Question #1: I thank God for leading me to this site which set me free from following a cult. I believe you have a revelation. I almost challenged by your scholarly and scriptural approach. A question for you though. In my culture polygamy has been the norm. When I got saved I was taught that God forbids polygamy. I have since tried to get scriptural support of this view but have failed. What does the Bible teach on Polygamy?
Response #1:
I am so very pleased to hear that these materials have been helpful to
you and have contributed to your spiritual safety. May God protect you
and continue to lead you forward in the truth of His Word and in the
service of Jesus Christ our Lord! As to any revelation I might have, I
am pleased to say that it is the same revelation that is available to
all the children of God, the Word of God as revealed in His holy
scriptures and made clear and powerfully meaningful to all believers
through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I do appreciate very much your
enthusiasm and kind comments, and hope that these materials will
continue to help you as you grow in the knowledge and grace of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ.
As to your specific question about polygamy, there is no specific
scriptural prohibition against it, and it is also true that in the Old
Testament, many famous believers had more than one wife (e.g., Jacob,
David, Solomon). However, just because something is not specifically
prohibited in the Bible does not mean that it is definitely not sinful,
or that God smiles on it, or that it is a good idea. For example, taking
drugs is not specifically prohibited (although witchcraft involving
drug use is), and abortion is never forbidden by name in scripture
either. But there are few believers with good hearts who are led by the
Spirit and who are deeply committed to the study of the Word of God who
would for that reason endorse drug use or abortion. Clearly, some things
are so obviously counter to the essence of the truth that they should be
scrupulously avoided by believers even though the Bible may not directly
address them (please see the link:
Bible Basics 3B: Hamartiology, section II.6 "The Distinction between
Expressly Prohibited and Non-Expressly Prohibited Sin").
In the case of polygamy, this certainly seems to be one of those areas
where we as believers ought to steer clear and not give the possibility
of its permissibility any further thought. Take the three Old Testament
believers mentioned above, for example, and you will see what I mean.
Jacob had troubles all his life long because of his multiple wives. Leah
and Rachel were adversaries and he was caught in the middle, and later
his sons were jealous of one another for that very reason, a situation
which culminated in Joseph being sold into captivity. Now of course God
worked everything together for good in the end –
He always does so for
those who love Him in spite of our failures, weaving even our worst
mistakes into a tapestry of grace and deliverance in His perfect plan
(Rom.8:28; cf. Gen.50:20) –
but the pain of heart Jacob felt over
Joseph's loss was profound and lasted quite a long time. David's bevy of
wives and confused litter of children bred a situation which contributed
in no small measure to the rape of Tamar, the murder of Amnon, and the
revolt and death of Absalom. Now it is certainly true that the
underlying cause was David's murder of Uriah and adultery with
Bathsheba, but the mind-set that produced that offense was one of
polygamy, and God certainly used the polygamous situation as part of the
judgment. Finally we know that in the case of Solomon it was the
contingent of "foreign wives (n.b. the plural)" that led him away from
the Lord (1Ki.11:4). On top of all of this, we should also notice that
the vast majority of great Old Testament believers were not
polygamous.
So while certain things were tolerated in the Old Testament
and even regulated (like slavery and polygamy), and while the same such
things are not strictly prohibited in the New Testament (like slavery
and polygamy), we as prudent, God-fearing believers in Jesus Christ
should recognize that there is a difference between things which may be
permitted but are very bad for us on the one hand, and God smiling upon
such actions as we indulge ourselves in them on the other. Just as I
would never advise another believer to be a party to slavery, so I would
never advise a believer to be a party to polygamy. In fact, I would
strenuously advise all believers to stay as far as possible away from
both of these ancient "institutions", because no good could ever come
from either of them, and, on the other hand, much evil is sure to come
to anyone involved in either of them.
Finally, we can also say that in general terms the Bible counsels those
who are single in Christ to remain that way if at all possible
(1Cor.7:1; 7:26-28). So if it is better "not to marry" if one has the
requisite self-control to stay single without being pulled into sexual
sin as a result, how much more is it not true that marrying two or more
spouses would be an even worse idea? Additionally, we can say that
wherever the subject of Christian marriage is addressed in the New
Testament, the premise is that there is one wife for one husband
(1Cor.7; Eph.5:22-33; Col.3:18-19). Indeed, the only place where there
is even a hint of the possibility of polygamy is by way of
prohibition for deacons and elders –
no one with more than one
wife should be allowed to serve in either office, clearly indicating
that being polygamous at a minimum hampers one's ability to serve Christ
(1Tim.3:2; 3:12). So while I cannot give you a verse that says
"absolutely it is a sin to do it", it seems clear to me from the above
discussion that there are few ideas worse for a Christian than becoming
involved in a polygamous relationship. As believers, we need to turn
away from many things that the rest of the world may do or permit, and
it is a sure bet that if we are truly walking with Jesus that our
consciences, directed by the Holy Spirit and informed by what the Word
of God does say, will give us plenty of indication and
guidance with regard to things we should stay away from. As I read
scripture, polygamy most definitely seems to be one of those things
that, while perhaps not specifically prohibited, is certainly something
capable of ruining our spiritual lives and thus something to be
avoided at all costs.
Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be made subject to the authority of anything (i.e., let any behavior compromise spiritual growth).
1st Corinthians 6:12
Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but not everything edifies (i.e., contributes to spiritual growth).
1st Corinthians 10:23
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob Luginbill
Question #2:
Hi Dr. Luginbill:
How do you translate Leviticus 18:7? "...the nakedness of your father
*or* the nakedness of your mother...", "...the nakedness of your father
*and* the nakedness of your mother...", "...the nakedness of your father
*that is* the nakedness of your mother"...? I have seen it translated
all three of these ways.
Thank you in advance.
Response #2:
The two instances of
"nakedness" are connected by the common Hebrew conjunction waw.
It may be translated as "and", "but", or sometimes "or". So I believe
that the first two translations are self-explanatory. The third instance
takes the waw here as meaning essentially "even", which is also a
possibility. The translators who went this last way probably did so in
order to have the second half of the verse become more clear as an
explanation of the first half (which it certainly is under any
translation). I believe that the essential idea is that, since the man
is the authority figure based upon Genesis chapter three, by violating
one's father's wife one is violating him. This is –
obviously –
a
prohibition that applies to incest only, but we may understand from the
example of Reuben, and from Paul's discussion of a similar situation in 1st
Corinthians chapter five that the prohibition applies to any wife,
consort, or concubine of one's father, not just one's birth-mother.
In our Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Thank you again for
your answer.
The third translation concerns me because it would seem to me that the
"your mother's nakedness is your father's nakedness" translation would
indicate that your mother and father are one flesh, regardless of
whether or not they were ever "married" to one another. Must one's
mother necessarily be under the authority of one's father? ... even if
she was not his wife? It would further reinforce the notion that
procreative sex with someone automatically makes you one flesh, or
married. If the first two translations are correct, it would seem to be
a different situation from the next verse which more clearly indicates a
one flesh relationship.
Response #3:
I do see what you are driving at here, but I really think that the key
is the individual to whom this prohibition is addressed. This
prohibition only applies to a son vis-à-vis his mother. The reasoning
behind the prohibition given here is that such a relationship defiles
the authority or "shame" (nakedness) of one's father. Since there could
be no offspring in the first place without a father as well as a mother,
this prohibition applies regardless of the marriage relationship –
not
because the two were or are "one flesh", but because incest of this sort
necessarily confuses the entire principle of authority. So I would put
this verse in a whole different category since without an offspring it
has no applicability. It stands to reason from the fifth commandment and
elsewhere that all children must respect their parents and their
authority in accordance with what the Bible teaches about this.
Leviticus 18:7 is a special extension of this principle –
one that we
might think needs no expression –
but which has been codified for
emphasis (possibly because, as I mentioned before, it applies by extension to
all of one's father's wives, whether or not they are technically the
son's birth mother). So I don't see a general principle here that makes
all sexual activity a marriage, especially not from the standpoint of
all parties (what it does do is make one's father's wife one's "mother"
in regard to this prohibition, regardless of later developments). I
disagree with the notion that any sex act constitutes a marriage for at
least two important reasons: 1) first and foremost is the fact that "a
marriage is a marriage", and requires some formal acknowledgment of a
legal bonding between the husband and the wife; and 2) if it were true
that all sex "married" the people involved, then technically speaking
there would at least in practical terms be no such thing as adultery
since one would be automatically marrying the other person through the
sex act every time. But as we know, sexual sin comes in for special
reproof in scripture. My essential view of the "one flesh" issue has
been and remains that our Lord was condemning people who are violating
the prohibition against sexual activity outside of
marriage by making use of an illustration whereby He makes it clear that
they are behaving as if they were married when they are not.
In our Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Since aborted or miscarried fetuses and embryos were living souls, what bodily form will/do they have in heaven?
Response #4:
The word "soul" is of
Germanic derivation and is not a true biblical term. It is often used in
the versions (although never consistently so) to translate the Greek
word psyche and the Hebrew word nephesh. These two words,
when discussing the human being, refer to our composite selves, often
stressing our inner selves, but always with the meaning of the entire
person. As God's creations, we are composed of a physical body derived
through procreation and a human spirit given directly and immediately by
God at birth. Until God breaths in the "breath of life", there is no
true human life.
However, I do take the point of your question. There are no doubt some
instances in which during a miscarriage or a partial birth abortion God
does indeed breathe in the spirit before the young one expires. In a
sense, this is the opposite of a question that is also often pondered
about the end of life. Scripture is short on details
about the life to come, probably deliberately. If we had a detailed
understanding about how wonderful our future life with Jesus will be, we
would find it hard to concentrate on anything else, and we all have our
work to do for Him here in this world (cf. 2Cor.12:4). What we do know
is that at the resurrection we are promised a body like that of our Lord
(1Jn.3:2), so that it stands to reason just as His body is unchangeable
as it was at His prime, so ours will reflect an ideal prime as well, and
that would be true of the very old and the very young too, even in the
case of those whose birth was shrouded in death. The apostle Paul makes
quite a point of the fact that the differences between the heavenly body
and this problematic earthly one will be pronounced (1Cor.15:35-49), so
that while we do have some information about the resurrected body of our
Lord from His post-resurrection appearances, we cannot really know what
it will be like to experience incorruption until it happens, especially
in the glorified state which He now and we then will enjoy.
As to the present situation of those about whom you ask, I would say
that this too is the same as that of every believer who has passed on to
be with Jesus, that is,
the interim state now enjoyed by all those who have died in the Lord
(including all who by reason of youth or mental incompetency
were never able to reject Him). These are all now enjoying a
heavenly "tent" which is in
every way ideal (only short of the glory and delight of the future
resurrection). Just as Adam and Eve were created as adults in their
prime, so
every indication we have from scripture suggests that all of us who will
walk with Jesus forever will enjoy that status –
forever. Please see the
following link:
For more on the composition of man as created by God, please see:
The Dichotomy of Man (in Bible Basics 3A: Anthropology)
Is the nature of man dichotomous or trichotomous?
For more on the resurrection body, please see:
In the Name of Him who
is the resurrection and the life, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob Luginbill
Question #5:
Dr. Luginbill,
In John 4, when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman to go and get her
husband, how does the earliest text actually read? I am not a scholar,
but I have read that Greek indicates emphasis upon certain words by
placing such words at the beginning of a sentence. I read, then, that
the woman says, "I do not have a man.", and Jesus replies, "You speak
the truth when you say, 'A man I don't have...'". If this is the Greek,
would Jesus be saying, "You speak the truth when you say you don't have
*A* man, for you have had five men..."? Is he placing emphasis upon the
fact that she doesn't just have a (one) man, but five men? Is the Greek
for "have had", as in "have had five men", a different tense than
"have", as in, "don't have a man" and "now have is not your man". Also,
is the word "your" in "not your man" emphasized so that Jesus is saying
she has someone else's man? A wordy, complicated and perhaps "nit-picky"
question for your consideration.
Thank you. I send this with my prayers for your well being.
Response #5:
You are certainly correct in your overall approach here: such questions
are not "nit-picky". Everything boils down to "what does God really
say?", and the only way to be 100% sure is to know exactly what
scripture says, something that in turn requires a perfect understanding
of true theology (something no one has, since it would take a perfect
understanding of all of scripture to get there), a perfect understanding
of the history and culture of biblical times (this is not even
possible), and a perfect understanding of the Greek text (also a very
difficult nigh on impossible thing to achieve). But while we can't be
perfect, we can strive to come as close to the truth as possible, and,
God helping us and empowering us through His Spirit, we will glean much
from our studies in the Word, but only if we approach them in a decent
and orderly way. Your concentration on what the text actually says
manifests the proper point of view, and I appreciate it.
Let me start by answering your questions directly by way of overview
(and I'll then provide a more detailed explanation below):
Is he placing emphasis upon the fact that she doesn't just have a
(one) man, but five men?
No. Rather Jesus is placing emphasis on the fact that this current
fellow is not even married to her (see below).
Is the Greek for "have had", as in "have had five men", a different
tense than "have", as in, "don't have a man" and "now have is not your
man".
Yes, the tense is different, but the first one is not present perfect as
the English translation you provide suggests (see below).
Also, is the word "your" in "not your man" emphasized so that Jesus
is saying she has someone else's man?
No. It does provide, emphasis, but to show that he really doesn't belong
to her, not that he
belongs to someone else.
Here is a "word-for-word" translation (you'll see immediately why we
can't stop there, but it'll be somewhat
revealing):
John 4:16: He says to her: "Go, call your man/husband and come [back]
here".
John 4:17a: The woman replied and said, " I am not in possession of [a]
man/husband."
John 4:17b-18: Jesus says to her, "You said well that '[a] man/husband I
am not in possession of'. (18) For you acquired five men/husbands and
now the one whom you are in possession of is not your man/husband. This
thing you have spoken [is a] true thing."
The Greek of the gospel of John is some of the simplest Greek in the New
Testament, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't present interpretative
problems. One thing we can say for certain here about the woman's
current status is that "the five" are past not present history. The word
for "have" is the same in all the instance above, but with reference to
the five, Jesus uses the past [aorist] tense of the verb echo.
And, though it is a little appreciated point among New Testament
scholars generally, this verb is usually ingressive in the aorist tense.
What that means in plain English is that it would be more accurate to
translate "You acquired five husbands". The logic here of "the five" is
thus plain: 1) the five are in the past; 2) because the focus is upon
her act of marrying these five men (i.e., "you acquired"), there are
only two ways this could have happened, that is, if she married them all
at the same time (and nothing in Jewish law or history or the context
suggests so much as a parallel), or married them one at a time
(precisely the impression that the Greek reader would receive without
having to give this passage any terribly deep thought). We can easily
conclude, therefore, that this woman had five prior marriages which
ended either in the death of her previous spouses or in divorce. But the
fact that in verse 29 she says that Jesus told her "everything I did"
strongly suggests to me that what we have here is more likely a case of
multiple divorces followed by remarriage.
On the other hand, in the present tense echo expresses present
possession only, so that "whom you have now" rules out multiple
possession since the relative pronoun "whom" here in Greek is singular,
not plural. Furthermore, Jesus tells her that she has spoken "well" by
saying "I am not in possession of a husband". It is hard to understand
how our Lord could say these words if in His opinion she were still
technically married to any of the previous five. Rather He would have
found fault with her supposition that by divorcing them (or being
divorced by them) these prior marriages had come to an end. But He does
not. Instead, He agrees with her that she is unmarried. Where He finds
present fault with her –
and without rubbing it in –
is in her present
situation of living together with a man to whom she is not married.
It is also unlikely that the situation as described here could admit of
the possibility of this woman living together with a man married to
someone else, for that would seem to call for further comment on the one
hand (it is most definitely not suggested by anything in the text,
specifically the word "your", however strongly emphasized), and would
also seem to contradict the meaning established by the context for the
word "have/be in possession of" (since the current "man" would in that
case be technically "in the possession of" the other woman). So it would
be a very long, and I would say impossibly long stretch to assume that
Jesus is suggesting that by divorcing five men she has not ended those
marriages since under this [false] assumption marriage can only end in death,
whereas the interpretation suggested in this e-mail flows naturally and
seamlessly throughout the passage: her previous marriages ended most
likely in divorce, and now she is not married at all, although she is
living with someone.
As to the word order of "man/husband", Jesus does indeed switch it to
place emphasis on the word man/husband in His reply. But, given what He
says in the very next verse, "and now whom you are having is not your
man/husband", I would argue that the context suggests that is where we
are to find the intended contrast, not in some actual or "functional"
polygamy, but in the fact of being married (and divorced) five times in
the past, and now not even bothering to be married at all.
Honestly, the only way I can see this passage making sense is if we
posit what seems to be the case prima facie, namely, that this woman had
been a "serial spouse", and had now decided to forgo any pretense of
marriage whatsoever. One might think –
especially anyone who is overly
judgmental on issues of marriage and divorce –
that because this woman
had been living a sinful life Jesus should have nothing to do with her.
Instead, of course, she is not only considered by Him worthy of
salvation, but also becomes a conduit for the salvation of an entire
Samaritan town, and has her responsiveness to the Lord and her work in
carefully evangelizing her fellow citizens immortalized in the Word of
God forever!
Thank you for your prayers - they are very much appreciated.
Yours in our Lord Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Hi Dr. L.,
Could the solution Ezra implemented to address the intermarriage between
Israelites and foreign women have been wrong?
1. Though he had set his heart to learn and follow God's law, Ezra
evidently didn't come up with this idea on his own (Ezra 10:2-4).
2. Intermarriage with some of the foreign nations listed in Ezra 9:1 was
not specifically prohibited in the law... at least not that I can find.
3. Ezra 10:15 speaks of only a few men being "employed" in this matter.
Some versions of the Bible translate the word "amad" as "stood
against", perhaps meaning that these men were opposed to such a
solution.
It seems that many proponents of breaking up second, third, etc.
marriages use the argument that this event sets Biblical precedent for
such action. That may be true, but it is also true that the Bible
records many events as being historical without comment about how God
viewed them.
I am interested in reading your thoughts on this.
Thank you.
Response #6:
You have some very,
very good points here: 1) it is true that the idea was not all Ezra's
initially, and also true that it did not come directly from God through
prophecy or other direct communication; 2) it is true that some of the
nations listed at Ezra 9:1 do not seem to merit automatic
"excommunication"; Ruth, after all, who is in the line of our Lord
Jesus, was a Moabitess; 3) and it is also true that not everyone agreed
with this course of action. Finally, your statement that "the Bible
records many events as being historical without comment about how God
viewed them" is true and a very important caveat for anyone interpreting
the Bible and making use of material which is historical and descriptive
rather than purely doctrinal and prescriptive (the Book of Acts comes to
mind).
So what do we do with this passage? I have said in the past that from my
point of view this passage is an indication that under some
circumstances remarriage is acceptable. Your points above do show that
we should be careful about trying to take this passage as doctrine –
which it most clearly is not. I would say that Ezra's actions are
certainly presented as noble and God-fearing, and that the sequel, the
agreement of the people (Ezra 10:12) and conclusion of the book with no
stricture upon Ezra's actions but instead a listing of those who had
intermarried presented in a most negative light, do suggest that if Ezra was not
entirely right, he wasn't entirely wrong either. It is often the case in
the course of "real life" that because of sin and prior violations of
divine will we find ourselves in situations where there really is "no
good solution". David's deceptive protestations before Abimelech prior
to the battle of Mt. Gilboa is a famous case in point. David put himself
into a situation where lying was his only choice. That does not mean
that God condones lying, but "telling the truth", if we can even call it
that in such an instance, risked (and perhaps even guaranteed) that the men
who had followed him loyally would have been put to death through no
fault of their own –
and that would have been a far graver sin.
Ideally, we are never going to be in a situation where through our own
fault and folly we face the "lesser or greater of two evils", but it
often does happen because we are flesh, because we are weak, and because
even for the most spiritually mature among us it takes time to get to
the point where we really "get it" and fear God sufficiently to stay
away from evil consistently and completely enough to avoid such
situations entirely. In the vast majority of cases, most Christians find
themselves in the "Ezra situation" sooner or later. Ezra's dilemma was
to allow the situation to continue and risk the rapid dissolution of the
Jewish race (they were only a handful in the midst of many enemies, and
their new wives and children didn't even speak Hebrew) or dissolve these
foreign marriages instead. Neither choice was pure, but for Ezra and for
most of the people, the choice between dissolving some marriages or
having the entire nation of Israel dissolve was a clear if not an easy
one to make.
On this difficult issue of divorce and re-marriage I have always
maintained what I see as the biblical position:
1) Are you single? Stay single if you can, but if you marry, you haven't
sinned.
2) Are you married? Stay married, but if you must separate for whatever
reason, stay single thereafter.
3) Have you remarried? I do not defend remarriage, but in my view it
falls into the category of what we have discussed above. People do
remarry, and, given the human libido, it would be imprudent of me to
suggest that in each and every case staying single would be the best way
to avoid sin.
In any case, I am not shy about suggesting that for most people who
have remarried, divorcing again out of guilt over remarriage
at least has the potential of being a far worse evil than the evil it
purports to cure. For once we have undertaken solemn responsibilities to
others which any marriage inevitably entails, we cannot just go out and
dissolve them willy-nilly without spiritual consequences. The
difficulties encountered in Ezra are, I am sure, only the surface of the
pain and suffering, material and emotional, that these divorces
entailed, and it was only in the context of national and racial survival
that these drastic steps were taken. So I am also confident that such
extreme measures would never have been undertaken except that the
consequences of inaction for the entire Jewish race were so severe. We don't
have that excuse today, and it is worth noting that people who have
gotten remarried in spite of prior, painful divorces, must have had
needs, emotional as well as physical, that single status could not
endure. Therefore if out of this sort of guilt-pressure they are led to
divorce –
again –
what is the realistic likelihood that they will not
find themselves in exactly the same situation –
again –
and in very
short order be pressured to re-marry yet again? So while I am
sympathetic to the position that counsels believers not to remarry after
divorce, for those who have remarried my advice is always
the same: being married again now, point #2 above again applies (i.e.,
"stay married"), even if that course of action does bring with it a
certain amount of trouble and guilt that would not be present if all
parties had scrupulously obeyed the Word of God in the first place.
From my observation and personal experience, it is a blessing beyond
expression that God forgives us and blesses us in spite of our failures
and weaknesses, that He heals and comforts us and continues to use us in
spite of our past sins. For who among us can truthfully say that they
have never found themselves in the position of having to make "Ezra's
choice" in any matter at any time? No one who is being honest.
Thanks for your e-mail and for your very perceptive analysis of
scripture.
In our Lord who understands all of our needs and who forgives all of our
sins, our Savior Jesus Christ.
Bob L.
Question #7:
Dr. Luginbill,
I have read lately that some scholars believe that the term "played the
harlot against him" in Judges 19:2 (the passage about the Levite's
concubine) really means that they fought constantly and she became angry
and left him to go home to her father's house. These scholars (Josephus
included, if that is worth anything) comment that the Levite pursuing
her to make up with her if she had committed adultery would have been
contrary to the Law of Moses. Do you have any thoughts on this?
Response #7:
I should tell you up
front that I have a pretty low opinion of Josephus as an interpreter of
the Bible. His interpretations are often bizarre, highly speculative,
and seldom if ever correct.
The Hebrew word zana', translated "played the harlot" by many in
Judges 19:2, is a very well attested verb and verbal root in the Old
Testament, and a very straightforward one too. When used of relations
between the sexes, it invariably means just what the translations
reflect here, namely, physical infidelity. When used vis-à-vis man and
God, it refers to spiritual infidelity, but that is clearly a deliberate
attempt by authors who employ the verb in that sense to show that
apostasy where God is concerned is equivalent to adultery where human
beings are concerned.
I think that the argument that actual adultery could not be in view here
because then the
Levite's actions would go against the Mosaic Law is a very weak one. For
one thing, the
entire context shows all sorts of horrendous deviation not just from
Moses but from any sort
of "law" anchored in what we know of right and wrong from scripture –
and that is the theme of
Judges after all: without a king, people generally did whatever they
liked (Judg.17:6; 21:25; cf. 19:1).
Secondly, it is always a very dangerous thing (and almost always a wrong
thing) when one is interpreting scripture to suggest that what the text
seems to state clearly happened could not have happened in that
seemingly clear way because it violates one's construct about what would
or would not be possible for some reason or other. This is in essence to
assume that one understands everything about God and scripture to such a
perfect degree that what scripture actually seems to say is weaker
evidence than what someone "knows" is possible independent of the text.
Bottom line: it is inconceivable to me that those who first read this
passage in Hebrew or those who read it now in Hebrew would be likely to
understand the concubine's actions as anything but unfaithfulness. That
is especially true given that there is nothing in the context here to
indicate that fighting was the "real reason" for her departure.
Finally, as to the issue of the Law, lest we forget, the Lord actually
ordered Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry", 'eshet zenuniym –
key
word here from the same root as zana' (Hos.1:2), and was later
commanded to reconcile with her in spite of further adultery
(Hos.3:1ff). Therefore reconciliation after unfaithfulness is not
impossible according to the Law, even though said unfaithfulness
constitutes a valid grounds for divorce. If it were impossible, then no human being
could ever be saved. For we are as human beings sinful to our very core,
and it is the great and wonderful news of the gospel of Jesus Christ
that we have been offered salvation in spite of all our unfaithfulness –
through the death of our Lord on the cross, washing away all of our sins
with His blood.
In our ever-faithful Lord Jesus Christ who died that we might live.
Bob L.