others he diminished family respect for the leader of that family -- Noah. Shem and Japheth show more respect for their fathers nakedness and cover him without looking. Had Ham done so and then no one but he would have even know he would have covered the shame of his Father's nakedness and shown love to his father. The issue is not the nakedness in and of itself it is how it is reacted too that is the issue. Ham does not show his father respect but exposes him, the other two sons do the opposite. In any case this does little to help us consider the issue of nakedness and modern issues involving it because this is family and these are all men involved.

I don't think there is any evidence that Ham's reaction was homosexual it was one of shock and exposing his father to ridicule -- something that should not have been done.

Next: Sundry Verses about Breasts and Priests