THE ANSWER SCROLL: November 2013

Saturday 9 November 2013

Does the Bible say anything about interracial marriage?

Both the Bible and science concur: there is no such thing as interracial marriage. The subdivisions of mankind that we refer to as "races" do not genetically exist. There is exactly one race of human beings. There are ethnic and cultural differences, but the biological differences are so slight that they cannot be said to represent a different life form.

In spiritual terms, there are two races of humans: Jesus-followers and everyone else; those with a heart of stone, and those with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19). Second Corinthians 6:14 prohibits Christians from marrying non-Christians. This law was paralleled in Israel in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 7:3-4) which forbade the Israelites from marrying foreigners of a different religion. But there are many marriages and children of mixed ethnicity that are held up with honor. Caleb's father is called a Kenizzite (Numbers 32:12)—descended from one of the nations of Canaan. Rahab was from Jericho (Joshua 2). Moses' wife was a Cushite from Midian (Exodus 2:16-21)—as was her father who served as a counselor for Moses (Exodus 18:17-27). Ruth the Moabitess has an entire book dedicated to her and her faithfulness to her Jewish mother-in-law. In the New Testament, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother and a Greek father, and a leader in the early church.

There seems to be a general pattern among interethnic marriages in societies. A group of men, whether explorers, traders, job-hunters, or refugees, will enter another country. They will intermarry with local women, to varying degrees. Such marriages will be socially acceptable until the arrival of one or more factors: fear that the local culture will become diluted, the introduction of slavery of others of the men's nationality, or possibly the introduction of women of the ethnic minority. Sex slavery of girls and women generally leads to a great amount of interethnic marriages, as does the combination of war with refugees. When native men are killed in war and refugees from that war immigrate in, interethnic marriages become common.

Barring the outside influence of foolish prejudice, native culture is a much bigger issue in relationships than skin color. A couple's ancestry does not matter as much as the individual's family upbringing. When things such as conflict resolution and expectations differ greatly, ethnicity takes a back seat—and such issues can certainly strain a marriage between two people of the same ethnic background.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to mixed-ethnic relationships. Family and culture may prove to be difficult. But the more interethnic marriages a society witnesses, the more normalized they become. And it has been hypothesized that children of mixed parentage may have genetic benefits as damaging recessive genes are minimized.

There is nothing unbiblical about interethnic relationships. In fact, when Miriam challenged her brother Moses' authority by criticizing his mixed-ethnic marriage, God not only backed Moses and Zipporah, He gave Miriam leprosy for her disloyalty (Numbers 12). As God told Samuel, "… the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

What is a concubine? Why did God allow men to have concubines in the Bible?"

Answer: A concubine is a female who voluntarily enslaves and sells herself to a man primarily for his sexual pleasure. Concubines in the patriarchal age and beyond did not have equal status with a wife. A concubine could not marry her master because of her slave status, although, for her, the relationship was exclusive and ongoing. Sometimes concubines were used to bear children for men whose wives were barren. Concubines in Israel possessed many of the same rights as legitimate wives, without the same respect.

Although it’s true the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns concubinage, a condemnation can be found implicitly from the beginning of time. According to Genesis 2:21-24, God’s original intent was for marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that has never changed (Genesis 1:27). As a matter of fact, a study of the lives of men like King David and King Solomon (who had 300 concubines; 1 Kings 11:3) reveals that many of their problems stemmed from polygamous relationships (2 Samuel 11:2-4).

The Bible never explains why God allowed men to have concubines. He allowed divorce and polygamy, too, although neither was part of His original plan for marriage. Jesus said God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts (Matthew 19:8). We can assume the same hardness of heart led to polygamy and concubinage.

We can also surmise a reason based on the culture of the day. Unmarried women in ancient times were completely dependent on their family members, such as their fathers, brothers, etc. If for some reason a woman had no family members or her husband had died or divorced her, she would be left with few options for survival. Most women in ancient times were uneducated and unskilled in a trade. Providing for themselves was very difficult, and they were vulnerable to those who would prey upon them. For many women in dire situations, becoming a concubine was a much more suitable option than prostitution, homelessness, or death. At least a concubine would be provided a home and afforded a certain amount of care.

It appears God allowed the sin of concubinage, in part, to provide for women in need, although it was certainly not an ideal situation. Sin is never ideal. Christians should be reminded that, just because God allows a sin for a time, it does not mean God is pleased with it. Many Bible narratives teach that God can take what some people mean for evil and use it for good (e.g., Genesis 50:20).

Why did God allow polygamy in the Bible?

Despite the many examples of polygamy in the Bible, it was never God's intent for people. He created Adam and Eve to cleave together, the two becoming one (Genesis 2:24). He also gave them the joint mission to rule over and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Once sin entered the world, that mission and the way in which it could be fulfilled, was warped. People began to value God's gifts less. One of those gifts was a committed marriage relationship between a man and woman who were devoted to each other and God.

Other concerns started to take priority. The once fertile ground was covered with weeds, leading families to value children who could work in the fields. Cain's murder of Abel set the precedence for selfishness and violence instead of dedication to God's calling. Women lost standing as joint-heirs of God's blessing and instead served to witness man's ambition (Genesis 4:23-24) and provide sons to advance it.

Several centuries later, society had degraded even further. Many cultures taught that men were to rule God's creation. Women became almost superfluous except as a means to make baby men. A woman on her own was thought to have no contribution to society. She had no protection from violence. No role in the community. And often the only way she could provide for herself was through prostitution.

Men, on the other hand, worked toward God's mission to rule by acquiring and holding onto land and property. In the patriarchal society, this was done through sons who could work the land and daughters whose marriages could cement political alliances. In many cultures, there was no socio-political value to unmarried, unrelated women.

This was not God's intent. God created women to, married or not, join with men in the mission to subdue and fill the earth. Only after Eve was created did God look over creation and say it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31). But God also gave mankind the free will to be able to warp His plan. He could not have reached in and corrected culture's view of women without retracting that free will. So He worked within the culture instead.

As strange and odd as it sounds, polygamy in the Bible protected women. A second or third wife would be far more cared for than an unmarried woman. She would have the opportunity to bear children—especially sons who would be responsible for supporting her in her old age. She would have protection from abuse from strangers. And she would have a home. She might also have the chance to rescue a family. If the first wife was barren, her sons could continue the family name (1 Samuel 1:2).

On rare occasions, the Bible shows how God even used polygamy as a reward of protection for a faithful woman. David married Abigail after she showed great wisdom in the face of her foolish husband, who later died (1 Samuel 25). It's been speculated that Ruth was significantly younger than Boaz because he called her "daughter" (Ruth 2:2). If so, such a powerful land-owner surely would have had other wives.

Although the Bible hints that protection of women is probably the main reason why God allowed polygamy, most polygamous marriages were not so altruistic. Marriages were very often contracts between families. Solomon surely loved women (1 Kings 11:3), but it's safe to say most of his wives were given to him to gain political favor. And they were not beneficial for Solomon's walk with God or Israel.

The Bible tells us that polygamy was not God's original plan. It is not the ideal of marriage. The fact that it was deemed necessary to protect women and maintain the holdings of men is a commentary on humanity's ability to twist God's plan. God did not intend for women to be useless and worthless without a man. When society decided they were, God acted to protect His daughters.

Why are both Jesus and Satan referred to as the morning star?

Answer: The first reference to the morning star as an individual is in Isaiah 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (NIV). The KJV and NKJV both translate “morning star” as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” It is clear from the rest of the passage that Isaiah is referring to Satan’s fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). So in this case, the morning star refers to Satan. In Revelation 22:16, Jesus unmistakably identifies Himself as the morning star. Why are both Jesus and Satan described as the “morning star”?

It is interesting to note that the concept of the “morning star” is not the only concept that is applied to both Jesus and Satan. In Revelation 5:5, Jesus is referred to as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. In 1 Peter 5:8, Satan is compared to a lion, seeking someone to devour. The point is this, both Jesus and Satan, to a certain extent, have similarities to lions. Jesus is similar to a lion in that He is the King, He is royal and majestic. Satan is similar to a lion in that he seeks to devour other creatures. That is where the similarities between Jesus, Satan, and lions end, however. Jesus and Satan are like lions in very different ways.

The idea of a “bright morning star” is a star that outshines all the others. Satan, as perhaps the most beautiful creation of God, probably the most powerful of all the angels, was a bright morning star. Jesus, as God incarnate, the Lord of the universe, is THE bright and morning star. Jesus is the most holy and powerful “light” in all the universe. So, while both Jesus and Satan can be described as “bright morning stars,” in no sense is this equating Jesus and Satan. Satan is a created being. His light only exists to the extent that God created it. Jesus is the light of the world (John 9:5). Only Jesus’ light is self-existent. Satan may be a bright morning star, but he is only a poor imitation of the one true bright morning star, Jesus Christ, the light of the world.

Why were Michael and Satan disputing over the body of Moses (Jude 9)?"

Answer: Jude verse 9 refers to an event which is found nowhere else in Scripture. Michael had to struggle or dispute with Satan about the body of Moses, but what that entailed is not described. Another angelic struggle is related by Daniel, who describes an angel coming to him in a vision. This angel, named Gabriel in Daniel 8:16 and 9:21, tells Daniel that he was “resisted” by a demon called “the prince of Persia” until the archangel Michael came to his assistance (Daniel 10:13). So we learn from Daniel that angels and demons fight spiritual battles over the souls of men and nations, and that the demons resist angels and try to prevent them from doing God’s bidding. Jude tells us that Michael was sent by God to deal in some way with the body of Moses, which God Himself had buried after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy 34:5-6).

Various theories have been put forth as to what this struggle over Moses’ body was about. One is that Satan, ever the accuser of God’s people (Revelation 12:10), may have resisted the raising of Moses to eternal life on the grounds of Moses’ sin at Meribah (Deuteronomy 32:51) and his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2:12).

Some have supposed that the reference in Jude is the same as the passage in Zechariah 3:1-2, “Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan!’” But the objections to this being the same incident are obvious: (1) The only similarity between the two passages is the expression, “the Lord rebuke you.” (2) The name “Michael” does not occur at all in the passage in Zechariah. (3) There is no mention made of the “body of Moses” in Zechariah, and no allusion to it whatever.

It has also been supposed that Jude is quoting an apocryphal book that contained this account, and that Jude means to confirm that the account is true. Origen (c. 185–254), an early Christian scholar and theologian, mentions the book “The Assumption of Moses” as extant in his time, containing this very account of the contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses. That book, now lost, was a Jewish Greek book, and Origen supposed that this was the source of the account in Jude.

The only material question, then, is whether the story is “true.” Whatever the origin of the account, Jude does in fact seem to refer to the contest between Michael and the devil as true. He speaks of it in the same way in which he would have done if he had spoken of the death of Moses or of his smiting the rock. And who can prove that it is not true? What evidence is there that it is not? There are many allusions in the Bible to angels. We know that the archangel Michael is real; there is frequent mention of the devil; and there are numerous affirmations that both bad and good angels are employed in important transactions on the earth. As the nature of this particular dispute over Moses’ body is wholly unknown, conjecture is useless. We do not know whether there was an argument over possession of the body, burial of the body, or anything else.

These two things we do know, however: first, Scripture is inerrant. The inerrancy of Scripture is one of the pillars of the Christian faith. As Christians, our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God.

Second, Jude 9 is the supreme illustration of how Christians are to deal with Satan and demons. The example of Michael refusing to pronounce a curse upon Satan should be a lesson to Christians in how to relate to demonic forces. Believers are not to address them, but rather to seek the Lord’s intervening power against them. If as powerful a being as Michael deferred to the Lord in dealing with Satan, who are we to attempt to reproach, cast out, or command demons?

How could there be light on the first day of Creation if the sun was not created until the fourth day?

Answer: The question of how there could be light on the first day of Creation when the sun was not created until the fourth day is a common one. Genesis 1:3-5 declares, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness He called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day." A few verses later we are informed, "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the fourth day" (Genesis 1:14-19). How can this be? How could there be light, mornings and evenings on the first, second, and third days if the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the fourth day?

This is only a problem if we fail to take into account an infinite and omnipotent God. God does not need the sun, moon, and stars to provide light. God is light! First John 1:5 declares, "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." God Himself was the light for the first three days of Creation, just as He will be in the new heavens and new earth, “There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever” (Revelation 22:5). Until He created the sun, moon, and stars, God miraculously provided light during the “day” and may have done so during the “night” as well (Genesis 1:14).

Jesus said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). Much more important than the light of day and night is the Light who provides eternal life to all who believe in Him. Those who do not believe in Him will be doomed to “outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12).