Alternative Viewpoints: What's Wrong With the Modesty Movement [Version 2.0 Updated and Altered]

(source)

In many religions and religious sects, modesty--especially the modesty of women--is an important issue and strong rule. I've done small forays into modesty research in the past few years, but I decided to go more full-hog and make a post for you guys a few weeks ago.

    I was travelling, visiting family, and we went to a local-ish Hebrew gathering. It was a special day; there was going to be a guest speaker; one of the families was welcoming a new member into the world, and our whole family was together for the first time in awhile. The gathering took place in a Baptist church, which provided an interesting contrast with the tzitzit, head coverings, and traditional dancing. There was some singing, news-sharing, and a lovely meal. Then, I went to the bathroom. It was a lovely place--painted white with tasteful flowers on the sink. Inside the stall, there was a sign that said something very like, "MODEST. Not because I am responsible for others' sin. Not because I am ashamed of my Yah-given beauty. But because I am the DAUGHTER of a KING and act as a DIPLOMAT." Something like that.

     It bothered me a little. Okay, it bothered me a lot. For starters, I hate being preached to while in the bathroom. Who decided that was the best place to address these things? Secondly, I have a strong distaste for written "religious" things that cite or reference no verses. Thirdly, the logic of the writing did not make any sense. It's a non sequitur. I am a daughter of a king, so that means I must be modest? I am the daughter of a king, so I am automatically a diplomat? I have beauty, but I should cover it up? And that will somehow enhance the beauty, which is a modest thing to want? When I asked the males in our party if they had such a note in their bathroom, the answer was to the negative (even though men largely walk around in pants! Gasp!).

Modesty=Beauty? Modesty=Power? I thought modesty meant "the quality or state of being unassuming or moderate in the estimation of one's abilities." But what do I know? (Source/source)

    Some time after that, I was visiting family elsewhere and visited another church--this time, Christian--and in their women's bathroom, on the mirror, was a note that said something like, "You are not the makeup on your face!" Well, thanks, note. Without you, I would never, ever realize that makeup and faces are not the same thing.

 Troubling Twist/Disclaimer
     This is an added piece for the 2.0 Version. Someone close to me said the original post was a little unclear and could be taken offensively, and I felt bad about that. I thought about the message I was trying to broadcast, and I have altered the post. This is the section to say, "hey, if your read the post the first time and had a similar reaction, I'm trying to make things right."
     Disclaimer: When I write these Alternative Viewpoint posts, I tend to take on a bit of an on-the-offense writing style. It might seem overwhelming and have the flavor of an attack. I want to be clear: I do not mean to attack people in my writings, but I do mean to attack ideas. I do not mind when a fully-informed adult person makes a choice or series of choices. I do not intend offense to those people in the slightest.
     However, I do not like misinformation. I do not want well-meaning people following a "rule" they think is a law when it isn't. I do not want my belief system slandered for things that it is not responsible for. I do not want people scared away from a wonderful way of living by the misinformation they may come across. I don't want people unhappy, following a way that is not necessary. I get angry at those things when they happen, and that shows up in my writing.

     The "Troubling Twist" is to make more clear the idea I wish to attack in this post. The idea is shown in the note I saw in the first bathroom and the quote by Jason Evert. In the modern Christian (and a bit Israelite, but I don't think it's nearly so bad) Modesty Movement, things have taken a troubling twist. 'Modesty' is being thrown around like a stylish buzzword, equated to beauty, power, status. "Modest is the Hottest" shows up as the first result when the words "Modesty" and "Christian" are typed into google. Blogs are written. Businesses advertise, "Look hot in our modest fashion!". We'll get a bit more into this problem later in this post, but I hope you can see the discrepancy.
     As a woman, I see another problem coming from this Troubling Twist; the uneven application of the modesty "rule" has frightening connotations. All over, men are telling women how to dress--That being modest will make them "sexy". That being modest will protect the men from their "impure" thoughts. This is part of the reason the blame for "rape culture" is placed on the doorstep of religion. And, they're right. This view of "modesty" makes it both a commodity and a deterrent. Is it sexy or not? This viewpoint encourages men to have no control over their own thoughts and actions, contrary to what the Bible says (more on that later).

    And, while men are policing, infantilizing, and objectifying the women who share their faith, there is nothing running the other way. Men are not being encouraged to be modest. There are some events Sven and I will never attend because the rules state "women must wear skirts while here"; Women can't wear pants, but men can.....just because (more on this later, too!). The Law of God applies to everyone*, but that is ignored. Rules are implemented, and traditions grow, and they are not Biblical. People striving to be good are misled.
   

[*Now, there are Biblical laws that apply to different groups of people. There are laws for priests, laws for widows, laws for kings, laws for men, and laws for women. However, these laws only exist where they specifically apply to the designated group. For example, women must do certain things once they give birth (Leviticus 12). This only applies to women, because women are the only people who can give birth. Kings are directed how to rule, because they are the only ones with that power. Clothing, however, is something everyone wears.]

 Looking at what the modern idea of "modesty" has become, it is necessary to ask--what is modesty? What does it entail? Who does it apply to? What does it look like?

What is Modesty?
    "Modesty" is certainly an important concept in the Bible; it is mentioned many times. However, only a small fraction of those verses deal with clothing. I Timothy 2:9 says, "I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes". Isaiah 3:16-24 details a curse given to the women of Israel ending thusly, "Instead of fragrance there will be a stench; instead of a sash, a rope; instead of well-dressed hair, baldness; instead of fine clothing, sackcloth; instead of beauty, branding". I Peter 3:3 says, "Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes."
     These are the verses most often used to back up the "Women, dress modestly" edicts. However, deriving a verdict on "modesty" from these verses is narrow-sighted.
 
 Notice:

1. Not one of these verses comes from the Law. God did not deem this sort of thing important enough to include when setting forth the law for the creation of an entire nation. There's a law about birds' nests, but not about modesty.
2. Not one of these verses says "do not". I Timothy is a letter written to Timothy from Paul telling him how to spread the word of God to non-believers. Isaiah, though painting certain things in a negative light, never says "do not wear", but rather illustrates the outcome of vanity. I Peter talks about the source of beauty. Peter would agree with the "You are not the makeup on your face!" note; however, he does not say, "do not wear fine clothing". 
3. The laws detail clothing quality rather than clothing items. The women are not chastised for wearing too little clothing, but too much. It's a matter of allotment. How much money was spent? How much time was spent? What is the purpose of these clothes?

What Does the Law Say?

     Though there are no laws on modesty, there are laws dealing with clothing.

• Deuteronomy 22:11-12: “Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. 12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.”
• Alright, so, no wool-linen blends. Got it. Nothing about modesty here.
• Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
• No cross-dressing, I see. Nothing about modesty. (Check out this post by Sven for a more-in depth look at this verse and its meaning)
• Numbers 15:38: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:" (ah, tzitzit)
• Indeed, it is important to remember the Law, but this has nothing to do with modesty.
• Leviticus contains many rules about the washing of clothes, but that has nothing to do with modesty, either.

     So. We have laws about bird nests. Laws about washing. Laws about eating, drinking, and sleeping. Laws about using the bathroom. Laws of inheritance and genealogy. But not one law about modesty. Not one law that says "Women, you must wear long, heavy skirts" or "Women, don't you be caught dead in a tank top, thus saith the Lord". This shows that clothing choice, in the grand scheme of things, is not important. It is not important to wear a head covering. The choice to tuck or not tuck a shirt is not important. The distinction between "too low" and "just right" for a neckline is not important. It doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the will of God. It has no religious bearing.

Other Verses in the Bible
     Though there are no laws about modesty, it is important to consider the varied and vehement verses of the New Testament. Looking at them, braided hair is right out, as are nice clothes. Gold, pearls, and other jewelry is definitely bad. Let's look at some more verses, shall we?
     Proverbs 31 contains such gems as, "[A virtuous woman] girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms. She perceives that her merchandise is good...Her clothing is silk and purple...she makes fine linen, and sells it...strength and honor are her clothing; And she shall rejoice in the time to come."
     Let's recap. The clothing of a virtuous woman is:

1. Strength (to act as undies!)
2. Silk
3. Purple
4. Strength (again!)
5. and honor

     Notice what was not seen. "A dress". "A long skirt". "Something that is modest!". "Something that does not reveal her beauty!". We see more descriptions about her actions and attitudes than her actual garments. She should be strong. She should be honorable. She should be strong; as Peter noted in I Peter 3:3; beauty does not come from clothes. She doesn't need clothes to be a wonderful person. She has the rest of her skills to recommend her. She would be just as wonderful dressed in a potato sack, but because she works hard, she has nice purple silk to wear. This also shows a small conundrum. The criticism towards women's clothing in the New Testament verses have to do with rich clothing, but the virtuous woman wears nice rich clothing. This shows the clothing itself is not the problem; the women wearing the clothes are. The virtuous woman is clothed in purple silk and strengthx2 and honor. The bad women are probably clothed in purple silk, self-absorptionx2 and haughtiness.

Sumptuous (source)

     Where Proverbs 31 smacks down any ideas we might have against nice clothing, Psalms does the same for jewelry and nice smells. In Psalm 45, David writes a "song of loves" that talks about a royal wedding. The bride is described in grand, flowering language, "...your garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia...so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty...the king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. She shall be brought unto the kind in raiment of needlework..." David is often called "a man after God's own heart" even by the Big Man Himself, so it doesn't seem likely he'd compliment something so heavily that wasn't good. Similarly, there are many verses in the Bible that view gemstones and precious metals (pearls, gold, silver, etc ) in a very positive light, showing these things to not be inherently bad, either.

Bling bling. Traditional Hebrew wedding clothes. (source)

Common Arguments for Modesty, Debunked
     Well, now we know that there isn't a Biblical basis for wearing a uniform, because the clothes don't matter as much as the person wearing them. Let's look at the various reasons people use to support the modest uniforming of women.

1. Immodest dress promotes lust in men! This isn't fair, and a woman should have consideration for her weak male counterparts!
• Yeshua made it quite clear what he thought about this argument in Matthew 5:28. The blame goes on the luster, not the lustee, regardless of circumstance. Rather than assume men are weak, perverted things who must be protected from themselves, Yeshua believes men are strong and capable of self-control.
• (Also, this argument totally ignores the reverse--ladies lusting after men, à la the "strange woman" of Proverbs)
2. If you respect yourself, you shouldn't wear certain clothes!
• The biggest problem with this argument is its complete lack of Biblical basis. The Bible doesn't care much for self-respect.
• Also, as clearly shown by the verses of Proverbs 31 and I Peter 3, clothes don't any inherent connection to worth. A wonderful person can wear nice clothes, and a wonderful person may be dirty and dressed in rags. Self respect doesn't factor in.
3. Religious people are called to be separate from "the World", and the way to do that is through clothes!
• Interestingly enough, though most Christian and Israelite folk can quote exactly what I'm referring to, "Be in the world, but not of it", this saying is not a Biblical verse. Rather, it is a concept derived from a collection of verses. (Emphases mine below)
• John 15:19: If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
• In this verse, Yeshua addresses his followers, telling them they are not of the world by nature of their following of Him. He doesn't mention their clothes. 
• John 17:14: I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
• Yeshua prays for his followers, again saying they are not of the world by default. There is no mention of clothes.
• I John 2:15: Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.
• Here we get a little bit more of a cautionary rule, "Don't love the world!!! Aka clothes!" but the verse goes on to tell us exactly what "love of the world" is. Lust of the flesh. Lust of the eyes. Pride. Nothing about clothes. And, again, if clothes were involved in the lusting, it is the luster who gets the blame, not the lustee.
• The verse emphasizes doing the will of God--the Law--which contains no laws for modesty.
• James 4:4: Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
• Similarly to the verse from I John, this verse condemns getting on with "the world", but if you look at the beginning of the verse, it is addressed specifically to adulterers and adulteresses. One can commit adultery while dressing modestly in the meantime. One can wear provocative clothing and never commit adultery. The verse is not addressed to "Scantily-clad people/adulterers!". It's about action and not about clothes at all.
• Conclusion: We don't need to separate ourselves through clothing. We separate ourselves through our beliefs, actions, and following the "will of God" (which, remember, doesn't include clothing rules!). We are separate through our holidays, our diet, our behavior, and our hope. 
• Also, if we wanted to show how "different" we were though our clothing, we'd have to be much more creative; fundamentalist Christians are often indistinguishable from a uniformed Israelite. Muslims have us beat as far as "modesty" is concerned. Orthodox Jews dress similarly, but in more black. Mennonites and Amish people wear modest clothing and head coverings at all times. If I am indistinguishable from a Muslim/Mormon/Christian Fundamentalist because I rely on my clothing to separate me, I have a problem and need to read the Bible some more.
4. Israelite women in Ye Olden Days wore dresses that covered them from neck to toe! Why should we be any different? (Funnily enough, this argument is also used by Christians)
• This ignores that Israelite men also wore "dresses" during that time, and I've yet to see a modern Christian or Israelite man sporting a robe.
• They wore this type of outfit because everyone during that time in that place wore that outfit. It's what makes sense in a desert environment. Bedouins and middle-eastern folk still wear this type of clothing today. It keeps the sun off; it's breezy. (Also, how does this fit into the "set apart" bit, I wonder? Ancient Israelites look like any Afghani today. Food for thought).
• Israelite people in Ye Olden Days did a great many things, like burn their children alive, force their servants into sex slavery, commit idolatry, and a great amount of other unsavory things. The ancient Israelites doing of something is not enough for us to do the same. Abraham married his half-sister; should you?

Quick! Are they Muslims or Jews? Neither! Russian Orthodox! (source)

Logic
    To support our "modesty is not about clothing" idea, I wish to present a few logical conundrums. In the Modesty Movement, the modesty rules can often be viewed strictly, as the most important rule there is. Ask yourself as you read these questions, can a person be "modest" in these situations? Is modesty the most important aspect?

1. A person is injured in a grievous car accident. They need surgery on their abdomen. Is it immodest for them to receive this operation that will certainly require the removal of their clothing?
2. Your house is on fire. You run into the street. You are dressed in your pajamas, and they do not cover you knee-to-neck. Should you seek help to put out the fire or find a way to get full clothing first?
3. You are taking a shower in the morning, and you hear a cry for help outside your house. There is a person in dire need of assistance. Do you rush out to help them, or do you take the time to towel off and dress fully first?
4. Your child has a friend spending the night. The friend is bathing when they fall and hit their head. You hear the sound from the hallway, but you know the friend is naked. Should you help them or leave them to drown?

     Yeshua has a few things to say on this topic. 

     In Matthew 25:34-40, he says the following: “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?  When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

      Yeshua focuses on the deeds of a worthy person rather than their appearance. Clothing has no bearing on giving a thirsty person water or caring for them when they are sick. These deeds could be done by someone covered from head to toe in a burka or a person on the beach. There is a mention of giving clothing, but the type of clothing is not specified, nor is the clothing worn by the giver described. The people who help "the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" are blessed by God. There is no clause that says "if they were properly dressed". 

She can help a person and be blessed for it (source)

So can she (source)

     When asked the greatest commandment in Matthew 22, Yeshua replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Loving God with everything is the most important; loving your neighbor is the second most important. Why? Yeshua tells us; because the rest of the law depends on these two. These are the source two, if you will. However, the Law does not contain any rules about modesty. Physical modesty has no bearing on the greatest commandments.

So, What is Modesty?

     This is the point where some readers may be jumping out of their chairs, believing I am endorsing nudity, or saying people can run around in lingerie. That, however, is not so. Let's revisit our question from earlier, "What is modesty?" Remember, there were many verses, and only a few had to do with clothes. There were, however, many many verses dealing with humility as modesty. Or, a mental modesty, if you will. Humility is written about in much vaster quantities than clothing. We are told to think of ourselves "with sober judgement" (Romans 12:3). We are advised to take a lowly spot rather than a high spot in Proverbs 24:5-7. Proverbs 29:23 tells us, "Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor". In Luke 22:25-27, Yeshua tells his followers they should serve others rather than expecting to be served. I Peter 5:5 shares this nugget of wisdom, "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble." This theme is seen throughout the Bible. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18), after all. Revisiting the curse from Isaiah 3, it begins, "The women of Zion are haughty", and then details their clothing. Their primary offense is not their clothing or their hair or their jewelry; it is their manner. They are filled with pride instead of humility. Haughtiness instead of honor and strength.

What Should We Wear?
     This is the tricky bit. If there is no law, no outline, no clear list of what to wear in the Bible, how do we know? I say, let your humility be your guide. If you spend more time and money buying and choosing clothes than anything else, you probably have a problem. If you ignore someone in need because you're saving for a new outfit, you probably have a problem.

Less of this.

     If your outfit is chosen to showcase or hide your arms/butt/legs/stomach, then it's probably not something you should wear. If your outfit makes you ask, "does my _________ look bad/good in this?" then you probably shouldn't wear it.  If clothes can make you feel good or bad, you are probably putting way too much stock into the way you look. I purposely included both positive and negative considerations for the body in these examples. I believe that it's quantitative rather than qualitative. If you're thinking about how you need to cover or flaunt x or y, you're thinking about your body too much and giving it a weight it doesn't warrant.

More of this.

     This may seem a little extreme. It's easy to follow modesty "rules" when you can point at a person in a bikini and say, "I'm doing better than them." It's harder to ask yourself how much time you spend on choosing and wrapping your head-covering or doing your hair, and why. It's hard to think about your exercise habits--health, or vanity? It's hard to compare your time spent daily on your appearance compared to your time spent directly helping others. It's hard to not think about how you look, the impact you make, how you fit in or stick out; it's a rather human thing to be concerned with yourself. It's hard to be humble, but that's what God cares about. That is humility. That is modest.

Conclusion
     Wearing a uniform doesn't make one a good person. It doesn't make it easier or harder to be a good person. A person in a skirt can lie just as easily as a person in pants. Forcing a dress code for a religious event does not make people more holy; instead, if forces the focus to people's clothing rather than their actions. Our actions and attitude are more important than our clothes; we should shine no matter how we are dressed. Clothing is not meant to be a crutch to draw attention to our behavior.
     The virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 wears silk and purple. King David, the man after God's own heart, danced half naked in front of his entire kingdom, and when his wife criticized him for his immodesty, he told her he was dancing for the Lord, not the people. It is implied she was stricken with barrenness for her criticism. [Note; in the verses, it says specifically that David wore a "linen ephod", which is a full-coverage garment. So, contrary to the image in the picture below, when his wife said he was "half naked", it's likely that David danced so hard he flashed the populace rather than stripping down to a loincloth to boogie]

"Put my hands in the air, wave 'em like I just don't care"-David (source)

The high priests of Israel were commanded to deck themselves out like a treasury room. Adam and Eve, the original people, created in God's own image, did not wear clothes until they decided they were ashamed of their nakedness and attempted to improve upon what God had already declared "good". Clothing is, quite literally, a human construction.

Answer: Well, according to Hebrews 4:13, we're all naked to Him, anyway. So, yeah, I would be. (source)

So let's make it less about clothing and more about deeds. More about strength (x2!) and honor than the length of a skirt or the expanse of a head covering. Let's care less about what we wear and how we wear it. Let's focus on the soul of people rather than their circumstance. Let's look at how people follow what's (actually) in the Law instead of some construction of mankind. Instead of keeping people out of our spaces and places because of how they dress, let's invite them in, because, as Yeshua said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners" (Mark 2:17).

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!

Alternate Viewpoints: Israelite Marriage

Hello again!

Today, I'll be exploring and explaining the different views Israelites have on marriage/weddings/dating as well as looking at what the Bible actually says. As I mentioned in my last post, the Israelite community is big into what is sometimes called "deliberate" marriages. Today, I'll be tackling a couple of things. For you newbies, I will explain in greater detail the workings of deliberate marriages, and for both newbies and old hats, I'll present an alternate viewpoint.

[NOTE: Adult content warning! As we are looking at marriage, there will be some rated R things said/shown in this post. They are Biblical rated R things, but rated R nonetheless.]

Without further ado, let's get into it.

(Source)

Deliberate Marriages and "Hebrew Israelites"
     A large portion of Israelite people refer to themselves as "Hebrew Israelites", in an attempt to differentiate themselves from Israelis, as well as to add something of their character to the religion. For the purposes of the following post, I will use "Hebrew" to denote the culture that often accompanies Israelitism but does not come directly from the religion itself. For example, many Hebrew Israelites mothers use cloth diapers. There is no law in the Bible regarding cloth diapers, but the usage of cloth diapers is something found in higher percentages in the group "Hebrew Israelite" than in a random assortment of Americans.
     Hebrew Israelites are the Israelites, to my knowledge, most interested in the idea of a deliberate marriage. Regardless of the parents' marriage origin, the Hebrew Israelite parent regards deliberate marriages as "God's Plan for Marriage", saying it is the ideal form of marriage, resulting in the best marriage relationships and families, etc etc. A deliberate marriage consists of many precise steps. I will render them as best I'm able; I have experienced a deliberate marriage secondhand through my brother, but I have not been able to find any fantastic sources to outline the steps for you guys. If I mess any of them up, I apologize heartily. For the purpose of explanation, I'll take the part of a single Hebrew Israelite lady who lives far away from her possible gentleman (this is a common scenario; most Israelite communities are spread far apart from each other. It's usual for couples to come from different states, etc).

• Step 1:  Recognize a desire for marriage. Talk to your parents about finding a proper prospective husband.
• Step 2: Your parents will begin putting out feelers with acquaintances, acquaintances-of-acquaintances, different congregations/communities, etc, looking for a suitable suitor.
• Step 3: Once a possible fella is found, your parents may set up a meeting with said sir and his parents to see if he passes muster. You may or may not know when/if this is occurring. Your parents will interview the guy in regards to his personality, background, interests, beliefs, wishes for the future, etc., to make sure it is all kosher. If a red flag comes up--conflicting personality/interest/belief, etc--they will politely cut off contact and resume the search. Assuming the man passes the test, they move on to:
• Step 4: Contact! You are informed of your suitor's name and background and given a way to contact him. Depending on where you live/how strict your parents are feeling, it could be emails sent back and forth, read by your parents first to make sure nothing too saucy is being said. This is the time for you to get to know your possible spouse's personality and see if they're the sort of person you could marry.
• Step 5: Simultaneous to your communication, your family will still be checking out the guy, and his family will probably be scrutinizing you, as well. Contacts will be utilized, internet history will be searched, and every action is observed to check for suitability.
• Step 6: First meeting! If some time has passed and it seems both parties are on board, a meeting will be arranged. The meeting, and subsequent meetings, are chaperoned by a family member/family friend. This is a chance to build a relationship with the person. Little to no physical contact will be allowed between you and your future husband at this point. Expect to sit on a different couch than him, no hand holding! and certainly no hugging or other physical affections.
• Step 7: Approval. If all is in order, your families (ie: "fathers") will agree to allow your relationship to progress to the next level. Hurray! It's time for:
• Step 8: Betrothal! At this time, a contract (called a "Ketubah") is drafted by yourself and your future husband. Some Jewish marriages also use Ketubahs. In a Ketubah, the outline/guidelines for your future life is planned--how you will deal with future children, how you will treat each other, etc. Once the Ketubah is signed, you are married, on paper. Practically, however, you are betrothed. The equivalent would be a marriage certificate. According to the interpretation of the Law, you are married at that point, but you yourself may not view yourself as married. Ketubahs may be bought or handmade, printed or written, etc. I myself painted the Ketubah for my brother and sister-in-law. At this, you may progress to the next physical level--hugging, and maybe some light kissing.
• Step 9: Separation! The strictest Hebrews require a period of separation after the betrothal is official. The groom must go home and prepare a place for his future wife. Contact between you and your hubby should be kept to a minimum. The separation should last a significant portion of time, even several months. This is your time to say goodbye to your family and single life.
• Step 10: Marriage! You will be prepared to move in with your husband, bags packed, etc, and at some unexpected time, he will appear. The wedding will be held, and after that, you will move into his house and be a married couple. (It's like a surprise party; everyone but the bride is usually in on it).

    And that's it! Now, depending on the relationship, there may be more steps, or there may be less steps. There is no commandment in the Bible in regards to the steps, though there are patterns existing for the steps (Notably, the relationship between Yeshua and the church). The main idea is to take the relationship out of the individual's hands and place the control in the hands of the parents/community to create a stronger bond. Parents and community members will be able to judge with clearer (ie: less lusty/shallow) heads the value of a relationship. They will choose a suitable spouse to start a family with. Family-starting is a very important part of deliberate marriages. Everyone I know of who is in a deliberate marriage has become pregnant/had a child in their first year. A child will cement the relationship and keep the focus where it should be--family.

    The fear is if marriage is left in the hands of the individuals, the wrong choices will be made, or there will be a sexual relationship before time. There is a belief that a couple who engages in sexual acts before marriage will be cursed in some way, because they have gone against "God's plan for marriage". I have heard couple who were not married deliberately lament their lusty pasts; this is a large factor in parents wanting to make their children follow "God's plan" when it comes time for them to marry. Parents who were married deliberately wish to help their children avoid the sordid experience of modern dating. Deliberate marriages are thought to be the only Israelite and holy way to get married.

Achtung!

Personal Disclaimer

     I am rather biased against the view deliberate marriages are "God's Plan for Marriage". I will explain the personal bias here and the Biblical/scholarly bias in a bit. To be clear, I think deliberate marriage is a fine way to go about getting married. I respect people who marry in this way for their trust, faith, and determination. I have no problem with two adults choosing to marry deliberately. I have a problem with the pervasive idea that deliberate marriage is "God's Plan for Marriage" and the only legitimate way one can marry.
    Part of my bias comes from the environment preceding my own marriage. My brother had been married deliberately a few months prior, and the community was abuzz with "God's Plan for Marriage". My parents were on the bandwagon and very proud of/excited for my brother, naturally. However, there was an inevitable side effect to this buzz; I had been engaged for approximately a year, dating for 5 years, and my relationship was being viewed as "against God's plan".
     My personal bias comes from my feelings of having done "everything right" but coming up against "God's Plan for Marriage". By Hebrew standards, my relationship with Sven was scandalous, even X-rated. Kisses should only be shared between spouses! Dating?! The temptation! How dare we choose our spouse for ourselves! Etc, etc, etc.

Cover your eyes, kiddos; this stuff is for married grown ups only!

     Now, to be fair, I never had anyone scold me about my relationship with Sven, and nor did he. We were, however, involved in some slightly embarrassing conversations where someone would declare heartily, "X couple is doing the right thing! It's God Plan for Marriage!" and then give us an awkward side-eye. There'd be a little throat-clearing, and someone would change the subject.
     Being of the scholarly mindset, this got me interested in what actually was God's Plan for Marriage. Were they right? What was required? What were the proper steps to take? So I started digging.


First off, "Love"--Jacob and Rachel
     A large part of the Hebrew criticism of typical relationships comes from their problems with love. Love is inconstant. Love is shallow. Love is blind! "Marriage for love is a new concept" is a common mantra. This is the first and easiest claim to knock down. The Hebrew view of marriage is businesslike. It revolves around contracts, requirements, and steps. Everything is logical and weighed out. There is little room for love there.
    To disprove this claim, let's look at a couple of Biblical relationships. In Genesis 29, we can read part of the story of Jacob, also called Israel, the father of the 12 tribes. Back when Jacob was just plain old Jacob, he was single and looking to find a lady. He went to stay with his maternal uncle, Laban, and there met Laban's daughter, Rachel. Upon first meeting, Jacob kissed Rachel and introduced himself (29:11). He began to work with Laban for awhile, helping him with his flocks and lands, and Laban was impressed. He offered Jacob a reward, and Jacob asked for the hand of Rachel in marriage. "And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, "I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter."" (Gen 29:18). Right off the bat, Jacob and Rachel's relationship does not fit the Hebrew mold. Jacob met Rachel himself, not through a go-between, and kissed her upon first meeting, before he even introduced himself. When he asked for her hand, it was because he "loved" her. We are then told, "And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her" (Gen 29:20). The word "love" used is defined thusly, "to have affection for (sexually or otherwise)" (source). Jacob did not work seven years because he felt he had to. Jacob worked seven years because he loved Rachel. His love was such that the years felt short. This was not friendship-love. This was not fondness-love. This was love-love. And even after Laban tricked Jacob and made him marry his other daughter, Jacob was willing to work seven more years because he desired Rachel so much (Gen 29:27). This proves marriage for love is not "new". Its popularity may be new, but Jacob himself desired to marry for love. Marriage and love go together. It is not required for marriage to precede love. Adding family to the mix does not always make things better; for Jacob, it ended up with him having two wives; one he disliked, one he loved, a slew of angry children, two concubines, the curse of barrenness, much family strife, and a son sold to a foreign country. If he had been able to go along with his love and marry solely Rachel, their lives would have been much easier.

Too scandalous?

Second, "Process"--the Song of Solomon
    As you saw, the process of deliberate marriage is....well....deliberate. The steps should be followed, in order, or else. However, there is one glaring example in the Bible standing against deliberate marriage as the only way. I present to you The Song of Solomon. The Song of Solomon is one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible I know of. I've heard it's about the love of Solomon. I've heard it's about how we're supposed to love God. I've heard many things. A lot of the confusion comes from the structure and language. Much of the language doesn't translate as to the mood or gender of the speaker (but the original reveals the meaning) I highly suggest you look up the Companion Bible's explanation of to clarify it. (Or check the Strong's Concordance and go word by word).
    In short, the Song of Solomon is the story of a fatherless vineyard worker who loves a shepherd (1:5-6). The story is told by the woman to the women of Solomon's harem. It tends to jump out of order since it is a story, but this is the jist: The vineyard worker is sent to the vineyards by her family to keep her away from the shepherd , but nevertheless, they carry on with their relationship (1-2). One day, King Solomon sees the vineyard worker and tries to seduce her (6:8-10). He takes her away to his palace to try to add her to his harem. She resists (1:4), proclaiming loudly her love for her shepherd to the concubines of Solomon (7:10). Her shepherd follows her to the city. The woman tries to escape, but is caught and beaten by the guards of Solomon (5:7). Impressed by their love and the vineyard worker's faithfulness, Solomon sends her off home, accompanied by her shepherd (8). Now, that's the PG version. There's a lot more going on in this story.

• The woman's family heartily disapproves of the relationship. sending the woman to tend the vineyard to keep her apart from the shepherd (1:6, 2:15)
• It is implied the relationship of the shepherd and woman has progressed to the betrothal stage without the approval of the girls' family (2:16, 3:4, 4:8)
• There's a little bit of spicy raciness going on between the shepherd and woman. In the first chapter, (1:16-17) there is talk of a house made of trees. Due to the translation of the King James, it seems they are talking about an actual home. When looking at the actual meaning of the words, however, it is revealed they are talking about a secluded wooded area where they meet each other in secret. The translated as "house" is closer to "bower" in reality, and "rafters" more like "retreat". Chances are the KJV was translated to fit the sensibilities of the time. The "banqueting house" of 2:4 is closer to "vine arbor" or "vineyard bower"
• In this bower, a series of rather physical intimacies take place (derived from the compliments the woman and shepherd trade--more on these later)

     Looking at the more detailed version of the story, this seems like a cautionary tale. Saucy girl who spends too much time in secret with shepherd is picked up by notorious womanizing King, bribed, beguiled, beaten, and eventually sent home. However, the story does not have any caution in it. Instead, the relationship between the shepherd and woman is shown as pure while Solomon plays a villain's role, twirling his mustache while plotting to steal a woman's virtue by hook or by crook.

Pictured: Solomon (Source)

     It is also impossible to divorce the relationship of the woman and shepherd of its sexual nature. While the woman is recounting her tale, she includes many spicy details, "I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste" (2:3) (remember, her beloved is a shepherd; he does not grow fruit), "by night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth..." (3:1), "Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet...Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies" (4:3-5), "Thy lips...drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon" (4:11), "...His belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires" (5:14), In 4:12-15, the shepherd describes the woman as a shut up garden, full of wonderful plants and fruit, along with a fountain. The woman replies in 4:16, "Let my beloved come into his garden and eat its pleasant fruits". Immediately thereafter, the shepherd replies, "I am come into my garden..." (5:1). There is nothing about these compliments that suggests an innocent meaning. The shepherd does not grow fruit; he is a shepherd. At night, on her bed, the woman thinks of the shepherd. The shepherd refers directly to her lips, breasts, taste, and smell. Obviously, the two are physically well-acquainted. The shepherd describes the woman as a garden; yes, she owns a garden, but she is not a garden herself. She tells him her "garden" is his, and for him to enter, and he responds that he is. Now, perhaps, they are talking of purely mental attributes, but it does not seem so. Their descriptions are too sensuous. 

     There can be no doubt the shepherd and woman are not following the plan for a deliberate marriage. They meet on their own, against her family's wishes. They are very physically intimate, or at least have no shame in complimenting each other. They are betrothed, through agreement with each other, but there is no planned separation (though a separation does occur thanks to Solomon's kidnapping). Yet, at the end, the woman is celebrated by her family, who say, though she is young, that if she is a wall, they will build her into a "palace of silver" (8:9), and she affirms her worth, saying the shepherd is the only one for her, and Solomon can keep his 1,000 gardens; she'll be happy with her one vineyard and her beloved (8:12-14). Rather than being scolded by her family or receiving any, "I told you so"s, the woman is applauded for her faithfulness. She is not cursed for running away with some shepherd. She is not condemned for her "shallow" feelings, nor is the shepherd. Also, their relationship has nothing to do with the family they hope to create. Their relationship is not "for the creation of children". Their relationship exists because they love each other. For their actions, they are blessed and, as it is implied, live happily ever after.

"Those Abs......."

"Those Lips......"

The Law and Marriage

   One with some small knowledge of the Torah may jump to their feet, citing indecency when confronting the relationship between the shepherd and woman in the Song of Solomon. However, as strange as it seems, their relationship is kosher. As I mentioned earlier when talking about Hebrew culture; it does not come directly from the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that states one must follow the steps of deliberate marriage. Honestly, most of the laws regarding marriage are "do nots" (don't sleep with relatives, don't sleep with married people, laws for allowing divorce, etc, etc.). As far as "Do"s go, there aren't many, and most of the "do" laws are tangentially related:

• If a woman who lives in her father's house makes a vow, her father may cancel her vow when he first hears of it, but if he doesn't cancel it within the day, her promise stands (Numbers 30:3-5)
• "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)
• If a couple is in the newlywed phase (ie: first year), the man is supposed to stay at home, even during war, to "make his wife happy" (Deuteronomy 20:7, 24:5)

     And, well, as far as the Torah is concerned, that's about it. To answer the question, then, "What makes a marriage?" the answer is this: a man and a woman who have become "one flesh" (ie: had sex). People in the Biblical Old Testament times did have betrothal periods, and they did have wedding ceremonies, but nowhere are these things required. The betrothal and ceremony is just a cultural tradition. Even the approval of the father does not have to be sought for the marriage to be complete. He can cancel the promise of marriage if he disapproves, certainly, but all he has to do for the marriage to be legitimate is to remain silent. The woman and the shepherd from the Song of Solomon were completely legitimate; she had no father who could say "no"; the father's right of veto does not pass to another relative if he is out of the picture. Therefore, no matter how much her mother and brothers disapproved, they had no say over her relationship. If the woman and shepherd had not had sex yet, but simply been rather intimate, it means nothing, and if they had had sex, they were technically married. 

     After all, did Adam and Eve have parents to set them up? Or a Ketubah to sign? No. Adam simply said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’for she was taken out of man.” and thus, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Gen 2:23-25). Adam and Eve followed "God's Plan for Marriage" in its truest form. 

Hey, look at that, "marriage"

Conclusion

Deliberate marriage is fine and dandy, and there's nothing wrong with it, but saying or believing it's "God's Plan for Marriage" does a disservice to yourself, your children, other couples, and, ultimately, God. It doesn't matter if there are children or no children. It doesn't matter if there is a signed piece of paper or not. It doesn't matter if there is a wedding ceremony. God's plan for marriage is a man and a lady getting intimate and staying that way their whole lives. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

[To keep this post short, I've left out two important aspects of Israelite marriage; however, I will address them in my next two posts. They are polygamy and "rape=marriage". These are two foggy bits of Israelite marriage that are often looked over, wrongly applied, or ignored. Studying them reveals a lot, however; where Ketubahs come from, how marriages begin, a system of responsibility, and, ultimately, they both add to the Adam and Eve version of marriage. Stay tuned!]