Tag: Moses

The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses: A Selected Comparative Look

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ANE, College Papers, Exodus, Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia, Old Testament Background, Women Studies

[Note: This was a comparative historical paper for a history course exploring ancient societies. It forced me to examine ancient literature–even the Bible–as a historical source. ]

If one were to think of the most significant influences in lawmaking one who be hard-pressed to consider two greater and oldest than that the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses. Even today, hanging above the gallery doors of the House Chamber in Washington, D.C., are twenty-three marble relief portraits of all those whose works have influenced the establishment of the principles of American law.

Among them are King Hammurabi and the prophet Moses (“About Relief Portrait” in SNT 36). Hammurabi’s Law ( or “Code”) is available today due to a monument relief and extant manuscript evidence (Roth 336). The Law of Moses has been preserved in the biblical manuscripts used for both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.

In this paper, I focus on four touching points between the “Code of Hammurabi” (Roth) and the Law of Moses (Exod 19:3–24:8) by examining their similarities and suggesting some differences. These touching points are their sources of authority and their significance, the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people, the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws, and what both sources of the law reveal about their two societies.

While this is not an exhaustive evaluation, it is an attempt to understand from these literary sources insights helpful toward a historical understanding of ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Israel. The most fundamental conclusion from this comparison and contrast may be that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the differences demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

Sources of Authority

The first touching point is their source(s) of authority and their significance. There are points of comparison between the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses when it comes to their sources of authority; however, there are significant contrasts that highlight the unique trajectory of each set of laws.

On the one hand, the preamble of the Code of Hammurabi and the beginning chapters leading to the specific Laws of Moses share a similar concern with establishing the view that each law has a divine source. Lockard points to a black basalt stone in the temple of Marduk (Babylon’s patron god) which pictures Hammurabi “receiving” kingship from Shamash (sun-god and lawgiver), and this provides the divine authority for the king to enforce his code of 282 laws upon his people (SNT 37). The preamble of the Code of Hammurabi likewise enlists this motif of the kings being “called” by name to bring justice and protection for the weak a reality. The laws of Moses, very similarly, presume the call of Moses for the Hebrews to be a “treasured possession” of the “Lord God” as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6).

The very connection between man and the divine realm supports the shared worldview of theism and the order and accountability that follows from that view. Accordingly, then, such a relationship would make Hammurabi and Moses mediators of such divinely given laws rather than their chief architects.

On the other hand, the divine sources of authority are significantly distinct in their presumption of polytheism and monotheism. The first words in the “Code of Hammurabi” are, “When the exalted Anum king of the Annunaki.” Anum is the “sky god of the old Babylonian pantheon” of which the Annunaki were the “lesser Babylonian gods of heaven who served Enlil.” This demonstrates the full placement of the polytheistic belief system of Hammurabi and the Babylonian world (Roth 335). For example, Roth’s translation reads, 

“When the august god Anu, king of the Anunnaku deities” (335).

The preamble affirms that both gods Anum and Enlil gave all power to the god Marduk (son of Ea) and elevated him above the “Igigu deities.” It is this pantheon, as it were, of Babylonian and Mesopotamian gods that form the authoritative source for the call of Hammurabi as mediator of his law. The inclusion of these unifying acts in the heavens would create a significant plea for unity under this law on earth.

Yet, Moses and the laws in the Exodus record are based on a monotheistic view and this is significant since it ties in with their heritage. The Hebrews are believed to be descendants of a man named Abraham who departed from the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Gen. 12–13) and abandoned polytheism and idolatry. The Laws of Moses reaffirm this belief system, for example, in Exodus:

“You shall have no other gods besides me” (20:3 NJPS)

“With Me, therefore, you shall not make any gods of silver, nor shall you make for yourselves any gods of gold” (20:23 NJPS).

The monotheistic tone set at the beginning and throughout connects the Hebrews to their heritage, the sense that the God of Abraham has overthrown the gods of Egypt, and will be their only “LORD God” even in the future in polytheistic lands (Exod 23:23–24 ESV). This law will be their guide and source of unity in such conflicting environments.

Relationship with the Governed

The second touching point is the relationship between Moses and his people with the relationship between Hammurabi and his people. On the one hand, Moses is described as a servant rather than a prince. Moses dialogues with the “LORD God,” and then is said to communicate the conclusion of that dialogue to the people. As briefly noted above, Moses was called by the Lord God; however, the Exodus narrative describes Moses as one who does not always have the trust of the people. Nevertheless, it is the exodus (mass migration) out of Egypt and the procession toward the mountain of the “LORD God” that establishes the relationship for which he is known most, the servant of the “Lord God,” mediator, and law-giver (Exod. 19; 20:19-21). It is through Moses that the Hebrews agree in the community to the Laws of the Lord (Exod. 24:3). Moses does not appear as an architect or prince, but as the mediator chosen by the people and by the Lord God.

On the other hand, Hammurabi’s relationship with his empire is distinct. He comes to the throne, according to Roth, as a descendant of Sumu-abum (c. 1894-1881 B.C.E.) and consequently has an established relationship with the Mesopotamian empire (Roth 335). It is clear from the Code of Hammurabi that the king was involved in the development of the laws:

When the god Marduk commanded me to provide just ways for the people of the land (in order to attain) appropriate behavior, I established truth and justice as the declaration of the land, I enhanced the well-being of the people. (Roth 337)

Lockard describes the significant career of the king as one who stabilized, maintained, and expanded his kingdom. Consequently, Hammurabi’s relationship was far more formal than that of Moses with the Hebrews.

The Status of Women

The third touching point is the position(s) of women in both societies as revealed by the laws. On the one hand, information in the “Code of Hammurabi” demonstrates a considerable need to regulate the treatment and care of women facing a variety of injustices. Lockard holds a similar view (SNT 36). Following Roth’s and Harper’s sectioning of the Laws, sections §131-136 demonstrate considerable regulations on how to treat an accusation of adultery. 

§131 If her husband accuses his own wife (of adultery), although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall swear (to her innocence by) an oath by the god, and return to her house.
§132 If a man’s wife should have a finger pointed against her in accusation involving another male, although she has not been seized lying with another male, she shall submit to the divine River Ordeal for her husband.
§133a If a man should be captured and there are sufficient provisions in his house, his wife […, she will not] enter [another’s house].
§133b If that woman does not keep herself chaste but enters another’s house, they shall charge and convict that woman and cast her into the water.
§134 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, his wife may enter another’s house; that woman will not be subject to any penalty.
§135 If a man should be captured and there are not sufficient provisions in his house, before his return his wife enters another’s house and bears children, and afterwards her husband returns and gets back to his city, that woman shall return to her first husband; the children shall inherit from their father.
§136 If a man deserts his city and flees, and after his departure his wife enters another’s house — if that man then should return and seize his wife, because he repudiated his city and fled, the wife of the deserter will not return to her husband. (Roth COS 343)

Apparently, there was such considerable mistreatment that legislation was provided to give the local judges the necessary guidelines to protect mistreated women and children.

Some of the more intriguing laws that deal with the protection of women are in the cases of abandonment and mistreatment (section 138-141). 

§138 If a man intends to divorce his first-ranking wife who did not bear him children, he shall give her silver as much as was her bridewealth and restore to her the dowry that she brought from her father’s house, and he shall divorce her. 
§139 If there is no bridewealth, he shall give her 60 shekels of silver as a divorce settlement.
§140 If he is a commoner, he shall give her 20 shekels of silver.
§141 If the wife of a man who is residing in the man’s house should decide to leave, and she appropriates goods, squanders her household possessions, or disparages her husband, they shall charge and convict her; and if her husband should declare his intention to divorce her, then he shall divorce her; neither her travel expenses, nor her divorce settlement, nor anything else shall be given to her. If her husband should declare his intention to not divorce her, then her husband may marry another woman and that (first) woman shall reside in her husband’s house as a slave woman. (Roth COS 343)

It is not that every law was written in the women’s favor because there appears evidence that a woman’s marital conduct can be actionable if abusive to her husband, but they implicitly suggest that these laws were needed in Hammurabi’s empire. Yet, this is only based on literary evidence. Nevertheless, it implies there was a negative treatment of women, so much so that it required legislation.

On the other hand, in Exodus 21:1–23:33 there are several sections addressing varying roles women were found in. Apparently, some fathers sold their daughters as slaves (21:7) but her potential manumission was legislated, as was legitimate marriage to the family’s son (21:7–11).

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (ESV)

There were also retributive laws of justice if a pregnant woman was hurt or killed (21:22–32). 

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.26 “When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. 27 If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth. 28 “When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. 29 But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. 30 If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. 31 If it gores a man’s son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. 32 If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (ESV)

Even in the case of consensual premarital sex, the Law legislated that the male “give the bride-price” for her to legitimize the marriage (22:16–17; NJPS 22:15–16). Sociological morés of promiscuity would have rendered the woman vulnerable to social scandal and familial shame. 

16 “If a man seduces [or, entices] a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (ESV)

Widows were to be cared for and never mistreated, and if so the perpetrators would receive the sword so their wives would become widows (22:22–24; NJPS 22:21–23). The language carries a passionate emphasis:

22 You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. (ESV)

Related to the issue of adultery, there was a clear prohibition against such practices in the Law: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod 20:14). In contrast to the wide practice of polygamy (but not polyandry) in ancient societies of the Near East, the LORD God established monogamy as the mandated ideal of marriage (Gen 2:24). Consequently, adultery was viewed as a social wrong and a violation against God’s order. There was a concession for divorce and remarriage found in the teachings of Moses (Deut 24:1–4), but it is very restrictive.

Overall, such legislation in Israel was required because there were problems with the mistreatment of widows and slave girls, and also the abuse of rejection or abandonment of women after premarital sex.

If one is careful to read between the lines, Hammurabi and the Exodus Laws seek correctives on matters of injustice and oppression. These may not meet the modern social expectations regarding what are protective laws for women, but it should be noted different social norms and morés are being addressed in the ancient world than those of today.

Impact on the Society

The fourth observation focuses on what both sources of law reveal about these two societies. The earlier society of Hammurabi appears to have considerable social unrest and a sense of injustice in the air. The sorts of laws are of such a micromanagement level that they reflect a tremendous amount of abuse in society at large. The laws do cover more than just social matters, but it cannot be ignored that Hammurabi’s Code was, as he affirms, to: 

“make justice to appear in the land, to destroy evil and the wicked that the strong might not oppress the weak.”

This law reveals that retribution towards evil, the wicked, and oppression was not only viewed as a social necessity but was also a divine ruling. The gods will hold the mortals accountable for their mistreatment of others.

Likewise, in the emerging society of the Hebrews, it was expected that all previous and current expectations of justice and injustice must now be reevaluated from the perspective of the moral and religious expectation of the “LORD God.” One of the premises of the Exodus Law is their liberation from Egyptian slavery and its moral application to how a neighbor treats their neighbor. The case law nature of the Mosaic Law demonstrates this transition, especially in the Ten Commandments proper (Exod 20:1–17). The good standing in the Hebrew community was based upon how one interacted with their neighbor; consequently, it may be inferred from the law section of Exodus that Hebrew society needed much legislation to correct their conduct toward their neighbor: “…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord (Leviticus 19:18 ESV).

Observations

Initially, it may be said that despite the similar concerns for establishing order in their respective societies, the Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses demonstrate the unique trajectories of each society’s beliefs, expectations, and social concerns.

This is seen in the following four areas as evaluated above. First, despite sharing a concern with connecting their source(s) of authority with the divine realm (i.e., the gods/God), and thus, making Moses and Hammurabi mediators of a law that centers on moral accountability and justice, they are markedly distinct in their theism.

Second, despite there being a common motif of mediation between the gods/God and the people they led, Moses and Hammurabi held distinct relationships with their people. Moses rose to leadership and was summoned to lead by the people; whereas, Hammurabi ascended to the thorn and had an established and formal regnal relationship with his empire.

Third, although the Hammurabi handout had selected sections on what is available shows that when compared to Exodus Laws, both were concerned with correcting and abolishing, through retributive legislation, the abuse of women in their communities in areas of sexuality, honor, abandonment, and humiliation.

Finally, both sources of law reveal that human societies always deal with matters of injustice and oppression, and these tend to be focused on the mistreatment of vulnerable women and widows. The consequences of such laws demonstrate the rough and violent nature of society and its expectations.

Bibliography

(ESV) English Standard Version of The Holy Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Harper, Robert Francis. The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon About 2250. 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1904.

(NJPS) TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures, A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Philadelphia, PA: Jerusalem Publication Society, 1985.

(SNT) Lockard, Craig A. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History. Volume I: To 1500. 3rd edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2015.

(COS) Roth, Martha. “The Laws of Hammurabi.” In volume 3 of The Context of Scripture: Archival Documents from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. New York: Brill, 2002.

Genesis 2: When Boy Met Girl for the First Time

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Genesis, Hebrew Bible, marriage, Old Testament, Women Studies2 Comments

One of the most fundamental principles articulated in the Bible is that God created the universe and that within this grand cosmos, a focal point was given to a small globe predominately covered in water – the planet earth. It is upon this planet that God organized the elements for human habitation over a period of six days (Exod 20:7). During the sixth day, the uncaused Creator made humanity (Gen 1:26-27):[1]

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness […] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

When God created humanity, the Scriptures show that he also created the first marriage, and consequently the first family. The narrative of this origin is the foundation for a godly marriage. The current study is a brief look into some of the vital lessons found in the creation of the human family – and first marriage.

The Historical Setting

In Genesis 2, the sixth day of creation is elaborated upon (2:4-25). There is a common literary device in the book of Genesis that perhaps is obscured by the English translation to which we call brief attention. It usually is styled the Toledoth formula, and is often translated as “these are the generations,” “this is the family history,” “this is the account,” or some other formulation (Gen 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:19, 36:1, 9, 37:2).

Attention is given to this literary device for two reasons – though several other thoughts could be developed. First, it is one of the clearest features in Genesis that displays to biblical students the “structure intended” by the author.[2] Second, this series of episodes throughout the book both provides a strong sense of unity and harmony within its narrative, and indicates a “historical impulse” to be understood while reading Genesis.[3]

These narratives are not mere “fairy-tales” given for ancient religious and philosophical contemplation. Instead, the biblical material is styled in such a way to make it obvious “the author intended it to be read as a work of history that recounts what has taken place in the far-distant past.”[4]

Therefore, in Genesis 2:4, when it reads, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth […],” we are beginning a historical – albeit theological – pilgrimage that starts with the historical creation of our forefathers made in the “image of God” (1:27).

Humanity – The Pinnacle of Creation

Heaven’s joy in creating humanity is perhaps seen quite clearly when we compare how God assessed the situation when humans come into the picture. In general, God saw His creation as “good” – “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The Hebrew word for “good” in Genesis 1 (Heb. tob) has many applications in the Old Testament, employed by different authors as many times as 741 times.

In the Creation Account, “good” anticipates the theme of the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] but at the same time demonstrates that the Creation as God intended was an ideal place for the well-being of its inhabitants.[6] Consequently, at the close of the sixth day, after the creation of humanity God surveyed his handiwork, and saw that “it was very good.”

Perhaps our Creator observed that all the pieces to his creation were now in place, and so now the planet was a very good place to live – God’s ideal world realized. Though not in contradistinction, perhaps we are reading a phrase of great emotion and tenderness, as the only creation made in the Imago Dei (“image of God”) now walks the earth. Furthermore, humanity is entrusted with sovereignty over the animals and with the planets overall care (Gen 1:26); humanity is thus the crown of creation.

The sweet psalmist of Israel (2 Sam 23:1) sets forth a beautiful hymn of praise to God for His creative acts, but most importantly, for his emphasis upon the human family. A segment of the 8th Psalm is as follows:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet. (Psalm 8:3–6)

No doubt as King of Israel, David had pondered over the Creation Account several times (Psa 19). Perhaps he became more intimately involved in its study since it was his duty as King to be a Scribe of the Law as well (Deut 17:18-20).

God Created the Family

Returning to Genesis 2:4, we see a narrative serving much as a prism fragmenting a beam of light into many unique colors of spiritual insight. We may focus upon many of them as we have done above, but here attention is drawn to one in particular. When God created humanity, he also created the fundamental building block of human society – God created the family.

God employed His sovereignty and created a human community on the sixth day made up of one male and one female. Genesis 1:27 abbreviates the day, but 2:4-25 reiterates and expands upon the sixth day, a common feature in Old Testament narration to focus upon a critical moment that pushes the story forward.[7] We find Adam created from earthen materials, and fashioned into a “living soul” with the “breathe of life” given to him (2:7); however, he was alone, and that was not good for the well-being of the creation (2:18).

One of the aspects of being made in the image of God is that humans are by-in-large social beings. God is a trinity; in other words, God is a community of love made of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2, etc.). Should it be all that surprising that the Imago Dei is likewise a social being? Hardly, and God saw the loneliness and incompleteness Adam felt and addresses the matter.

In what appears to be an animal parade of potential companions organized by God, Adam still finds no animal that would be a “a helper fit for him” (2:18-20). In other words, “a helper corresponding to him,”[8] suggesting Adam’s deep need to have another person just like him to help fulfill his responsibilities of governing the creation. A companion was needed to work side-by-side, another person like Adam to continue the human family, another person to create a community of love made in the image of God.

Consequently, when no animal met those criteria, the Lord caused a great sleep to fall upon Adam. When Adam awoke, God had created a new being that corresponded to him; someone who would help him in this new world. God presented this person to Adam and he named her Woman (Heb. ‘issah), which is the logical result since she was taken out of man (Heb. ‘is 2.22-23).

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., makes a very important point here worthy to be reflected upon:

Unlike the animals – indeed, unlike the man himself – she did not come up from the ground below but out from human flesh, putting her alone at the man’s level.[9]

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (1996)

This was indeed a public proclamation of her status as his only true companion in the garden.[10]

Boy Meets Girl for the First Time

It is amazing to fathom how God collaborated with Adam to find a solution to his solitude. God orchestrated the events that led to the creation of Eve, and Adam knew exactly what he saw: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). We might respectfully paraphrase Adam as saying, “Finally, a person made just like me!” The event was quite literally that of a match made by Heaven.

Together, they were to share the dominion over the planet (1:26), and dwell in an environment objectively unaware of the evil uses of the sexual appetite – hence “they were naked and not ashamed.”[11]

After Adam’s great announcement of finding his companion, the bedrock biblical principle of marriage is declared in terms of a logical consequence derived from the events of day six leading to the creation of womankind. Moses addresses his post-fall contemporaries, and places a prescriptive emphasis upon this pre-fall narrative: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (2:24).[12]

There have been departures from God’s intent for marriage since the polygamy practiced by Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (etc.), or whether it is the tolerated relaxation of the original marriage code in Genesis 2:24 allowed under the Mosaic system due to the “hardness of heart” (Matt 19:8).

Jesus appealing back to this Genesis narrative affirms that “from the beginning [of time] it was not so” (Matt 19:8).[13] The marriage can only be severed on the basis of adultery, and while many pollute this teaching, the Lord is quite clear on the subject (Matt 5:32).[14]

The “One Flesh” Aspect

Jesus addressed a much-needed foundational marriage issue, one that our contemporary culture is in dire need of emphasizing: divorce and remarriage is not for any cause.

When God created male and female, and gave them the garden for their home, reproduction as an aspect of life, and delegated the authority to them for the governance of the world and its other inhabitants, He joined Adam and Eve into one flesh (2:24; 1:26-28). Their example is designed to serve all subsequent generations on earth as the templar for the permanent nature of marriage (and its goals).

As we conclude this piece focused upon the first encounter between boy and girl – rather man and woman (Heb. ‘is and ‘issah respectively), it is vital to give some attention to the concept of one flesh. In doing so, there are three pivotal principles articulated by Ortlund based upon Genesis 2:24.[15]

  1. Viewed negatively, marriage severs the strongest of human bonds – parental; and as such, “elevates the marital union above all other personal loyalties, under God.”
  2. Viewed positively, marriage is the context where the male “devotes his primary loyalty to his wife” emotionally, sexually, and socially.
  3. Likewise, “the new life [as one flesh] created by a marriage fuses a man and wife together into one, fully shared human experience, prompting mutual care, tenderness and love.”

These are beautiful principles that would enrich any marriage.

Conclusion

The teaching from Genesis 2:24 is set forth before the Mosaic and Christian covenant, and this means that its teaching applies to the entirety of the human race.[16] God did not allow the creation week to end without the creation of humanity, and subsequently the family.

It was not consistent with the well-being of the creation for Adam to be alone, and God created the perfect companion to help him navigate through the world of Eden. This was the first marriage, and God designed marriage to be a permanent relationship of a “fully shared human experience” – the good, the bad, and the ugly. Human interference in the marriage is strongly warned against by Jesus (Matt 19:6, 9).

All we can do is ponder over these principles, find avenues in our lives to enact them, and allow the idealistic Edenic garden to be planted, cultivated, and blossomed in our marriages. As it is written in the Scriptures:

Awake, O north wind, and come O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits. I came to my garden, my sister, my bride, I gathered my myrrh with my spice, I ate my honeycomb with my honey, I drank my wine with my milk. Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love! (Song of Solomon 4:16–5:1)

Sources

  1. All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
  2. Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 48.
  3. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 48-49.
  4. Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 49.
  5. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, trans. Mark E. Biddle. (1997; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 2:491-92.
  6. William E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 1:100.
  7. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 50-51.
  8. Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 9.
  9. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 19.
  10. Ortlund, Whoredom, 19.
  11. Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 9.
  12. Ortlund, Whoredom, 20-21.
  13. Wayne Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage: A Critical Study of Matthew 19:9, revised ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2002), 2-8.
  14. Jack P. Lewis, The Gospel According to Matthew (1976; repr., Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 2:67. Some, however, attempt to use 1 Corinthians 7:15 as support for divorce for the cause of desertion, claiming Paul was applying the teaching of Jesus to a new situation. While the teaching of Jesus was certainly being applied to a new situation, there is no reason to assert that desertion in 1 Corinthians 7:15 serves as an additional allowance for divorce and remarriage. We recommend Wayne Jackson article, “What Is the Meaning of ‘Not under Bondage’ (1 Cor. 7:15)?” (ChristianCourier.com), in response to this viewpoint.
  15. Ortlund, Whoredom, 21-23.
  16. Cf. Jackson, The Teaching of Jesus Christ on Divorce and Remarriage, 5-6.