Israelite Marriage Part IV: Is Polygamy Biblical?

Polygamy is an interesting subject; it inevitably comes up when looking at Biblical marriage, particularly marriage portrayed in the Old Testament. Modern Christianity ignores it, by and large, while some sects follow it. I left this topic for last in our marriage series for a reason: You may notice that polygamy does not fit in whatsoever with the view of marriage presented so far, so let's get into it, shall we?

Source

Polygamy and the Law

    Obviously, when talking religion, it is most important first to see what is said. in the Law, there are few rules touching on polygamy.

• Exodus 21:8-11: (in regards to a sold maidservant) "if she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her...If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage,shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free with no money."
• Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "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: 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; 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 25:5-10: "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. 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. 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.' 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;' 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.' And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him whose shoe is loosed.'"

Verse Break-Down

     These are the verses found in the "Law" section of the Bible that deal with polygamy. If you've looked into the topic before, you may be familiar some of these verses. For context, I included all of the verses that relate to the core "polygamy promoting" verse. As these are the laws that deal with polygamy, they are often used to support polygamy, but looking deeper provides a different picture.

     To begin, note that all three verse-sections begin with the word "if". They rely on an already-standing situation; in no way is the situation lauded or supported; it simply is. Secondly, when you look at each individual verse, it becomes clear the sections are not really about polygamy. They're about something else. The Exodus section takes place among other laws about servants; it is about the treatment of servants. Deuteronomy 21, though taking place in a hypothetical polygamist situation, is about the law of inheritance. Deuteronomy 25 is about lineage and family requirements.

     Looking more closely at the language of each section also provides more information. The man dealt with in Exodus 21:8-11 is a bad man. He has taken a maidservant and betrothed her to himself. There is no mention of the girl's father allowing the situation. Also, the man has "dealt deceitfully", indicating he would wish to marry the girl when he really has no desire. From the post on seduction, we know betrothals can be broken off, but the verse talks about the "duty of marriage" (being sex), which shows that the man betrothed a girl he knew he didn't want, had sex with her while not wanting her, thus making her his wife, and then decided to bring another woman into his house (though the KJV says "another wife", the word "wife" does not exist in that part of the verse. Instead, it seems this man is running a racket--pretending he wants to marry women when all he wants is sex). As punishment for his deceit, the man must upkeep husbandly duties, and if he fails, the woman gets to leave. This verse does not support polygamy. Instead, it acts to prevent the sleazy and dishonest conduct by a man who takes advantage of his maids. [There is also a view that the word used as "duty of marriage" was mistaken and really means "housing", in which case the man is still in the wrong, and the verses still do not support polygamy]

     The verses from Deuteronomy 21 show a similar situation. The man has a wife he hates and a wife he loves. The questions arises, "Why did he marry the hated wife??". And, he wishes to cheat the hated wife's son out of his inheritance. Inheritance in the Bible was a big deal. This man is also not a good man; he must be prevented from cheating his eldest son. Additionally, there is no indication if the wives are alive at the same time. It could be that one had died, but, in any case, these verses do not support polygamy.

     The Deuteronomy 25 verses are the most used (that I've seen) to support polygamy, as, seemingly, they are the only part of the Bible that could demand polygamy. So let's break it down:

• If brothers live together,
• And if one is married (we'll call him "Jeb"),
• And if Jeb and his wife have no children,
• And if Jeb then dies,
• And if Jeb's brother is willing to (we'll call him "Jerry")
• Jerry should marry Jeb's widow

     My friends, that is a lot of "ifs". Firstly, the number of people who fit into that situation is very small. Prohibitively small. In no way does this section support polygamy for the average Joe. However, there is another key to this command, and it comes from the first "if". If the brothers dwell together. The word 'dwell' in English has a looser meaning than it did back then in the original Hebrew. We consider people in a neighborhood as "dwelling together", in a sense. The word, though, means a very strict sort of dwelling. It means "to keep house", to "to live together as in marriage". These are not brothers who live on the same land, or down the street from each other. No, no. These are brothers who share a tent, living closely, like a married couple. Now, why would brothers, especially if one of them was married, share a house? Looking at the familial structure of the Bible, like in America today, children lived with their parents until they grew up. In Israel, children stayed with their parents until they married (Genesis 2:24), at which point they were supposed to move away and start their own households. So, siblings would only share a home when they were not married yet. Once married, they would live alone with their spouse. This rule does not really allow for Jerry to be married as well; instead, it is implied Jerry and Jeb were orphaned after Jeb married his wife; being a good older brother, Jeb took Jerry in to care for him until he grew to adulthood and left. Jerry has been relying on Jeb to care for him the way Jeb might care for his own son. Then, if Jeb dies, with no children, and Jerry is willing, Jerry should step up to the plate and take over his brother's house. And, Jerry can always say "no"; he'd be considered less honorable, but he is not forced. These verses do not really support polygamy either, then. Granted, it would be possible for a married brother to live in the same home as his married brother, but in the familial structure of the Bible, it would not be considered "good" or "right" (like the question of rape, this relies on assumptive ideals).

Examples in the Bible

     Well, as there are no "marry multiple women" laws in the Bible, we must turn, instead, to the examples provided and look at how they turned out. I will do my best to provide a comprehensive list, but there is no way I'd be able to list all of the examples.

1. Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar
• Production: Ishmael (Hagar), Isaac (Sarah)
• Outcome: Attempted murder, creation of Islam through Ishmael
2. Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah
• Production: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dinah (Leah), Dan, Napthtali (Bilhah), Gad, Asher (Zilpah), Joseph, Benjamin (Rachel)
• Outcome: Tribe of Israel
• Huge amounts of jealousy and competition (Genesis 29-30)
• Barrenness (Genesis 29:31)
• Suicidal tendencies (Genesis 30:1)
• Marital strife (Genesis 30:2)
• Following of other religion's laws (Genesis 30:4, 9) (Code of Khammurabi, sex slavery)
• Witchcraft/superstition (Genesis 30:14-16)
• Sex trading (Genesis 30:15)
• Theft and idolatry (Gen 31:34-36)
• Evil done by the sons (Gen 37:2)
• Brotherly hatred and child favoring (Gen 37:4)
• Conspiracy to commit fratricide (Gen 37:18-20)
• Lying about brother's "death" (Gen 37:31-32)
• Reuben: Cursed/disinherited-Slept with one of his stepmothers (Gen 49:4)
• Simeon: Cursed-Murdered his sister's husband, family, and people (Gen 49:6)
• Levi: Cursed-Murdered his sister's husband, family, and people (Gen 49:6)
• Judah: Blessed with inheritance of firstborn (Gen 49:10)
• Evil children (Gen 28:7, 10)
• Incest with daughter-in-law by way of prostitution (Gen 28:18)
• Zebulun: Blessed with seafaring (Gen 49:13)
• Issachar: Cursed-Became a "servant to tribute" (Gen 49:15)
• Dan: Cursed-seen as a serpent (Gen 49:16-18)
• Gad: Blessed with stick-to-it-ness (Gen 49:19)
• Asher: Blessed with fatness and food (Gen 49:20)
• Nathtali: Blessed with eloquence (Gen 49:21)
• Joseph: Sold into slavery by his brothers (Gen 37)
• Blessed with fruitfulness (Gen 49:22-26)
• Benjamin: Compared to a rabid wolf (Gen 49:27)
• Tribe all but destroyed when they gang-raped a woman to death (Judges 19-21)
3. Gideon and his "many wives" (Judges 8:30)
• Production: 70 sons (Judges 8:30)
• Outcome: 1 Son--Jothan
• Familial jealousy and ambition (Judges 9:2)
• 68 counts of fratricide by Abimilech (Judges 9:5)
• Fratricidal curse (Judges 9:7-20)
• Abimilech becomes King and is accursed (Judges 9:22-24)
• War (Judges 9:25-55)
• Abimilech killed by his own armor-bearer (Judges 9:54)
4. Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah
• Production: "sons and daughters" (Peninnah), Samuel (Hannah) (1 Samuel 1)
• Outcome
• Torment of Hannah by Peninnah (1 Sam 1:6)
• Depression and anorexia (1 Sam 1:7, 10, 15)
• Implied curse of feebleness upon Peninnah (1 Sam 2:5)
• Samuel the prophet
5. David, Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maachah, Haggith, Eglah, Bathsheba, assorted concubines
• Production: Many sons and daughters, namely Solomon (Bathsheba)
• Outcome
• Michal married off to Phalti while David cavorting with new wives (1 Sam 25:43-44)
• Michal, returned to David, dies childless due to marital dispute (2 Sam 6:23)
• Adultery and murder for the hand of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11)
• Death of the resulting child (2 Sam 12:14, 18)
• Incestuous rape of David's daughter, Tamar, by his son, Amnon (2 Sam 13:1-14)
• Vengeful murder of Amnon by Tamar's full brother, Absalom (2 Sam 13:29)
• Rebellion by Absalom (2 Sam 15:10)
• Absalom's incestuous rape of his father's concubines "in the sight of all Israel" (2 Sam 21-22)
• Death of Absalom against his father's wishes (2 Sam 12-15)
• Rebellion by Adonijah (1 Kings 1-2) including:
• Usurpation of rightful line of succession (1 Kings 1:1-33)
• Attempted quasi-incest by Adonijah (1 Kings 1:1-4, 2:17)
• Fratricidal execution of Adonijah by Solomon (1 Kings 2:24)
6. Solomon and his 700 wives, 300 concubines
• Wives induced Solomon into idolatry (1 Kings 11:1-8)
• Including child sacrifice (1 Kings 11:7)
• Curse of God to take the kingdom away from Solomon's son (1 Kings 11:11-13)
• War (1 Kings 11:14-26)
• Kingdom split in two (1 Kings 11;34-37)
• Rehoboam, son of Solomon, King
• Unwise and cruel (1 Kings 12:7-14)
• Rebellion (1 Kings 12:16)
• New kingdom also turns to idolatry (1 Kings 12:28-33)

And so on, and so on. There is a popular saying in Biblical-based religion, "Well, look at their fruit," referring to Matthew 7:16. The fruits of polygamy are atrocious: Familiar strife, incest, rape, rebellion, murder, idolatry. Rather than building polygamy up, every instance of polygamy in the Bible tears it down. It is easy to see, nothing good comes from polygamy. Even the argument of, "More wives equals more children!" does not bear any weight. Five of Israel's sons are cursed. Sixty nine of Gideon's 70 sons are murdered. Samuel is given away to the church, negating his presence to his family, and David's children seem more concerned with dealing damage to each other than anything else. Even today, this negative side holds sway. Communities known for heavy polygamy (such as the FLDS and certain Islamic sects) suffer from institutionalized pedophilia, rape, incest, familial abuse, neglect, and many other nasty things. There is simply nothing to recommend it; it is vile, and the only reasoning behind it is lust.

The Bible Against Polygamy

     Though the Old Testament depicts instances of polygamy, there are verses in both the New and Old Testaments that speak out directly and indirectly against polygamy.

• Deuteronomy 17:17 [in regards to kings]: "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold."
• Proverbs 5:3-5: "For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell."
• Proverbs 5:18-20: "Let thy fountain be blessed: And rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; Let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; And be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?"
• Song of Solomon [The whole book contrasts the pure love of the woman and her shepherd with the beguiling and fleeting love of Solomon and his concubines]
• Matthew 5:28-29: "But I say to you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."
• Matthew 19:8-9: "...But from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whoseover shall put away his wife...and shall marry another, comitteth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

"Rejoice in the wife of your youth"

     Whereas the previously-mentioned verses serve only to show that polygamy existed, these verses celebrate monogamy. The Law of kings declares a king must not take more wives; a king serves as a role model to an entire nation and is supposed to be "better" than common men, showing that monogamy is better than polygamy. Proverbs was written by Solomon when he was still living up to his "wisest man in the world" title. I only provided a few examples, but the book is rife with warnings against lust and strange women. Instead, the wisest man says that one should always love the wife of their youth. Again, polygamy is shown as negative. The Song of Solomon presents a clear view; monogamy emphasizes faithfulness and strength, whereas polygamy is dishonest, shallow, lacking in affection, and encourages evil (namely kidnapping and seduction). Yeshua himself makes it even more clear in Matthew. Lusting after a woman is equated with adultery, a deadly crime. By that ruling, how could a man consummate his marriage with his second wife? Until they have sex, no marriage exists, and if he looks at her with lust, he has committed adultery. Obviously, Yeshua disapproves of polygamy. In the divorce section, the same point is hit. A man who wants to marry another woman commits adultery against his original wife. Why? Because a "divorce" is not real; the couple remains married, and the man has cheated on his wife. How would he marry a second woman when to marry a second woman is adultery? Answer: he can't. Polygamy is adultery. It seems odd that Yeshua would add something to the Law--in these sections in Matthew, he expands on already-existing laws and makes them stricter, but the polygamy law seems to come out of left field. However, it actually doesn't.

Leviticus 18:18

    To explore Yeshua's view of adultery, we must revisit the Law. At the beginning of the article, I said there weren't many laws even relating to the issue. Here, in Leviticus 18:18, we run into our old friend, mistranslation. In the KJV, it reads thusly, "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time." The problem is the word, "sister". The phrase, "a woman to her sister" is the English version of a Hebrew idiom which more closely would be translated, "one in addition to another". In usage, always means "one in addition to another" rather than anything about blood relations (source). Additionally, the word "vex" more means "to harass" or "to rival", and is closely related to both the word for "rival wife" and "trouble" (source source source). Therefore, the verse reads more like this, "You will not marry a woman and then another woman--causing rivalry--as long as your wife lives." This properly translated verse supports what Yeshua says in the New Testament 100%.

     Indeed, if the intent of 18:18 were to talk about blood sisters, there need only be one word changed, "to" to the word "and", as it is used in the preceding verse which does prohibit sexual relations of relatives. Additionally, the preceding verses all prohibit the activity entirely, where verse 18 only prohibits during the span of a life, meaning it is a Law of a different type. Having sex with a woman and then her daughter or granddaughter is always wrong (Lev 18:17), but having sex with a woman and then another woman (rather than the improperly translated "sister") is only wrong if the first woman lives. Therefore; polygamy is wrong.

     Leviticus 18:24-25 add to this prohibition, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." Indeed, we saw in the examples section Israelites practicing polygamy in the tradition of other traditions and other religions, and, yes, the land vomited them out.

The Theory

     It's rather clear now that polygamy is not supported in the Bible. Naturally, the follow up question is, then why was it allowed to occur? For the answer, revisit Leviticus 18:24-30. Though there was not a clear cut "Law" with consequences for polygamy, there are natural consequences, and we see those throughout the lives of the polygamist Israelites. Their children die. Their wives die. Their children kill each other. Their children rape each other. Their children rise up against their parents. There is no need for a de jure punishment when a de facto punishment already exists. Polygamists will "get theirs" without any help from outside forces.

     That's not all, though. It all ties back to the idea of what makes a marriage. Polygamy is not right, but then again, neither is having sex and then backing out of the relationship. Part of the reason, I believe, polygamy was allowed to occur was because A) It punished the participants B) It made them take responsibility for their actions. Like the seducer, a cheating man is not allowed to seduce a woman and dance on his merry way; instead, he marries and takes responsibility for the woman he has humbled and the children they may produce. The punishments of God are not light, simple, or merciful; they fit the crime and are often harsh. How can one avoid that fate? Simple. Follow the true translation of Leviticus 18:18, and the teachings of Yeshua in Matthew. Don't look at other women with lust. Do not marry another woman. Don't invite that negativity and evil into your life, for, as the wise Solomon said and experienced, it is bitter and leads to the grave.

Conclusion

     Here we draw full circle. Marriage is very simple, and the pattern was put forth in the very beginnings of Genesis. Two people. One female, one male. In a relationship of a close and sexual nature for, "as long as they both may live." No extra people. No paperwork. No fanfare. Pure and simple.

Awww yiss. Marriage.

"My beloved is mine, and I am his" 

(Song of Solomon 2:16)

Israelite Marriage Part III: Seduction and Marriage

With the heavy depressing things out of the way, we arrive at Part III of Israelite marriage,, seduction. Ultimately, the goal of this section is to lead back to and support the "Adam and Eve marriage" presented in the Israelite Marriage article. (Disclaimer: Again, this is not a post for children)

Law for Seduction
      The laws for seduction are given in two places, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. They cover the same topic, each adding a little more detail presenting this whole picture; if a man and woman are found doing the nasty, the man must pay the father of the woman 50 shekels of silver (approximately $42,000 today's money (source)), and it is expected the man will marry the woman. If he does, he cannot divorce her for any reason because he has "humbled" her. However, the woman's father may refuse to allow his daughter to marry the wastrel, in which case the man must still pay.

Hair gel: $20. Shirt: $50. Cost of bedroom eyes? A year's wages.

     This set of rules goes far to define the nature of Israelite "marriage".

1. Marriage is reliant on sex. The seduction-sex counts as a vow of marriage, and, following the rules of vows, only if the father "utterly refuses" does the marriage not occur; as we covered in the "Israelite Marriage" post, fathers have the ability to veto any vow made by their daughters. However, once the couple has already had sex, it's a little late for the cancelling of a vow. Saying, "No, you can't marry" will not restore the daughter's virginity.
2. Marriage, though existing in connection to family, is mostly about the two individuals. The man may not divorce the woman because he has humbled her. Not her father. Not her family. She herself.

What's the Deal with Virginity?
     Virginity is another of those Biblical issues that relies on assumptions and ideals. A scholar of the Bible may notice that thought much mention is made of feminine virginity, not much mention is made of male virginity. This is the result of pragmatism. Though there is a (albeit possibly faulty) method for determining female virginity, there is no such test for male virginity (Deut 22:17). Ideally, whenever a woman was deflowered, she and her lover would be caught, and the rules of seduction would be applied, leaving no single non-virgin men wandering around.

     The status of virginity only matters in some cases, mostly in cases of secret adultery. There is no rule against marrying a widow or widower, except in the case of Levites. On the contrary, young widows are encouraged to marry again (1 Tim 5:14). A couple who has premarital sex is not barred from marrying each other. Ergo, virginity is not a requirement for marriage. One can marry without being a virgin.
     Virginity only becomes important in the case of Levites and adultery. Levites have stringent cleanliness laws different from the rest of Israel; they may only marry a virgin or the widow of another Levite (Ezekiel 44:22).
     Adultery comes into the picture like so: a woman is single when she is single (non-betrothed) or a widow. Divorce does not create singledom (Matthew 5:32). And, though betrothal is not a concrete relationship in regards to marriage (meaning it is not physical), it is a vow, being a solemn promise, and therefore, it must be fulfilled. If a Sarah is betrothed to Jethro, but she is carrying on with Robert behind the scenes, the vow of betrothal made by both she and her father is violated; Sarah can hardly become married to Jethro when she is de facto married to Robert through their sexual relationship; that would be tricking Jethro into adultery.
     We see this sort of circumstance in the New Testament with Mary and Joseph. Mary and Joseph are betrothed when Mary becomes pregnant. Thinking he's in a Jethro-Robert situation, Joseph decides to separate from Mary quietly (Matthew 1:19). In his mind, because she has had sex with another man, she is technically another man's wife, and he does not want to commit adultery, but rather than seeking the death penalty for Mary, he dissolves their betrothal.

(source)

     Indeed, virginity only to marriage matters if a lie is told about it. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 show the consequences of the lie of virginity in marriage. The scenario is this: if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin when they marry, her family is responsible for producing her "*tokens of virginity". If there are no tokens, the woman is executed for adultery. If the tokens are shown, the man is called to task, fined, and never allowed to divorce his wife (18-19). This scenario only works if the woman was presented as a virgin. Killing a widow for not being a virgin on her second wedding night is ridiculous--therefore, this case only came up if the parents lied or husband lied. If a man marries a woman he knows not a be a virgin, her virginity does not matter.

     Though lack of virginity was not a bar to marriage, it could present a thorny problem in the future of a woman. If she were seduced, caught, and paid for, but her father refused to let her marry, it seems she would be able to marry another man, but the question becomes 'who would marry her?' I believe that is what the payment was for. Typically, a dowry was given by a woman's family to her husband, with the understanding it was to help pay for the woman and mitigate the financial strain placed on the new family unit. However, in the case of seduction, the payment goes the other way, a reverse-dowry, if you will. This implies the woman would not be married later down the road, and the payment was to reduce her cost of living to her family. If the man is allowed to marry the woman, he still must pay, possibly to assuage the insult done to the family by his actions.

*[As far what the 'tokens' are, the matter is up for debate; it's commonly assumed the parents keep the wedding night bloody sheets, but the word translated as "cloth" in verse 17 does not mean "cloth" but "clothing", which does not make as much sense in the wedding night context, (ignoring the facts that A) not all women are born with hymens B) hymens can be broken by many things other than sex and C) sex does not always break the hymen). But, if the "bloody sheets" thing is right, this also definitively shows what sex acts do not count as virginity-taking...]

Validity of Seduction: Dinah and Shechem
    Theory is all well and good, but it's nice to have some concretes. Did this seduction actually happen in ancient Israel? How was the rule applied? How was a seduction-created marriage viewed? To answer these questions, we must delve into the most solid example of the seduction rule in the Bible, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. This story is not exactly perfect as it occurs before the establishment of the Law, however, the not-yet-existent Law if followed to the letter in this tale, and it presents an outlook on this type of arrangement.

     Dinah's story is found in Genesis 34, and it goes like this: one day, Dinah is out and about, visiting some friends. Along the way, she is seen by Shechem, a prince. He carries her off and seduces her. After the fact, though, Shechem no longer wishes to be a love-'em-and-leave-'em type; he finds himself to be in love with Dinah. He speaks kindly to her, and he makes an impression; she likes him back. Shechem tells his dad that he wants to marry Dinah and that his dad needs to make it happen.

     Jacob then hears what is happened, and a meeting is set between Jacob, Shechem, and his father. Jacob's sons are also present and very angry at the embarrassment given to their sister. Shechem's father presents a deal; in exchange for Jacob's permission for Dinah to marry Shechem, they will become one people--marrying back and forth, trading, and living together. Shechem sweetens the pot, saying, "Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give. Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife." (Gen 34:11-12 KJV). 

     Jacob keeps quiet, but his sons give the ultimatum; they will allow Shechem to marry Dinah only if every male in his kingdom is circumcised. 

     Shechem and his father agree; they go home, tell everyone the news, and every male is circumcised.

     Three days later, when the men were still recovering, Dinah's blood brothers, Simeon and Levi, murdered all of the men in the city. They killed Shechem and his father and kidnapped Dinah back home. Jacob's other sons arrived after the fact and spoiled the city, taking all the livestock, valuables, and kidnapping all of the remaining people. When Simeon and Levi make it back home, Jacob lectures them, saying they will bring violence upon the family. Simeon and Levi respond, "Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?" (Genesis 34:31)

Analysis

     The story of Dinah can be a confusing one for many people; it is commonly referred to as "The rape of Dinah", which, I'm sure, shows you where the confusion lies. Assuming what occurred was rape, many side with her brothers, wondering why her father would disagree with the punishment righteously handed out. Others, still assuming rape, use this story to prove why women should marry their rapists; because love is the result!
     But, what others assume doesn't matter, because it's not a matter of rape. Shechem seduces Dinah, and Dinah allows herself to be seduced. It's an embarrassment on the family because Dinah is a loose woman; she was supposed to be visiting friends but was doing the nasty with a stranger instead. However, Shechem and she do develop feelings for each other--further showing this is a case of seduction based on mutual attraction. Dinah's family is not outraged because of a rape; they are outraged because of the implications Dinah's actions put on their family.
     Shechem does the right thing; though he and Dinah were not "found", as the hypothetical couple in Deuteronomy 22, he brings the event into the open and starts negotiations with Dinah's father. Shechem recognizes and respects Jacob's right to say "no" to the de facto promise made by his sex with Dinah. If Shechem wanted, he could have kept Dinah whether Jacob said "no" or not--he is a prince with his people at his back. At the time, Jacob and his people are "few in number" (Gen 34:30), but Shechem respects Jacob. In following with the law that is eventually created, Shechem offers payment to redress the embarrassment--any amount of goods or money in exchange for Dinah. Jacob's sons reply "deceitfully" (34:13) and demand the circumcision of an entire people.
    Shechem continues to be shown in an extremely positive light, "And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter; and he was more honorable than all the house of his father" (34:19).
     Where Shechem and his father are presented positively throughout the story, special care is taken to shown the brutality and dishonesty of Dinah's brothers. There is no doubt they were in the wrong. Their viciousness is further criticized in Genesis 49, when Jacob is giving his last words to his children before dying.
"Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united; for in their anger they slew a man...cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel" (Gen 49:5-7).
     Simeon and Levi were cursed because they did the wrong thing. Dinah was not raped, and the forms had been followed. Shechem was a good man despite his slip up, and Dinah was happy. Though their marriage came from seduction, it was legitimate. Jacob did not veto, and Shechem offered to pay any price to make up for his rudeness. Once Jacob did not veto, the marriage was official; both requirements were met, if out of the usual order. Dinah was not Shechem's concubine; she was not a prostitute; she was Shechem's wife, and her brothers committed heinous trickery and murder for absolutely no reason. There was no revenge to be had--no insult done that was not undone, and that is why they were punished.

Conclusion
     Going back to the question of "what is Israelite marriage?", we receive the same answer from looking at seduction-based marriage. A marriage occurs when a man and woman have sex with each other without the veto of the woman's father (if she has one). Though the order is important--to the tune of 50 shekels and the inability to divorce--having sex before obtaining non-veto does not make a marriage evil, cursed, or less legitimate. One can still be "honorable" in one of these marriages, and the attack of such marriages is wrong.

     [Indirectly, this also answers the question of pre-marital sex. Though it is often portrayed as a horrible sin, that just isn't the case. The wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23), but the wages of premarital sex are clearly fifty shekels, not death, as Simeon and Levi assumed. Premarital sex is an expensive rudeness that should lead to marriage but does not have to.]

Israelite Marriage Part II: Rape vs. Seduction in Israelitism

    Carrying on to our next stop in the journey of Israelite marriage, in this post, we'll be looking at rape and seduction and the differences between them, followed by a more in-depth look at rape. To follow is a post with a more-in depth look at seduction.

     It's a bit of a sordid topic, but it is important due to the many misconceptions about it and how those misconceptions are perceived. The topic is also a a serious one, and I intend to explain it with due diligence.

[Disclaimer: if not obvious from the title, this is not a post for the kiddies. We're going to delve into some unsavory things, and I'm not one for mincing words]

Behold: Tasteful and topical Classical nudity!

Rape vs. Seduction

    The key problem in this topic is the differentiation of "rape" and "seduction" in the Bible. As with most things, it boils down to translation. In the NIV version of the Bible, the two different words are translated as the same word; "rape". This is obviously an issue for many reasons. I've heard many volleys hurled towards Abrahamic religions in regards to this mistranslation.
     The verses in question are typically Deuteronomy 22:28-29. In the NIV, they read, "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 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."
     The fallout from this translation is huge. The non-religious say, "How could you support a God who supports rape?!". I've heard religious teachers try to explain it away while keeping to that definition, "rape", "Well, this way, the now non-virgin woman would be provided for all her days! So it's a good thing." For an individual male, this leads to the thought, "If a woman doesn't want me, all I have to do is rape her, and we'll be together forever!". I'm sure you can imagine how believing this would cause problems.
     In addition to being disgusting in implication, all of these thoughts are just plain wrong. The word does not mean "rape" at all. When taking the word to the original writing, it means "to lie down", the meaning dependent upon the context. It can mean to lie down for a nap, to sleep, to die, or to engage in sexual intercourse. However, there is no implication of violence or force; the word is restful in all of its connotations (link). It is inappropriately translated as "rape" in many cases of the Bible when the closest word we have in English for it is "seduce". The Bible does not call for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist. The image is completely different; instead, if a woman and a man are fooling around without the knowledge of her father, she may be forced to marry that man.

Rape in the Bible
     Indeed, rape in the Bible is something entirely different and carries a completely different set of consequences. In Deuteronomy 22:25-26, KJV, we see the consequences of rape. "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. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter."
     The key is the verbs in the respective verses. In verses 25-26, we have the added verb "force" to the "lie down" verb. In the Hebrew, "force" is a similar word, denoting the use of strength and the action of overcoming another's strength (link). Verses 25-26 show a rape. A woman is forced against her will to have sexual relations with the man. It is equated to murder, and rightly so. Unlike in other aspects of the Law, (Deut 17:6) that require more than one witness for a death sentence, this law seems to be an exception. The Bible does not take rape lightly, and nor should we.
     In contrast, verses 28-29 lack the "force" verb. Though there is the word translated (in the KJV) as "lay hold of", it does not bear the same meaning as "force". Instead, it means "to manipulate" or "to use unwarrantably". This man is not so much a rapist as a trickster, using smooth words to gain consent. He's more of the "love 'em and leave 'em" type. Therefore, he is not punished in the same way as a rapist; instead, he is made to take responsibility for the woman he would have left.

To review: "rape" and "seduction" in the Bible are two distinctly separate actions. Rape is equated to murder, where seduction is seen more as a breach of protocol. A raped woman is not treated any differently than any other woman; her status is not affected by her rape.

(Note: Whenever you come across a verse in the Bible that uses "rape" "ravish" "lie down with" "take hold of" etc etc etc, I strongly suggest you research into the matter before making the wrong assumption. The best resource I can recommend is the Strong's Concordance which provides a definition for every translated word in the Bible from its source word)

Shown: Force

Shown: Seduction

Biblical Rape vs. Modern Rape

     If you were reading attentively to the above section, you may have noticed some holes in coverage for the rules. Rape indeed is the same as murder, but what, precisely, constitutes a rape? For one, it is not the same as the modern conception of rape, and for two, it relies on a system of assumptions that may or may not be in place.

     According to the Department of Justice, the legal definition of rape in modern America is, "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim...[the definition] includes any gender of victim or perpetrator, and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent" (source).

     The Biblical definition is a little trickier to pin down. For one, the only type of rape we are given is male-on-female. Female-on-male rape is not addressed (more on that in the "assumptions" section), nor is male-on-male rape directly addressed. Instead, we must string together a series of examples to form a picture of what was considered rape.

1. When a man physically forces a woman to have sex with him (implied any kind of sexual goings on); this is seen as the equivalent of murder (Deut 22:25-26)
2. Male-on-male rape is possibly worse than male-on-female rape: 

• In Genesis 19, Lot is confronted with a mob who wish to "know" the two angels who are currently visiting. Hoping to placate the mob, Lot offers his two daughters instead, making the point that they are virgins. The crowd threatens to "do worse" to Lot and begin to attack him. Luckily, at this point, the angels strike the mob with blindness. Now, this is a loose example. For one, Lot was not the best guy (see, offering up his daughters to a fate equal to murder), and this took place before the Law was given. However, we see from his attitude that, at least to Lot, it would be preferable for his daughters to be raped than for his guests.

• To support this, we see another story, this one featuring a Levite, in Judges 19. The Levite is travelling with his concubine, and an old man invites them to stay at his home. That night, a mob appears and demands to "know" the Levite. The old man offers his own virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine, saying, "but unto this man do not so vile a thing". The mob refuses, but the Levite gives them his concubine. They rape her to death.The resulting outrage from the nation of Israel results in the near extermination of the entire tribe of Benjamin. Like the above example, this one is not perfect. For one, a Levite should not have a "concubine"; she should be his wife, fully. Secondly, though both the old man and the Levite consider the violence the mob intends to be horrific, giving up the concubine to be raped to death is not a good act. The Bible does not support allowing others to be murdered; however, this does show how desperate the old man and Levite were to prevent this male-on-male rape.

     Missing from the Biblical definition are female-on-male rape and forced consent. In the Bible, we do see three examples of what could be considered female-on-male rape today. 

    The first is Lot's daughters. In the later half of Genesis 19, we see that Lot's daughters, thinking the whole world was destroyed, decide to get their dad drunk and sleep with him to preserve humanity. Their plan is a success, and both become pregnant, eventually giving birth to the Moabites and the Ammonites, respectively (being two of the Enemy Nations to Israel for the rest of the Bible). However, what the daughters did is not considered rape; instead, it is like the scenario in Deuteronomy 28:29; they tricked their father, but he did, in fact, consent. When going to the original translation, we find "and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, but he did perceive when she arose" (Gen 19:33), and her sister follows suit the next night. The younger sister pulls off the same trick. The second daughter's success shows us the full story; though Lot did not necessarily know what was going on the first time, he did know the second, and yet he still allowed it to happen, showing that he did not mind. As a result of their incest, we see the birth of two enemy nations to Israel (in this way, it is similar to the story of Sarah, Abraham, and Hagar). Also, note the lack of the "force" verb. 

Terrible dad. All I'm sayin'.

     The second example is that of Judah and Tamar, found in Genesis 38. Due to a long series of circumstance, Tamar is the widowed daughter-in-law of Judah, son of Jacob. she dresses up like a prostitute, seduces Judah, then blackmails him with incriminating evidence once she discovers she is pregnant. She gives birth to twins, and becomes an established member of the family. Though not so heinous as the actions of Lot's daughters, Tamar's seduction is just that; seduction. She tricked Judah into believing she was a prostitute, but he did, ultimately, consent. Judah even says Tamar acted more righteously than he did (Gen 38:26), putting her actions firmly into the "not rape" category.

     The third example is Potiphar's wife and Joseph, found in Genesis 39. In this chapter, Joseph is acting top-slave for Potiphar, an official of Egypt. Joseph is a bit of a hotty, and before long, Potiphar's wife takes an interest in him. She tries to seduce him, saying, "lie with me" (Gen 39:7), but Joseph refuses. After some time of this song and dance, she catches Joseph alone, "and she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out." (Gen 39:12 KJV).  The key verb in this verse is "caught". Though the word is translated as "caught", it is the very same verb used to show seduction--"to manipulate". Just like in Deuteronomy, when a man seduces a woman, Potiphar's wife was attempting to seduce Joseph. Her intent was not to bump him over the head and have her way with him. Instead, she manipulated his clothing, saying, "come have sex with me". Because Potiphar's wife cannot "force" Joseph, she turns to "manipulation" instead.

Biblical Assumptions for Rape

     The examples in this section lead us to the second difference between modern and Biblical ideas of rape. Biblical considerations of rape depend on a web of assumptions that must be in place. 

1. No single, unbetrothed woman will be raped (Deut 22)
2. A raped woman must fight back or resist (Deut 22:25-27 and 22:24). This will not only lead to the capture of her rapist and prevention of the rape, it will dually serve to prove her innocence in the matter.
3. People will help prevent rape (Deut 22:24, 22:27)
4. No one will lie about rape (Gen 39:14-18, Deut 25-27)
5. Men are upright, honorable, and ultimately good (Gen 19 and 38)

     Ultimately, it boils down to one big assumption: The only way for a person to get raped is if a woman is alone with no one to help her. If there are people, she will be saved. If a man remains sober, he will not be raped, and if he is upright, he will not be tricked.

Explanations for Assumptions

1. One of the reasons people tend to go with the "a woman must marry her rapist!" idea is the different descriptions of women in the verses. In Deuteronomy 22:28, the woman described is specifically an "unbetrothed" woman. In the verses 25-27, the woman is betrothed. This leads many to assume it's a matter of property--it's okay to rape a woman who belongs to no man, but not okay to rape a woman who does belong to a man through betrothal. To make clear, "betrothal" is the de facto state after marriage is promised but not yet consummated. However, it is not a matter of property, as shown by the verbs, "to manipulate into sex" versus "to force to have sexual relations". What this shows is an assumption that in a good and proper world, unbetrothed women would only be seduced, not raped by force. I am not sure why this is the assumption; my guess is that unbetrothed woman were either A) too young to be betrothed, making the seduction a case of child molestation, B) not left on their own, disallowing them from being  in a field, unprotected, at risk to a rapist. Betrothed women, on the contrary, were often given "married" status, meaning they were not protected in the same way as unbetrothed women. Where an unbetrothed woman would live with her family, probably with familial guardians when she walked abroad, a married or betrothed woman was free to live with her husband/fiance, and if her husband was busy, she might indeed be walking alone where she could be preyed upon.
2. The whole goal of the "fight back" clause is to prevent the rape. The idea is presented in the negative sense, "If she was raped in a city, that means she didn't cry out, which would have prevented the occurrence". However, this assumption relies on other assumptions--that the people would hear her screams, that she would be free to scream--her mouth would not be covered, and she would not be unconscious. 
3. Linking to the above assumption, there is another that follows; that people, hearing a woman scream, would arrive in time to defend the woman and capture the rapist. As we saw in the stories of Lot and the Levite, the opposite is sometimes true. Sometimes, people will hear the screams and A) do nothing or B) join in the rape. 
4. In the rules about rape, we see that a woman screaming means instant death for the perpetrator. However, this law only works if the woman does not lie. We see in the story of Joseph that he is imprisoned unjustly due to the false report of Potiphar's wife. According to Israelite law, rather than prison, Joseph would have been executed; all that is required is the scream of the woman. However, the Bible does acknowledge Joseph's imprisonment as wrong; therefore, the law relies on honesty.
5. In modern American law, a drunk/high man who has sex with a sober person has been raped. His state disallows consent on his part. However, the Bible takes a hard stance against drunkenness, (Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, Ephesians 5:18, Isaiah 5:22, Hosea 4:11, and many more places), and the implication is this: if a man allows himself to become drunk, anything that happens as a result of his drunkenness is his own fault, or, as the adage goes, "A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts", this time turning "words" to "actions". Lot sleeps with his daughters because he is drunk. Because Judah is drunk with lust, he sleeps with a prostitute who is actually his daughter in law. Only Joseph escapes the seduction before him, because he is a sober and upright man. 

Conclusion

     The key issue with the Biblical assumptions is this; once one of them is broken, it all falls in; in a perfect world, people would follow the Law, and none of these other laws would be necessary. Any scoundrel or nonbeliever evil enough to break the Law would be apprehended immediately by righteous people and summarily punished. Men would be sober enough to fend off any unwanted advances. However, we do not live in a perfect society. We have occurrences that fall outside of these rules; we can only do our best in regards to these things.

Also; the Law does not call for a woman to marry her rapist!!! For a  more in-depth look at seduction, check out the next post!