Biblical Theology XXIX: Micah

Micah is an eighth century prophet who warned that both Samaria (i.e., the capital of the northern kingdom) and Jerusalem (i.e., the capital of the southern kingdom), by means of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, would be destroyed and deported/exiled. The book is structured in pairs of judgment and salvation oracles. Chapters 1–2, 3–5, and 6–7 make up these pairs and are introduced by the imperative šimʿû “Listen up!” The book serves as a court case against God’s people for their having broken the covenant and a promise that God will fulfill His part of the covenant through the remnant to which he adds the nations of the world to their number.

Theology:  As in the other prophets, God is bringing His people to trial and arguing a case against them for having broken the covenant. They worship other gods, either directly through their idols, or indirectly by distorting who God is so that they may practice their sin.

God will not listen to the prayers of those who cry out for Him because of their sin. True worship of God is not found in doing the right ritual at the right place, but in doing what is right as one acknowledges YHWH as God (6:6–8). Anything else is false worship and does not belong to the everlasting world ruled by the King of the earth to come. Hence, only the remnant of Israel  who do what is right will belong to that world.

God will end the world because of the sin of His people, so that the reader understands that God’s wrath is coming swiftly, not because of the world’s sin, but because of the sin within the covenant community.  Hence, He will judge His people first, then the world once He gathers the remnant of His people back together. At that time the Davidic king will rise up and rule over them and the other nations, who all become worshipers of God, protecting His people from any further chaotic force. The wicked will exist no more and false religion will no longer exist in the world (2:12–13; 4:1–4; Chapter 5).

Ethics: A major sin that is mentioned seems to be the depriving of the rich of their wealth, houses, and expensive clothing. Whereas most of the prophets emphasize the abuse of the rich toward the poor, Micah flips this script and argues that it is just as much an abomination that brings judgment to do violence toward the rich because they are rich. Here we have an ethic that echoes that of Leviticus 19:15 and Exodus 23:3: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the prestigious, but judge your fellow covenant member fairly;” and “Do not show favoritism toward a poor man in his lawsuit.” The idea can be summed up simply in Proverbs 18:5 – “It is not good to show partiality to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice.”

Now, the reason why the majority of the condemnations go the other way (i.e., favoring the prestigious over the poor) is because we are enamored or intimidated by those who have power, cultural or political. Hence, it happens more often. However, Micah warns God’s people not to go the other way, as both are an abuse of power. In one situation the powerful might have control of the courts and government, but in another situation, the criminal has power in private crimes, the mob has control of the streets, etc. In whatever situation one has power, there is the possibility of misusing it to do harm to another. Micah is against all such abuses, regardless of who the perpetrators and victims are. Hence, he condemns the abuse of power by both the laity (Chapter 2) and the religious and political leaders (Chapter 3).

The Nature of the Biblical Marriage Contract and Christian Couples Who Decide Not to Have Children

"How is a raven like a writing-desk?" Two seemingly dissimilar things. What exactly do they have in common, and do their dissimilarities outweigh their commonalities? 

It's common to hear certain feminists argue that marriage is a form of prostitution. Of course, I would argue that modern marriages sometimes are. This is because there is no essential difference between someone who exchanges romantic intimacy for material resources or protection as a prostitute and someone who does it as a wife.

If one argues that it is the length of the agreement, I would simply ask how the length of the agreement has anything to do with it. There are "sugar daddies" who expand their relationships out, and sometimes make them permanent. This is also would negate the idea that marriage is monogamous whereas prostitution is not, since prostitution can be had between two individuals who do not have sex with anyone else. Likewise, the fact that our culture produces people who have had multiple partners in their lives, evidences a lack of understanding the term "monogamy" (a phrase often used now to refer to having one partner at a time, rather than one partner for life.

If one argues that feelings are involved, does this mean that one's marriage becomes prostitution when the bodily chemicals that we call emotions stop churning in our bodies? And if a prostitute and her john have emotions involved in the exchange does that make prostitution any less prostitution?

Indeed, our culture wishes to place emotions as the deciding factor between them, but does that mean that when one's feelings are into it one day, it's a legitimate marriage, and the next day when the feelings are absent, it's prostitution? Is one only married, then, when one "feels" like he or she is married?

The ancient Near Eastern suzerain treaty provides the basis for an understanding of marriage in the Bible. In that relationship, the stronger entity (i.e., an empire or larger nation/city/tribe) enters into a covenant with the weaker entity (a smaller nation/city/tribe) that if the weaker entity that needs protection will pay tribute to the larger entity, then the larger entity will provide protection from others who might want to destroy or plunder it.

The marriage contract, in the ancient Near East, is a suzerain covenant. The covenant is that the woman (i.e., the weaker party in need of protection) will pay tribute (i.e., sex that leads to the bearing and raising of an heir) to the man (i.e., the stronger party that can provide protection) in exchange for protection against chaotic elements and forces (e.g., other men seeking to take advantage of her, starvation, homelessness, etc.).

The biblical model is that the tribute is sex that leads to children, not just a single heir. It looks toward a quiver full, many sons and daughters, etc. even though God may grant only a couple, one, or even no children to the couple. It's foundational understanding is the creation mandate in Genesis 1.

In other words, what makes marriage in the ancient world, and especially the Bible, distinct from prostitution isn't that it's monogamous (polygamy was possible under the Old Covenant understanding), or a longer duration, or has more feelings involved than the other, but that the woman is making a deal to become a mother and the man is making a deal to become a father; and this is the understanding of the contract that is being made, even if God does not give any children to the couple by His choice, not by theirs.

What does this say of Christian couples who decide they want to get married but do not wish to have children? I would argue, as Augustine once argued, that this relationship is one of prostitution, not marriage. It's still a contract, but it isn't a marital contract. It's one of prostitution because its goal is an exchange of romantic intimacy for protection from the elements (money, shelter, food, etc.).

Changing the primary purpose of the sexual act has not only led to the confusion of gender roles (why can't men and women just do the same things if children are not involved?), the confusion over what is a legitimate sexuality (i.e., homosexuality), confusion over sexual identity (i.e., transgenderism), sexual promiscuity without the result of family (i.e., birth control), but also a distortion concerning the nature of marriage itself.  Understanding the purpose of the sexual act reorients us to understand every relationship related to it.

So these particular feminists are right to argue that modern marriage, which divorces children from being the primary tribute paid within the contract, and merely pursues an exchange based on romantic intimacy as the tribute, is, in fact, prostitution.

One cannot make that claim of the biblical view of marriage however, as the primary purpose of the sexual act is to have children, raise godly offspring, and fulfill the mission of the image, which is to co-create with God in His purpose to fill up the earth with His covenant people.

How is a raven like a writing-desk? They have a superficial connection, but in reality, they're as different as night and day in their primary characteristics. A bird doesn't make for a good writing platform, and a desk just doesn't fly. Neither does the claim that biblical marriages are prostitution. One cannot say the same of an unbiblical one, however, and Christians need to repent of entering into a contractual relationship that is anything less than a biblical marriage.

Redeeming an Adulterous Remarriage

I think it's important to note something about the teaching of remarriage as adultery in the Bible, and that is the distinction between the marital contract and the one flesh union.

If one has made a marital contract with an individual, that individual enters into a contract that is established at the consummation of the marriage, which creates the one flesh union between the two. The marital contract does not create the one flesh union. The sexual act does, and this is to be done within the context of the covenant vow that is made.

What happens when there is a divorce and remarriage while both spouses of the one flesh union are still alive is that an old vow is broken and a new vow is made. In other words, a vow/covenant is made in sin. It is not a union that was to be formed. Both the one that was divorced and the one who marries the one who was divorced are committing adultery.

Now, does this mean that the only possible redemption of the couple is that they divorce again, stay single, and/or go back to their previous spouse or spouses?

The answer to the last question is provided by Scripture for us. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 states:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, ² and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man [the Hebrew actually states, "she belongs to another man"], ³ and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, ⁴ then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

The woman is not to return to the previous spouse once she has been joined to another, even if she is divorced from the second husband. This is called a sin and an abomination to YHWH. So even though the one flesh union is intact with the first husband, the possibility of rejoining with him after she has joined to a new husband is gone. 

Second to this, she is actually called the wife of another man. This means that the marital contract is legally identified by God, even though He considers it adultery based on the one flesh union.

Scripture continually identifies any person with whom the marital vow is made as the person's "husband" or "wife." Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that she has had five husbands, and the man that she is now with is not her husband. The other five are all called her "husband" in a different way that the man she is with now is considered.

This is not the case when a marriage is based in an illegitimate union that cannot be sanctified. The text says that this man has "his father's wife," not his own in 1 Corinthians 5:1, even though it is likely that the father has divorced the woman and the son decided to marry her. If that is too much speculation to put into the text, the case of Herod and Herodias is far more clear. We know that Phillip divorced Herodias and married Herod. Yet, John rebukes him that it is not lawful for him to have his brother's wife. It is lawful to marry a divorced woman, so John must be talking about the incestuous relationship that is formed via the one flesh union. Since Herodias is still one with Phillip, becoming the sister of Herod, the law views Herod as committing incest. Hence, it is unlawful, and Herodias is still identified therefore as his "brother's wife." 

But how is a vow that is made in the sin of adultery established as legitimate in Scripture, and the vow made in the sin of incest not made legitimate?

One could say that they merely are speaking as though these are legitimately married, but are really not; but this fails to note the fact that the Scripture makes a distinction and does not view marriages based on illegitimate unions as legitimate. Likewise, what is the difference between the Samaritan woman's four other husbands and the guy she has now if they are all the same? Furthermore, why can't a woman just go back to her first husband then if the other union was never recognized? 

One could further argue that any adultery makes the first union defiled, but why does God tell Hosea to take back his wife after adultery? Are all men who sleep with prostitutes viewed as defiled and therefore cannot get married or restore their marriages? Paul says that one who has sex with a prostitute is one flesh with her. This means that anyone who has sex before marriage would not be allowed to be married at all. There would be no marital redemption for any pagans who were not still virgins when they became Christians. Are Christians not to forgive for the sin of adultery? They could not. They would have to break the relationship rather than restore it. This, therefore, simply doesn't seem to be the biblical answer.

It seems God as much as God hates adultery, He also finds divorce and remarriage to be an abomination in Deuteronomy 24, and therefore, does not want His people playing games with it; but it is not adultery that prevents her from returning. Instead, it seems to be the vow and the flippant attitude toward breaking it that God finds detestable. 

So what can sanctify a second marriage? We've already concluded that repentance is needed. If there is no repentance, there is no placing the sin of adultery on the cross. The person will answer for it without the cross, and "adulterers God will damn" (Heb 13:4; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Matt 5:27-32).

We've talked about repentance looking like acknowledgment of the sin, informing others that it was wrong and advising them not to follow suit, and never doing it again.

Now, here is where I think some people may not understand how a sin like this, i.e., a vow made in sin, works. They think that every time, even after the couple has repented, that they have sex in marriage they are committing adultery. Here is why I don't think this is true, and therefore, a remarriage can be redeemed by the cross.

Piper gives an analogy with the sinful vow that is made by the Israelites to the Gibeonites. The Israelites were to completely drive out the people of the land. They were to destroy them and run them off. To make a covenant with them is an evil rebellion against God. They, however, due to their not asking God about it, end up making one with them. If a vow made in sin is a continuous committing of sin in the keeping of that covenant, even after they have repented, then the Israelites would have sinned again and again, every moment they do not go off and kill the Gibeonites. Even hundreds of years later, they would never have been reconciled to God, and the sin would have caused their destruction long before their others had. Yet, God tells them to keep the covenant with them. He disciplines them for it, but the vow they made is to be kept because it is a covenant vow.

I would argue, therefore, that the sin is seen as one large whole and not in part where one would be committing the sin over and over again by keeping the vow (and an essential component of the vow is sex). The whole of that sin, from its inception to the ending of the covenant many years later, is placed upon the cross, and the relationship can then be sanctified. 

In the same way that one should remain faithful to bring up a child from a sinful union, even though that child was never to be had with the person, so the covenant should be kept, and the couple should confess their sin and never do it again by divorcing and remarrying again.

This is, perhaps, what Paul is driving at in 1 Corinthians 7 when he is advising widows and virgins as to whether they should get married. "Let each man remain in the state in which he was called." He is not talking directly about remarriages at this point, but noting the above, it is possible to perhaps say the same thing. The web cannot be untangled, so what is the most faithful thing to do now? I would argue that it is not further breaking a vow and sinning again by doing so. If the Israelites had broken their vow to the Gibeonites, it would have been viewed as an absolute evil. Although we are flippant about vows in our culture, the Bible is clear that they are not to be broken, even when they are made in sin (which is likely why Jephthah still goes through with his vow and the Lord does not intervene).

Hence, the most creational thing to do now is to remain in the marriage, start from there, establish family, be humble and repentant, and hope fully on the mercy of God that is provided in the cross. 

In this regard, I would argue that this option is more faithful, more creational, and more redeemed, not less, than the one that splits a remarriage to remain celibate.

 

Biblical Theology XXVIII: Jonah

Jonah is the only book within “The Book of the Twelve” that is not within the prophetic genre. The familiar narrative depicts the prophet Jonah avoiding his duty to warn another nation of impending judgment, and once he does, he is upset that God does not destroy them. The book may be written around the time of the Assyrian Empire, perhaps, sometime after the deportation of Northern Israel, although many scholars place it’s origin during the exilic or immediate postexilic period, and it would carry a greater significance if the later date is given, as the “great fish” may represent the exile. The book is best understood as parabolic of Israel and its failure to understand its mission to the world.

Theology: In order to understand the theology of Jonah, one must first understand the suzerain vassal treaty made between God and Israel, and the best relationship that demonstrates this treaty is that of marriage in the ancient Near East and the Old Testament. The larger nation in this treaty made a covenant with the smaller, weaker nation that it would protect the smaller nation from its enemies if it agreed to pay tribute to the larger nation. In marriage, this treaty is one between a husband who functions as the stronger nation and the wife who functions as the weaker who is in need of protection from the hostile world around her. The man agrees to protect her if she will “pay tribute” to him in terms bearing and raising his children. The tribute, unlike that of a prostitute, who only offers a trade of sex without children (and usually only temporarily for temporary supplies), the wife’s tribute is sex with the hope of children. This is why Augustine called women who used birth control “prostitutes” and their husbands “pimps.”

The reason why this is important to understand is because YHWH has made this same deal with Israel. They were not merely to worship Him for the sake of worshiping Him, but instead, they were to worship Him for the sake of being a light to the nations, a kingdom of priests who represented Him to the nations. This relationship, like that of marriage, was to bear children for Him. Instead, because Israel rebelled continually against God, and reflected the character of the nations than it did the holiness of YHWH, they were breaking the covenant God made with them, and thus, invited His wrath instead of His blessing and protection.

The Book of Jonah is meant to rebuke Israel for this crime by representing Israel as a single prophet sent to a capital city in what would have been considered the worst of the nations. Jonah’s attitude reflects the attitude of an Israel that has abandoned the covenant they have made with God to be priests to the world. As a result, God throws Jonah into the abyss, which represents chaos, and is only delivered when he repents. He fulfills his mission but is still angry with God, reflecting an attitude of ignorance toward the purpose for which God made a covenant with Israel in the first place. The book ends by telling the reader that God’s purpose through Israel is to display His care for those within the nations.

Ethics: The ethics in the book are implied. It invites those who have been shunning their role as priests in the world to repent, since God’s desire for those He warns is for them to repent. God has made a covenant with His people, and He expects children from it. In word and deed, His people are to be a light to the nations, and the Church does this through its unification with the light of the world, Jesus Christ. In joining with Him, we become the light of the world with Him, and hence, our covenanted mission, our tribute, is to represent God in message and deed, to speak a holy gospel and to be holy as He is holy for the purpose of producing children from the nations.