Tag Archives: Deuteronomy 22:28-29

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 7

Posted on by

I am persuaded that the primary meaning of πορνεία in the New Testament refers to ancient idolatrous worship practices.  It can be stretched to mean adultery in general (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 NET Table):

For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from πορνείας (a form of πορνεία), that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God.  In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier and warned you solemnly.  For God did not call us to impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) but in holiness.

At least I hope Paul meant that one should not violate the rights of his brother by committing adultery with his wife, rather than that he should simply pass by her at a cultic festival (though I admit that ἀκαθαρσία sounds a lot like demonic worship here).  Paul may have used πορνεία to mean the list of sins found in Leviticus 18:6-23 (1 Corinthians 5:1 NET):

It is actually reported that πορνεία exists among you, the kind of πορνεία that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) his father’s wife.

If the man’s father was alive this is simply another instance where Paul used πορνεία for adultery.  (Remember πορνεία was almost the only word Paul had for sin as long as he accepted the gutting of the law at the Jerusalem Council.)  If the man’s father was dead πορνεία meant: You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness[1] or, A man may not marry his father’s former wife and in this way dishonor his father.[2]

In contemporary Greek πορνεία translates as prostitution in the headline Παιδική πορνεία.  If I select “Translate this Page” Παιδική πορνεία is rendered “Child prostitution.”

The one thing I am persuaded now that πορνεία does not mean in the New Testament is what two teenagers might do in the backseat of a Chevy on a Friday night.  They are not committing πορνεία but marriage by performing the only wedding ceremony yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym ever created, authorized or honored: If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife.  If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins.[3]

When I was young it angered me that God gave such undue authority to an autocratic father.  Now that I know Him better and have lived with, and loved, a daughter, though the autocratic father may always be a possible type, I think the point was to give that authority to the one most attuned to his daughter’s heart on the matter in an uncomfortable social situation.  One reason for rejecting this law is the embarrassment a contemporary person feels over its companion legislation (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NET):

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered [Table].  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives [Table].

A scene in the movie “Fury” cast this legislation in a different light.  In April 1945, days from the end of the war in Europe, First Sergeant Collier—Wardaddy—an American tank commander, spies a woman peeking down at them from an upstairs window in the German town they have just conquered.  Wardaddy calls to Norman, Private Ellison, and the two men, armed with machine guns, head inside and up the stairs.  I have every reason to assume that Wardaddy is continuing Norman’s indoctrination into the ways of war.

Norman, a clerk trained to type 60 words per minute, was assigned to Wardaddy’s tank crew as a replacement assistant driver.  His failure and refusal to pull the trigger endangers the rest of his crew and everyone around him.  Wardaddy has already forced him to kill a German prisoner in a macabre hand-over-hand imitation of a mother teaching a child to form letters with a crayon.  I can only imagine what new lesson Wardaddy has in store for him, though the two German women have no illusions that they are anything to their armed invaders but spoils of war.

Wardaddy puts down his weapon, and tells Norman to do likewise, once he has determined that the two women are the only occupants of the apartment.  It’s a clear sign to the women, beautiful young Emma and her older cousin, that they may survive their ordeal if they comply with Wardaddy’s wishes.

Wardaddy wishes to wash with hot water, shave and eat a fried egg.  Norman plays a piece of sheet music at the piano.  Emma, delighted, sings the song and turns the page for him.  She stops when she notices the scars on Wardaddy’s back.

“She’s a good clean girl,” Wardaddy says to Norman.  “If you don’t take her in that bedroom, I will.”

Emma doesn’t need a translator to know what’s expected of her.  Given the opportunity to choose her rapist, she leads her young accompanist into the bedroom.  Norman retrieves his machine gun on the way.  Emma’s older cousin attempts to follow them, whether to intervene or to serve as a substitute is unclear.  Wardaddy stops her with a gesture and a word in German:

“No.  They’re young and they’re alive.”

As a rapist Norman is patient and gentle as a lover.  He and Emma, representing the human beings least degraded by war, exit that bedroom as husband and wife.  They know it.  Wardaddy knows it.  And so does Emma’s older cousin.  As they sit down to a wedding feast of fried eggs the rest of his tank crew—Coon-Ass, Gordo and Bible—knock at the door, calling for Norman.

Coon-Ass and Gordo have cajoled or coerced a “whore” to “entertain” them, and others, one at a time in the tank downstairs.  They have come to share her with Norman.  I get the impression that if Norman were not already married to Emma, Coon-Ass and Gordo would make it very difficult for him to refuse his share.  But seeing Emma, Coon-Ass in particular, representing the man most degraded by war, wants his share of her.  Now, however, even Coon-Ass isn’t likely to take her without Norman’s acquiescence.

“Don’t touch her!” Norman says with the all the force of a petulant child.

“Anyone touches the girl,” Wardaddy says, putting not only his rank but his personal power and authority on the line, “they get their teeth kicked in.”

Coon-Ass and Gordo are deeply hurt.  Even Bible, though apparently powerful enough in the pecking order to abstain from the women without suffering personal repercussions, is hurt to have been excluded from the wedding feast.  They remind Wardaddy that they have been together, brothers in arms, since the Normandy invasion.  Norman has not.

I suspect that Wardaddy would not have denied his brothers, Coon-Ass and Gordo, if they had gotten to Emma first.  He, as degraded by war as any of them, could not risk his rank, personal power or authority except for Norman’s or, if necessary, his own new bride.

And for those who think it might have been a better film, or Emma might have been a better woman, if she had fought to the death to defend her honor, a stray shell kills her in the next scene.  Norman grieves like a widower, though duty calls and limits his opportunity to do her justice.

If one or both of the teenagers in the Chevy come back Saturday night to perform the same ceremony with different partners, they would be guilty of adultery as long as the other lives.  The point was never to make adultery—or divorce, for that matter—the unpardonable sin.  The point was to get religious people to acknowledge that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.[4]

Other reasons for rejecting the view of marriage described in the law are 1) that a daughter who acted so precipitously may have robbed her father of a better bride price.  Or, 2) in more contemporary terms she may rob herself of a more lucrative match.  And 3) governing bodies, both secular and religious, want to regulate marriage.

Do they have that right (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NKJV)?

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This certainly sounds like Peter and James had the authority to gut the law.  Were they the only ones?  In the United States of America a woman is free to couple or uncouple as she pleases because she is “endowed by [her] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”[5]  I often wonder why the lawyers, legal historians, philosophers and ministers who signed the Declaration of Independence didn’t forsee that the pursuit of personal happiness would come to dominate and define both life and liberty.

I’ve been taught to think like John Miller in his March 7, 2015 response to comments and an essay on happiness on blog.dictionary.com:

Everyone here really doesn’t understand the colonial meaning of the phrase.  Pursuit of happiness referred to the pursuit of holiness or godliness.  It had nothing to do with personal pleasures.  Our founders understood that morality and religion were required for a republic to succeed and in those times when someone pursued happiness it was a pursuit of that which is godly.  Sadly, that’s something very few Americans do these days and will be the source of our nation’s demise.

But the Declaration of Independence did not say “that all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are” the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness.  It said, “pursuit of Happiness.”  And I think I can say on the authority of Scripture and a bare knowledge of American history that “the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness” would never have gained consensus.

That, I think, is what I witness in both the Jerusalem Council and the Declaration of Independence.  They are prime examples of the achievements of committee work and consensus building.  They happened.  They are there for all to see.  I don’t believe these particular results of either exercise.  They are not my faith.  I think what Jesus meant was that those who trust Him would be led by his Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NET):

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

One of the ways to know what has been bound and released in heaven is to know God’s law, not because one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law but because the law discloses what displeases Him: through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[6]

I should clarify my thoughts on happiness: I had my ticket home.  I was ready to go.  I would have been happy to sit and watch my daughter’s graduation ceremony from college.  But my twenty-three-year-old daughter had a stroke before I arrived.  Then I was happy to sit and watch as she chewed food and swallowed without choking on it.

I am grateful for happiness.  I think it is essential to the ongoing occupation of living here and now.  But I don’t have a clue how to pursue it.  When I’ve tried, the people, achievements, occupations and possessions I thought would make me happy, did not, not any more or any less than the normal ebb and flow of when I had not pursued happiness.  I will pursue Christ and his righteousness instead.

And to the wag who may say I only do that because it makes me happy, I can honestly answer, not always, my friend, at times it is a sad or a painful thing to do.  Still, it has its moments.

[1] Leviticus 18:8 (NET) Table

[2] Deuteronomy 22:30 (NET)

[3] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NET)

[4] Romans 3:23, 24 (NET)

[5] Declaration of Independence

[6] Romans 3:20 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 4

Posted on by

My first dates were all about driving—driving and not killing us, and talking to a girl when I wasn’t driving (and while I was for that matter). Then I met A. I’ll call her A. Girlfriend has a meaning I don’t want to imply, more like wife, or concubine I suppose. (In most States a girlfriend can’t take half of everything a man owns when she leaves him or is sent packing.) My mother had warned me about A, how she would seek male affection. A had grown up without a father.

Her mother was divorced, and could never remarry. Today, Jesus’ saying—everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία), makes her commit adultery‎[1]—sounds to me as if He assumed she would remarry. But then, I understood it as a prohibition. Besides, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,[2] Jesus continued. That pretty much assured her that no one at my church would marry her.  Marrying someone “outside of the faith” (someone who believed that a divorced person could remarry) was frowned upon there.

When I began to squeeze A’s breasts and fondle her nipples, I didn’t realize that God might have something against it. At sixteen I don’t recall knowing the word of the Lord that came to Ezekiel [Table] (Ezekiel 23:1-3 NET):

“Son of man, there were two women who were daughters of the same mother [Table]. They engaged in prostitution (zānâ, ותזנינה) in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution (zānâ, זנו). Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there” [Table see Addendum].

I’m not sure what difference it would have made. I knew that breast squeezing and nipple fondling was frowned upon. I thought that was because it would lead to the sin of premarital sex. As it turned out, A’s nipples weren’t so virgin. She and her former boyfriend, a friend of mine from church, had committed the sin of premarital sex. They only did it once. Then they stopped seeing each other and never did it again.

I enjoyed squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. I think she enjoyed it, too. I found it very hard to believe that I was just a surrogate for the father she didn’t have. It seemed like she really loved me, as me, not as a symbol of something else. It all felt very real. And I was happy and satisfied squeezing her breasts and fondling her nipples. I had no intention of committing the sin of premarital sex. She didn’t want to do that again either.

At sixteen I didn’t study the Bible. I was flying blind. I read only the minimum that was presented in church services and Sunday school. There were moments when I was in a particularly religious mood that I tried to read more, but then I was in the wrong frame of mind, expecting, hoping that the Bible would confirm and applaud my religiousness. So I didn’t recognize the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια standing between A and me and the sin of premarital sex.

I hadn’t heard the fruit of the Spirit. I’m not saying no one ever talked about it. I’m saying I hadn’t heard it yet. I certainly wasn’t taught that I was strong, and the word of God resides in [me], and [I] have conquered the evil one.[3] That would have stood out amidst all the teaching that any contact with a young female would lead inexorably to the sin of premarital sex.

I didn’t know a thing about ἐγκράτεια. It was literally “all Greek to me.”[4] I didn’t have a Bible that translated ἐγκράτεια self-control, which I might have related to sexual matters. My Bible read temperance. I was sixteen; I didn’t drink. But even if I had considered the fruit of the Spirit I would have considered the works I was required to do to please the Spirit of God.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:[5] It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality [KJV, to avoid fornication], let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.[6]

I am fairly sure now that squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples qualifies as sexual immorality (NKJV). I wasn’t so sure then (nor am I now) that it qualified as fornication (KJV). And I sincerely doubt that it qualifies as πορνείας (a form of πορνεία; translated sexual immorality [NKJV] or fornication [KJV]). I don’t say this to justify myself but to know God. There is no way that my understanding of πορνείας at age sixty can justify my behavior at age sixteen.

Children,obey your parents in the Lord for this is right, was Paul’s understanding of the law: “Honor your father and mother,”which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, “that it may go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.”[7] I was clearly disobeying my parents, squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.[8]

God, for better or worse, has entrusted (or abandoned) children to the mercy of parents. And I don’t say abandoned for my sake, but for the many women I know molested as children by their fathers. My childhood was idyllic by comparison. My travails were my struggles to understand biblical words and concepts, my troubles were not understanding them.

At the same time, however, knowing God is not simply a matter of semantics but a uniquely profound intimacy. Did He intend for me to understand that the two women in the allegory He gave Ezekiel engaged in prostitution in Egypt because their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there? Or was the breast squeezing and nipple fondling incidental to engaging in prostitution (zânâh)? I have a fairly good idea how pre-modern Jews answered that question:

Jews in the pre-modern world lived, with few exceptions, in Jewish communities and under the yoke of Jewish tradition and halakhah. This affected every aspect of their lives, including sexual relations. As stated above, every sexual act between a man and woman outside marital relations was considered as coming within the definition of prostitution (be’ilat zenut), and the rabbis strongly condemned manifestations of sexual license in the Jewish community. Many regulations were issued by the various communities to fight prostitution in all its forms.[9]

If they were correct, then I was guilty of πορνεία when I squeezed A’s breasts and fondled her nipples. I was one of the πόρνοι by definition: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral (πόρνοι, a form of πόρνος), idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.[10] Today, forgiven by the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ, that verdict against me is bearable. What is too hard to bear, then as now, is that this particular understanding of πορνεία makes a πόρνῃ (prostitute) of A by definition. My emotional aversion to that gains some spiritual credence if I plug this behavior into Jesus’ statements regarding divorce and πορνεία:

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” and marries another commits adultery.

I don’t think any of the women at my church who considered themselves holier than God would have called A a prostitute because I squeezed her breasts and fondled her nipples, though I am fairly sure they considered it sexual immorality forbidden by Paul in the Bible. Committing the sin of premarital sex was the primary meaning of fornication there.

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” and marries another commits adultery.

This interpretation of πορνεία has some precedent in the practice of the righteous in first century Israel (Matthew 1:18, 19 NET).

Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately [Table].

It seemed plausible that Jesus meant the sin of premarital sex for πορνείας (a form of πορνεία) as recorded by Matthew, until I considered his law.

Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV) Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 (NKJV)
If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out [Table], then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days [Table].

At sixteen when I believed in the sin of premarital sex I thought that A and my friend did the right thing by breaking off their relationship. In the light of God’s law however I hear Jesus say, Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition…You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition.[11] In others words, to accept the sin of premarital sex as Jesus’ meaning for πορνείας in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is to liberate young men from any sense of obligation to the young women they seduce or date-rape. (In fact, they were encouraged to send those young women away, to divorce them, that is.) At the same time it offers men a ready excuse to divorce their wives who have been seduced or date-raped, at any time men choose to play that card. Viewed in the context of God’s law the sin of premarital sex sounds like a man-made religious belief with no relationship to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

I don’t think the people who enacted this legislation intended any of that any more than Caiaphas intended to condemn Yahweh come in human flesh to death. I assume that my religious forbears were shotgun-wedding-type of folk. Without wasting a lot of time tracking down documentary evidence it’s not too difficult to imagine that their children thought that was too harsh or even hypocritical. After all, people should confess their sins and turn from them. (I’ll ignore the timing with a political need to delay baby boomers’ entrance into the labor force as coincidence only.)

At sixteen I didn’t mistake the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια, keeping A and me from the sin of premarital sex, for my own righteousness. I didn’t feel very righteous. Though it’s probably an exaggeration I felt like I was always at odds with my parents over A. So I simply discounted the credibility of my counselors, those who assured me that “familiarity breeds contempt,”[12] that was “that familiarity leads to the sin of premarital sex.”

I did have a vague sense of an overarching dishonesty to my life. I may have called it hypocrisy at times, but I was destined to go much deeper into that hypocrisy before I recognized what it was. In the spring of my junior year of high school after I had turned seventeen, I made a conscious decision to reinvent myself. I moved away from the “straight” world of my parents, my church, even my friends at school, to turn toward the “hip” world. It seemed more honest somehow. And A was caught up, and discarded, in that self-reinvention. The tension at home was eased.

Over the summer I took up with B. She was not “hip” precisely, but she was an accomplished musician. We enjoyed hours of arty conversations, went to ballets, operas and musicals together. And, fully clothed, we aped all the motions of the missionary position until we both achieved orgasms. We could do it openly in a public park on a Sunday afternoon, surrounded by “hip” people who knew exactly what we were doing and blessed and approved it.

A and I had taken it for granted that we would grow up and get married. We talked about it all the time. I didn’t share that with B. I’m not sure what she thought about it. She knew that she would go away to school to pursue a music degree. I knew that I already had my sights set on C, the young woman who became my high school girlfriend/wife/concubine that fall.

At a party in C’s basement the spring before my junior year ended, I had sat at the bar watching her. She was the queen bee of “hip” at school. I found out later she had dropped acid for the first time that night. She had broken up with her boyfriend, a senior. But a couple of other seniors buzzed around her all night. I was nobody, a “straight,” a “hip” wannabe—and a junior.

“You must be a real head,” the long-haired guy next to me said as he looked up from his cheap wine.

Head had no negative connotations in my mind at the time. It was the exalted appellation reserved for the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas who ran the head shop. I had short hair! I didn’t know what he was talking about, and said so. As it turned out, he was impressed that I wasn’t drinking (part of “straight” culture) but was holding out, apparently, for dope (part of “hip” culture).

Looking back now I wonder what more I needed to perceive that “hip” culture could be as superficial and status conscious, as “dishonest,” as “straight” culture. At the time what I heard was a long-haired disciple of the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas saying, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile[13]—to me! I was grateful that (so long as I kept my mouth shut) I could be accepted into the kingdom of “headom” even before I had my bona fides in order. And later that night, after the cops broke up the party, I shared my first joint. It did absolutely nothing for me, except to make what hair I had and my clothes smell funny.

[1] Matthew 5:32a (NET) Table

[2] Matthew 5:32b (NET) Table

[3] 1 John 2:14b (NET)

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_to_me

[5] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had μοι (KJV: unto me) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[6] 1 Corinthians 7:1, 2 (NKJV) Table

[7] Ephesians 6:1-3 (NET)

[8] James 2:10 (NET) Table

[9] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/prostitution.html

[10] 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 (NET) Table

[11] Mark 7:8, 9 (NET)

[12] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Familiarity_breeds_contempt; “Familiarity breeds contempt–and children.” http://www.twainquotes.com/Familiarity.html

[13] John 1:47 (KJV)

Torture, Part 4

Posted on by

Suspecting that my antipathy (and objections) to Jonathan Edwards’ contention that God is the Superlative Torturer are rooted in my personal history, I need to revisit the long name of God for perspective.

The Long Name of God
The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

Intellectually, I can see that the things I’ve been looking into in Revelation fall under the heading of not leaving the guilty unpunished.  Rationally, I can see that this long name is an accurate description of who God is, one unified God.  But I don’t know the One who by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation, not experientially.  I deserve to know Him that way.  I’ve earned the right, so to speak.  But I don’t know Him like that.  I know the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.

Asaph[1] apparently knew God as the One who by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I suffer all day long, he wrote, and am punished every morning.[2]  Of course he acknowledged that he felt that way when: my feet almost slipped; my feet almost slid out from under me (Table).  For I envied those who are proud, as I observed the prosperity of the wicked (Table).[3]  And I most felt like Asaph as “a philosophical and legalistic young man fighting my way back from atheism,”[4] obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.[5]

I don’t think I was particularly obsessed with money.  I was giving money and continually amazed that I always had enough.  I wanted some fame or power or prestige or position, and thought that “obeying” God by striving to keep the law, or the love that is the fulfillment of the law[6] as if Paul’s definition were a list of laws, was a means to that end.  I was “punished” constantly then.  But all I really meant by God’s “punishment,” or his “blessing” for that matter, was how things worked out according to my hopes, my dreams, my plans or my schemes.  When things went my way I was “blessed,” and I was “punished” when they didn’t.

This wasn’t always the case, however.  Though I didn’t think in these terms then, at seventeen He who by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation was the One I worshiped and loved as much as it is possible to love such a One.  Punishment is the currency of childhood.  It’s how one pays for what he wants.  I didn’t actually know this God in any experiential way.  I believed in Him.  He made sense to me.  I claimed to believe in Jesus’ salvation.  And I suppose I did to some degree, but that was heaven.  Heaven was as far away as Disneyland.  And my family couldn’t afford Disneyland either.

I don’t recall knowing the long name of God, but I knew the Ten Commandments: I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me [Table], but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments [Table].[7]  I had no clue that the ones who loved Him and kept his commandments were the ones He had shown mercy.  If you had told me it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[8] I wouldn’t have believed you, not by seventeen.  I “knew” I didn’t love God enough or keep his commandments enough to “earn” his mercy.  That’s why I trusted Jesus for a place in heaven rather than in hell.  But as for the rest of it, I “knew” I would pay in punishment.

At seventeen I don’t think I knew the law that reads, If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.[9]  I would be hard-pressed to confirm that anyone I knew had ever heard of this law.  We believed in the sin of premarital sex.  I knew the law about rape (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NKJV).

If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out [Table], then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days [Table].

This law was impossible to avoid.  I read it on different occasions in anti-God and antinomian polemics.  I even checked the reference in the Bible to see if it was true; that is, that it was actually in the Bible as the polemicists claimed.  One might argue that I should have inferred the former law from the latter.  I can’t disagree.  I wrote[10] that I had a “philosophical bent of mind.”  While true, it doesn’t mean that I was any good necessarily at doing philosophy.  I was embarrassed and frustrated by this law.  Why did God force women to marry their rapists?!  But neither my embarrassment nor my frustration raised a single question in my mind regarding the validity of the sin of premarital sex.  I believed in the sin of premarital sex with all my heart, the laws of God notwithstanding.

Such was the state of my “faith” when my highschool girlfriend and I fucked[11] for the first time.  I don’t use the term fucked to be insulting, demeaning or derogatory but in the hope of finding a word in English that will carry the weight of eros in Greek.  Sexual intercourse is about inserting an erect penis into a vagina and thrusting and relaxing to stimulate the nerves in the head of the penis and the clitoris until an explosive pleasure sensation called an orgasm is achieved.  What I mean by fuck, fucked or fucking has everything to do with sexual intercourse, and nothing to do with it except as an entry portal or an ongoing celebration of a wondrous and unimaginable relationship with another person of the opposite sex, a relationship that artists have spent their lifetimes attempting to capture, celebrate or recreate in music, dance, art, sculpture, poetry and drama.

Before we fucked, my girlfriend and I were two teenagers too shy to remove our underwear as we crawled under the covers.  Afterward in the bath together a Bible verse came to mind, And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.[12]  I felt like I understood that verse for the first time.  But it didn’t dissuade me that I would be punished for the sin of premarital sex.

I had some very specific punishments in mind.  Pregnancy was top of that list.  Obviously children were God’s primary punishment for fucking.  My Dad had warned me to watch out for women who would trick me into caring for their children.[13]  Protestants were a little wishy-washy on the sin of birth control as a way to avoid God’s punishment for fucking, but Catholics were strong and on target on this issue.  My girlfriend and I were well-versed in the “Brave New World”[14] and had our Malthusian drill[15] down pat.  We never fucked without at least one method of contraception, and often two.  The idea that a couple might become so impassioned they forgot their Malthusian drill was inconceivable to us.

Venereal disease was number two on God’s list of punishments for fucking.  But we were both virgins when we started fucking.  I had the desire to expand this fucking relationship to others, until I actually tried to initiate it.  Though I didn’t know the law about seducing virgins intellectually, I felt that law written in my heart when I attempted to fuck another virgin.  “I returned to [my girlfriend] quite contrite actually, confessed my sin and asked for her hand in a much more traditional marriage.”[16]  But even that didn’t alert me that I might not be punished for the sin of premarital sex.  I really don’t think I recognized my aversion to committing adultery as God’s law written in my heart anyway.  I probably just thought it was my idea, or that I “loved” my first girlfriend more.

Finally, death was the punishment I thought most likely for the sin of premarital sex, given that we had outsmarted God twice before.  I didn’t think God would, or maybe could, kill me outright.  Miracles, God breaking the laws of science, were kind of a sketchy issue in my thinking at the time.  But Vietnam was a very real possibility.  And it would be quite easy for Him to kill me there.  When the draft lottery all but guaranteed that I would never be drafted, I still didn’t suspect that God had no intention of punishing me for the sin of premarital sex.

One more opportunity comes to mind.  Every time we fucked in my girlfriend’s bedroom she put three albums on the stereo: Every Picture Tells a Story,[17] Rod Stewart; Who’s Next,[18] The Who; and Aqualung,[19] Jethro Tull.  I tolerated Rod Stewart because I loved her.  Secretly, I called the album “Every Picture Tells a Story Donut,” after the repeated line in the title track.  Who’s Next became more important after she left me for someone else.  Aqualung made a deep and immediate impression.

The song “Wind-Up” spoke particularly to me.  I learned years later that the only required subject in English public schools was the Bible.  That explained why British progressive rock was obsessed with biblical themes.  It also made more sense to me why Ian Anderson[20] left school with “their God tucked underneath my arm.”[21]

So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm —
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said — I’m not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I’m through I’d like to say my prayers —
I don’t believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong —
He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

Looking back now, I clearly had everything “all wrong.”  I remember entertaining the notion that God was trying to communicate to me through the words of this song.  I even went back to the Bible to see if I could find what I had gotten “all wrong.”  But the Bible said the same thing to me it always said: “God’ll getcha if you don’t watch out!”  I decided that there was no way anyone who looked like Ian Anderson could possibly know anything that could stand up to two thousand years of Christian theology (no matter how catchy the tune).  And there was no way I was going to get out of being punished for the sin of premarital sex.

Nothing could persuade me otherwise.  Even when I wasn’t punished for the sin of premarital sex, nothing clicked, no light bulbs went off.  Instead, I felt rationally obligated to become an atheist because God would have punished me for the sin of premarital sex.

[2] Psalm 73:14 (NET) Table

[3] Psalm 73:2, 3 (NET)

[5] 1 Timothy 6:4b, 5 (NKJV)

[6] Romans 13:10b (NET)

[7] Exodus 20:5b, 6 (NKJV)

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[9] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV)

[12] Genesis 2:25 (NKJV)

Antichrist, Part 1

Posted on by

I was introduced to Lars von Trier’s movies in a backhanded way.  A friend wanted me to watch “Melancholia” because she thought it was a waste of two hours of her life.  I suspected she was afraid I might like it and call her taste into question.  I was afraid of that too as I watched the magical beginning of the film.  Fortunately for our friendship I found the character Justine disagreeable enough to satisfy her.  I enjoyed the film more when I skipped from the extreme slow motion photography of the opening to the chapter titled “Claire” and watched from there to the end.  Less of Justine’s melancholia was definitely more for me.  I was hooked however on Lars von Trier.

I cried at the end of “Breaking the Waves” when God credited Bess’s faith as righteousness: For what does the scripture say? Paul asked.  “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[1]  The plot turned on the confusion in the English language between eros and agapē.  It seems to me that English speaking believers who care about making the Gospel plain would lead the curve to accept fuck and fucking as legitimate words for eros.  We are the ones, after all, muscling in on love (since the Aunt Pollys[2] and professional fundraisers of the world have made charity[3] as odious to the receiver as to the giver).

Sexual intercourse is too clinical to substitute for eros.  Making love is too nice-nice, too insincere, or too dishonest to suffice.  The freshly fucked wife lying forlornly beside her husband, asking, “Do you love me?” knows full well that fucking doesn’t make any love.  Her clueless husband turning from the television to stare incredulously at her, and saying defensively, “Didn’t I just show you how much I love you?” thinks love was the feeling he had while fucking her.  Or worse, he might take offense thinking she has denigrated his performance as a fucker.  If he has read any books about fucking he might take the time to cuddle and talk to her afterwards, before turning to the television.  But a wife is close enough to see through that hypocrisy eventually.  Only the love that flows from Christ’s Spirit is the ἀγάπη[4] (agapē) she seeks when fucking just isn’t enough.

I was on my first movie set with nudity.  We were ready to shoot.  The male actor, speaking for himself and his female counterpart, asked the director, “Are we making love or fucking?”  We all knew exactly what he meant.  Making love is the tender prelude to the selfish self-abandon of fucking.  Making love is the hope of which fucking is the substance.  By comparison making love seems calculated, hypocritical, a mere going through the motions, or a practiced aloofness.  “Give me a little of both,” the director replied.

Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong to a neighbor, Paul wrote.  Therefore love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment of the law.[5]  Few would be persuaded that, fucking does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore fucking (or the feeling I have while I am fucking, or wanting to fuck, her) is the fulfillment of the law.  I wonder sometimes, however, if we don’t actually prefer the confusion.  Loving enemies and praying for persecutors is decidedly unsexy and a hard sell.  It isn’t natural.  It only comes from the ἀγάπη of God flowing into one through his Holy Spirit and then out again as attitudes and actions that are incomprehensible to those born only of the flesh of Adam.

Having said all that, however, there was something about fucking, especially first fucking, that made me highly susceptible to the ἀγάπη of God.  I have noticed a similar phenomenon in other men.  It makes a sort of sense then that Satan and the religious mind would conspire to make first fucking as “immoral” as possible, to short circuit that natural progression from eros to agapē.  In the past this was achieved by putting all women but prostitutes completely out of reach.  In my day it was the misnomer premarital sex and the presumed punishment for premarital sex—pregnancy.  In terms of God’s law it was about as difficult for a man to commit premarital sex as to commit a pre-homicidal murder, since even a man who raped a single woman had committed lifelong marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NET):

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered [Table].  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives [Table].

In “Breaking the Waves” Bess knew that Jan worked on an oil rig out at sea when she married him.  But after their honeymoon, when he had to go back to work, she couldn’t bear their separation.  (I should probably say that I will be spoiling “Breaking the Waves” for anyone who finds a movie “spoiled” by knowing its story.)  Bess prayed that God would bring Jan home.  Whenever Bess prayed, by the way, she spoke for herself and then lowered the pitch of her voice and spoke for God as well.  Not surprisingly perhaps, Bess’s god sounded a bit like the elders of her church.

Early in the film we get a picture of her church.  When Jan asked why they had no bells in their steeple, the religious leader scolded, “We do not need bells in our church to worship God.”  “I like church bells,” Bess whispered to Jan.  He attended a funeral presided over by the elders and heard the words, “You are a sinner and you deserve your place in hell,” spoken as a corpse was lowered into the ground.  When he told Bess about it, she agreed, “He will go to hell; everyone knows that.”

Jan got hurt on the rig and came home paralyzed, probably for life, though even his life was not guaranteed.  He encouraged Bess to take a lover, but not to divorce him.  Bess was offended.  Later he convinced her that his life depended on her taking a lover and telling him about it.  She reluctantly and unsuccessfully attempted to seduce his doctor, someone for whom she had some affection.  She tried to tell Jan a sexy story, but he knew she was lying.  She began to have anonymous encounters with strangers.  She even dressed like a prostitute.  When she did, Jan seemed to get better.  When she didn’t, he seemed to get worse.

Finally she went to the “big ship” dressed as a prostitute.  Other prostitutes wouldn’t go there.  The men were brutal and cruel.  Bess barely escaped with her life.  She was excommunicated from her church, locked out of her home and pelted with rocks by neighborhood children.  Then she heard from her sister-in-law (who was also Jan’s nurse) that he was dying.

When his doctor asked, “What’s your talent, Bess?” she replied, “I can believe.”  At the moment where all was darkest for Bess personally her sister-in-law asked, “Is there anything I can do for you, anything at all?”  “Yes,” Bess answered, “I’d like you to go to Jan and pray for him to be cured, and rise from his bed and walk.”  Bess then went back to the “big ship.”

Lars von Trier was uncharacteristically shy about showing what happened to Bess there.  One can only assume that she was raped and beaten (and I call it rape despite her willingness to endure it).  But not showing it was the right call.  There was no need by that time in the story for anger at her attackers, and no call for overwhelming sorrow for Bess.  As she died in the emergency room she realized and admitted how wrong she had been.

At the medical inquest Jan’s doctor was tongue-tied to describe her condition.  He declared her good, but recanted when the medical examiners disputed describing her death as due to excessive goodness.  But there, sitting at the inquest, was Jan, not only risen from his deathbed but walking again.  While the religious leaders of Bess’s “church” were preoccupied with excommunicating sinners, teaching love for the law, and condemning corpses to hell, the body of Christ functioned within it (her sister-in-law was a member in good standing) and without it (Bess and Jan were not).

Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit, Paul wrote to the Corinthians.  And there are different ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.  To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.  For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another performance of miracles…[6]

Bess received the faith.  Her sister-in-law prayed and received a miracle.  Jan received a gift of healing.

Jan couldn’t face the prospect of self-righteous men condemning his beloved wife to hell, so he and his friends from the oil rig stole her body.  “Bess McNeill,” the church leader intoned over a casket filled with sand, “you are a sinner, and for your sins you are consigned to hell.”

“Not one of you has the right to consign Bess to hell,” her sister-in-law rebuked them with a gift of wisdom.  And they, for once, fell silent.

Bess was buried at sea on the oil rig.  Later a friend roused Jan from his mourning to come out on deck.  They stopped at the radar screen to assure themselves that nothing was on the ocean near them.  Then they went outside and heard church bells ringing.  And just in case we viewers were inclined to be incredulous, the scene cut to an extreme high angle, looking down on the oil rig in the ocean through the ringing bells of heaven.

There is another interesting aspect to this film.  People like the leaders of Bess’ “church” are not likely to see a movie rated “R for strong graphic sexuality, nudity, language and some violence.”  They self-select as unworthy of its message, and are “hardened,” so they may not repent and be forgiven,[7] Jesus said of those who were outside (ἔξω).[8]  But “Antichrist,” another of Trier’s movies, is what I really want to write about here.

Antichrist, Part 2 

Back to Antichrist, Part 3

Back to Romans, Part 44

Back to Antichrist, Part 4

Back to Antichrist, Part 5

Back to The Righteousness of God

Back to Torture, Part 2

Back to Romans, Part 50

Back to Torture, Part 4

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

[1] Romans 4:3 (NET)

[2] Aunt Polly was the bitter woman from Walt Disney’s “Pollyanna” whose noblesse-oblige-charity was contrasted to Pollyanna’s cheerful giving.  Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7 NET).

[3] Agapē was translated charity in the KJV in 1 Corinthians 13.

[5] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[6] 1 Corinthians 12:4-10a (NET)

[7] Mark 4:12 (NET)

Fear – Genesis, Part 4

Posted on by

God had changed Jacob’s name to Israel.[1]  Jacob kept the oath he made at Bethel[2] that the Lord would become his God.  After he left Paddan Aram, Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem in the land of Canaan, and he camped near the city.  Then he purchased the portion of the field where he had pitched his tent; he bought it from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of money.  There he set up an altar and called it “The God of Israel is God.”[3]  Though the word fear does not occur in Genesis 34, the events described prompted the fear that motivated Jacob in the beginning of chapter 35.

The sons of Israel by his wife Leah were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun.  After that she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.[4]  Now Dinah…went to meet the young women of the land.[5]  I assume that some time had passed between the end of Genesis 33 and the beginning of chapter 34, that Dinah was of a marriageable age (perhaps not at an age that we would consider marriageable, but more than seven or eight years old).  When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area, saw her, he grabbed her, forced himself on her, and sexually assaulted her.  Then he became very attached to Dinah, Jacob’s daughter.  He fell in love with the young woman and spoke romantically to her.[6]  Shechem asked his father to get Dinah for him as his wife.

When Jacob heard that Shechem had violated his daughter Dinah, his sons were with the livestock in the field.  So Jacob remained silent until they came in.[7]  “The expected response would be anger or rage; but Jacob remained silent,” the note in the NET begins.  So in my mind the question becomes, what intervened in Jacob to mute the natural human response?  “He appears too indifferent or confused to act decisively,” the note continues.  Having been through this before with David, Amnon and Tamar[8] I wonder whether Jacob’s silence is evidence that his wrestling with God[9] had resulted in his sharing some of the Lord’s love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[10]

If that were the case I can easily imagine how difficult it would be to communicate that experience to Dinah and her brothers, or to his wives Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah, without the lives and words of Jesus and Paul as points of reference.  I can imagine how difficult it would be to communicate that experience even with their lives and words as points of reference to my son, my daughter, and their mother if my daughter had been raped.  And I wonder how often the fruit of the Lord’s Spirit is mistaken for indifference or confusion.

The note in the NET ends with a rule, “When the leader does not act decisively, the younger zealots will, and often with disastrous results.”  The rule may well be true, but the note doesn’t say what decision Jacob should have made.  My son Shechem is in love with your daughter, Hamor said to Jacob and his sons.  Please give her to him as his wife.  Intermarry with us.  Let us marry your daughters, and take our daughters as wives for yourselves.  You may live among us, and the land will be open to you.  Live in it, travel freely in it, and acquire property in it.[11]

Let me find favor in your sight, and whatever you require of me I’ll give, Shechem entreated them.  You can make the bride price and the gift I must bring very expensive, and I’ll give whatever you ask of me.  Just give me the young woman as my wife![12]

Jacob probably knew that his grandfather Abraham had made his servant solemnly promise by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth: You must not acquire a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living.  You must go instead to my country and to my relatives to find a wife for my son Isaac.[13]  He certainly knew that his brother Esau’s marriage to two Hittite women caused his parents Isaac and Rebekah great anxiety.[14]  Perhaps he believed that the Lord would drive the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite[15] out of the land.  He may have grasped that he should not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land…lest it become a snare.[16]

I am not convinced, however, that Jacob knew the full import of the law God would give his descendants: When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you – Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you – and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them.  Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy!  You must not intermarry with them.  Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods.  Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you.[17]

Jacob’s sons answered Shechem and his father Hamor deceitfully when they spoke because Shechem had violated their sister Dinah.[18]  While it may be tempting to read what happened next as a cold-blooded plot to use Dinah’s misfortune as justification for a get rich quick scheme, the point is clearly made that Dinah’s brothers were anything but cold-blooded at the moment they were deceitful.  They were offended and very angry because Shechem had disgraced Israel by sexually assaulting Jacob’s daughter, a crime that should not be committed.[19]

We cannot give our sister to a man who is not circumcised, they said, for it would be a disgrace to us.  We will give you our consent on this one condition: You must become like us by circumcising all your males.[20]  This would be a minimum requirement for any covenant between them.  Throughout your generations, God told Abraham, every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants.  They must indeed be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money.[21]  The brothers’ deceitfulness, I think, is that they never expected Hivites to agree to such drastic measures and hoped to gain Dinah’s release instead.  But if you do not agree to our terms by being circumcised, then we will take our sister and depart.[22]

Their offer pleased Hamor and his son Shechem.[23]  And Hamor and Shechem persuaded all the men of their city to be circumcised.  If we do so, won’t their livestock, their property, and all their animals become ours?  So let’s consent to their demand, so they will live among us.[24]

Dinah’s perspective on all this is missing from the narrative.  But if I consider that the Holy Spirit mentioned Tamar’s[25] rather remarkable response despite its relative irrelevance to the story compared to Dinah’s, and that Jacob’s silence was mentioned precisely because it is unexpected, I feel safe assuming that Dinah was not in favor of a marriage to her rapist Shechem.  Dinah was not socialized like Tamar under the law: Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered [Table].  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives [Table].[26]  And that law would not have applied to a Canaanite like Shechem the Hivite anyway.

Dinah’s brothers’ deceitful blunder not only failed to win her release as Shechem’s “love” hostage, it risked involving them in an at least suspect covenant with one of the peoples of the land, the Hivites.  In that light the rest of the story unfolds like an anger-fear-testosterone-adrenaline-fueled nightmare.  I can almost hear them as they stewed about if for three days: What do we do now?  We’ll kill him.  Shechem?  We’ll have to kill his father, too.  Who are you kidding?  We’ll have to kill them all?  What do we do with the women and children?

Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, each took his sword and went to the unsuspecting city and slaughtered every male [Table].  They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword, took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and left [Table].  Jacob’s sons killed them and looted the city because their sister had been violated [Table].  They took their flocks, herds, and donkeys, as well as everything in the city and in the surrounding fields [Table].  They captured as plunder all their wealth, all their little ones, and their wives, including everything in the houses [Table].[27]

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought ruin on me by making me a foul odor among the inhabitants of the land – among the Canaanites and the Perizzites.  I am few in number; they will join forces against me and attack me, and both I and my family will be destroyed!”  But Simeon and Levi were not about to back down then, “Should he treat our sister like a common prostitute?”[28]

Just as an aside, other Hivites[29] many years later deceived Joshua and saved their own lives by successfully making a covenant with the nation of Israel.[30]

Fear – Genesis, Part 5

Back to Fear – Genesis, Part 8

[3] Genesis 33:18-20 (NET)

[4] Genesis 30:21 (NET)

[5] Genesis 34:1 (NET)

[6] Genesis 34:2, 3 (NET)

[7] Genesis 34:5 (NET)

[10] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[11] Genesis 34:8-10 (NET)

[12] Genesis 34:11, 12 (NET)

[13] Genesis 24:3, 4 (NET)

[14] Genesis 26:35 (NET)

[15] Exodus 34:11 (NET)

[16] Exodus 34:12 (NET)

[17] Deuteronomy 7:1-4 (NET)

[18] Genesis 34:13 (NET)

[19] Genesis 34:7b (NET)

[20] Genesis 34:14, 15 (NET)

[21] Genesis 17:12, 13a (NET)

[22] Genesis 34:17 (NET)

[23] Genesis 34:18 (NET)

[24] Genesis 34:23 (NET)

[26] Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 (NET)

[27] Genesis 34:25-29 (NET)

[28] Genesis 34:30, 31 (NET)

David’s Forgiveness, Part 6

Posted on by

My first wife was a self-proclaimed feminist.  I tried with everything in me to treat her as an equal, which I too often mistook for “the same” in my twenties.  One night, lying in bed on our backs talking, my affection for her surged.  I reached under the small of her back with my hand, used my elbow as a fulcrum, lifted her, rolled her over, and plopped her down on top of me face-to-face.  She was livid.

I wasn’t sure what sin against feminism I had just committed so I tried to talk to her about it.  When she calmed down enough to think, it turned out that she wasn’t really upset that I had lifted her up, rolled her over and plopped her down on top of me.  She was angry that I was able to lift her up, roll her over and plop her down on top of me with one arm.  “You shouldn’t be that strong!” she said.  “It’s not right!”  I did what I could to express my love for her, and said that whatever strength I had was for her protection, not something I would use against her.

After Amnon overpowered and raped Tamar he greatly despised her, the text continued.  His disdain toward her surpassed the love he had previously felt toward her.  Get up and leave!1 Amnon said.

No I won’t, Tamar replied angrily, for sending me away now would be worse than what you did to me earlier!2

Though this sounds strange to contemporary ears, it makes perfect sense in the socially constructed reality Tamar inhabited.  She already believed (or said) that her father David would have given her to Amnon as a wife if Amnon had but asked.  She was not engaged to another man.  The relevant legislation she had in mind was: Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives.3

Tamar did not perceive Amnon as a woman-hating sociopath but as an overly-eager potential mate.  The feminist movement was not part of her socially constructed reality.  Initially she looked to the law to protect her from being violated, then to restore her honor after Amnon violated her.  But Amnon cared very little for the law the Lord Jesus gave to Moses.  He called to his servant who threw Tamar out of the house and bolted the door behind her.

My wife came home late one night several weeks after she told me she wanted a divorce.  I heard her getting ready for bed in the next bedroom.  I got up and started to walk toward the door.  Before I crossed the threshold of my bedroom door I heard that still small voice, “What are you doing, Dan?”  I stopped in the doorway.  I was calm, not angry, lucid, and I was going to kill my wife.  I started to shake and sweat as I made my way back to my bed.  I don’t recall how long I sat there.  Finally I made my way to my wife’s bedroom and half-confessed, half-blamed her for bringing demons into our home.  It had to be demons, surely I could never kill my wife.  I loved her. I said I loved her.

The next morning I set out to make my word true, not unlike Jephthah.  I copied Paul’s definition of love on a piece of paper: Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious.  Love does not brag, it is not puffed up.  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful.  It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never ends [Table].4  I tacked it up on my bedroom wall by the door so I couldn’t leave that room without seeing it.  I showed it to my wife.  I promised her that this was my new law, that this is how I would love her.

Now King David heard about [Amnon’s treatment of Tamar] and was very angry.5  But there is no indication in the text that he did anything about it.  The note in the NET is as follows: “The LXX and part of the Old Latin tradition include the following addition to v. 21, also included in some English versions (e.g., NAB, NRSV, CEV): ‘But he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, because he loved him, since he was his firstborn.’ Note David’s attitude toward his son Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1:6.”  And that is, Now [David] had never corrected [Adonijah] by saying, “Why do you do such things?” [Adonijah] was also very handsome and had been born right after Absalom.6

It paints an image of David as a lenient father, favoring his sons, and an interesting image of God who found David the son of Jesse to be a man after my heart.7  But David was not only a father but the king.  What about Tamar who trusted God’s law to protect her before she was raped, and to vindicate her after?  Was there any justice for her?  As a king administering the law what should David have done?  Collect fifty shekels of silver from Amnon?  Give them to Tamar?  Give Tamar to Amnon as a wife?  The law was intended to dissuade a young man from overpowering and raping a young woman.  Once it was broken, the law offered no justice, only retribution and fear.

The famous phrase “an eye for an eye” is found three places in the law.  If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides.  But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot [Table], burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the eye.  If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth.8

If a man inflicts an injury on his fellow citizen, just as he has done it must be done to him – fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth – just as he inflicts an injury on another person that same injury must be inflicted on him [Table].  One who beats an animal to death must make restitution for it, but one who beats a person to death must be put to death.  There will be one regulation for you, whether a foreigner or a native citizen, for I am the Lord your God.9

If a false witness testifies against another person and accuses him of a crime, then both parties to the controversy must stand before the Lord, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days.  The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused, you must do to him what he had intended to do to the accused.  In this way you will purge evil from among you.  The rest of the people will hear and become afraid to keep doing such evil among you.  You must not show pity; the principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot.10

I reflected on my own experience with my wife.  I was far from perfect loving like God by attempting to keep the definition of his love as if it were law.  But my wife survived it.  She wasn’t raped.  Even after our divorce she thought of me as one of the kindest men she knew.  In fact, before we were actually divorced she acknowledged that our main problem was my religion.  I regret that, but I couldn’t see through my religion then.  I thought my religion was the only thing standing between me and a murder rap.  But it did make it possible for me to see eventually that justice for Tamar wouldn’t come from any law, but from the love that fulfills the law, the love that is patient and kind and doesn’t rape a sister, or any woman, in the first place.

Where David left a vacuum by his inaction, Absalom his firstborn (Tamar’s full brother) stepped in.  He said to her, “Was Amnon your brother with you?  Now be quiet, my sister.  He is your brother. Don’t take it so seriously!”  Tamar, devastated, lived in the house of her brother Absalom…But Absalom said nothing to Amnon, either bad or good, yet Absalom hated Amnon because he had humiliated his sister Tamar.11

Absalom waited two years, but after that time at a dinner he gave for all the king’s sons Absalom instructed his servants, “Look!  When Amnon is drunk and I say to you, ‘Strike Amnon down,’ kill him then and there. Don’t fear! Is it not I who have given you these instructions? Be strong and courageous!” [Table] So Absalom’s servants did to Amnon exactly what Absalom had instructed [Table].12

 

Addendum: December 23, 2020
I hesitate to call the tables below Paul’s “quotations” of scriptures so much as they are a lesson in how he utilized the Hebrew Scriptures as factual data in his address in the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch.

Acts 13:22b (NET Parallel Greek) Table

 Psalm 89:20a (BLB Septuagint) Table

Psalm 88:21a (Elpenor Septuagint)
εὗρον Δαυὶδ εὗρον Δαυιδ εὗρον Δαυΐδ

Acts 13:22b (NET)

 Psalm 88:21a (NETS)

Psalm 88:21a (English Elpenor)
I have found David I found Dauid I have found David

The middle section not listed as a quotation in the NET—the son of Jesse—is simply factual information from 1 Samuel 16:1-13.

Acts 13:22d (NET Parallel Greek) Table

 1 Samuel 13:14b (BLB Septuagint) Table

1 Kings 13:14b (Elpenor Septuagint)
ἄνδρα| κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν μου ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τὴν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ

Acts 13:22d (NET)

 1 Reigns 13:14b (NETS)

1 Kings 13:14b (English Elpenor)
to be a man after my heart a person after his heart a man after his own heart

Where the Masoretic text (Table below) had: But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life (Exodus 21:23 NET), the Septuagint (Table below) had: But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life (Exodus 21:23 English Elpenor).

The clause translated One who beats an animal to death must make restitution for it (Leviticus 24:21) in the NET translation of the Masoretic text does not occur in the Septuagint (Table below).

Where the NET translation of the Masoretic text made it seem as if Tamar had an emotional problem—Tamar, devastated, lived in the house of her brother Absalom (2 Samuel 13:20 NET)—the Septuagint (Table below) was clear that Themar dwelt as a widow in the house of her brother Abessalom (2 Kings 13:20 English Elpenor).

Tables comparing 2 Samuel 13:15; 13:16; Deuteronomy 22:28; 22:29; 2 Samuel 13:21; 1 Kings 1:6; Exodus 21:22; 21:23; 21:25; 21:26; 21:27; Leviticus 24:19; 24:21; 24:22; Deuteronomy 19:16; 19:17; 19:18; 19:19; 19:20; 19:21; 2 Samuel 13:20 and 13:22 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing 2 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 13:15; 13:16; Deuteronomy 22:28; 22:29; 2 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 13:21; 1 Kings (3 Reigns, 3 Kings) 1:6; Exodus 21:22; 21:23; 21:25; 21:26; 21:27; Leviticus 24:19; 24:21; 24:22; Deuteronomy 19:16; 19:17; 19:18; 19:19; 19:20; 19:21; 2 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 13:20 and 13:22 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.

2 Samuel 13:15 (Tanakh)

 2 Samuel 13:15 (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:15 (NET)
Then Amnon hated her with exceeding great hatred; for the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her.  And Amnon said unto her: ‘Arise, be gone.’ Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her.  And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. Then Amnon greatly despised her.  His disdain toward her surpassed the love he had previously felt toward her.  Amnon said to her, “Get up and leave!”

2 Samuel 13:15 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Kings 13:15 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ἐμίσησεν αὐτὴν Αμνων μῗσος μέγα σφόδρα ὅτι μέγα τὸ μῗσος ὃ ἐμίσησεν αὐτήν ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Αμνων ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου καὶ ἐμίσησεν αὐτὴν ᾿Αμνὼν μῖσος μέγα σφόδρα, ὅτι μέγα τὸ μῖσος, ὃ ἐμίσησεν αὐτὴν ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἠγάπησεν αὐτήν. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ ᾿Αμνών· ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου

2 Reigns 13:15 (NETS)

2 Kings 13:15 (English Elpenor)
And Amnon hated her with very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her.  And Amnon said to her, “Get up, and get out!” Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her, for the last wickedness was greater than the first: and Amnon said to her, Rise, and be gone.

2 Samuel 13:16 (Tanakh)

 2 Samuel 13:16 (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:16 (NET)
And she said unto him: ‘Not so, because this great wrong in putting me forth is worse than the other that thou didst unto me.’  But he would not hearken unto her. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me.  But he would not hearken unto her. But she said to him, “No I won’t, for sending me away now would be worse than what you did to me earlier!”  But he refused to listen to her.

2 Samuel 13:16 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Kings 13:16 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Θημαρ μή ἄδελφε ὅτι μεγάλη ἡ κακία ἡ ἐσχάτη ὑπὲρ τὴν πρώτην ἣν ἐποίησας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἐξαποστεῗλαί με καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν Αμνων ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Θημάρ· μή, ἀδελφέ, ὅτι μεγάλη ἡ κακία ἡ ἐσχάτη ὑπὲρ τὴν πρώτην, ἣν ἐποίησας μετ’ ἐμοῦ τοῦ ἐξαποστεῖλαί με. καὶ οὐκ ἠθέλησεν ᾿Αμνὼν ἀκοῦσαι τῆς φωνῆς αὐτῆς

2 Reigns 13:16 (NETS)

2 Kings 13:16 (English Elpenor)
And Themar said to him, “No, brother, for greater is the last wrong than the first which you did with me, to send me away.”  But Amnon did not want to listen to her voice. And Themar spoke to him concerning this great mischief, greater, [said she], than the other that thou didst me, to send me away: but Amnon would not hearken to her voice.

Deuteronomy 22:28 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 22:28 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 22:28 (NET)
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and takes hold of her and sleeps with her and they are discovered.

Deuteronomy 22:28 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 22:28 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δέ τις εὕρῃ τὴν παῗδα τὴν παρθένον ἥτις οὐ μεμνήστευται καὶ βιασάμενος κοιμηθῇ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ εὑρεθῇ Εὰν δέ τις εὕρῃ τὴν παῖδα τὴν παρθένον, ἥτις οὐ μεμνήστευται, καὶ βιασάμενος κοιμηθῇ μετ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ εὑρεθῇ

Deuteronomy 22:28 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 22:28 (English Elpenor)
But if someone finds the girl, the virgin, who is not engaged, and, after he forces her, lies with her and he is discovered, And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force [her] and lie with her, and be found,

Deuteronomy 22:29 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 22:29 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 22:29 (NET)
then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. The man who has slept with her must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and she must become his wife.  Because he has humiliated her, he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:29 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 22:29 (Septuagint Elpenor)
δώσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κοιμηθεὶς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς τῷ πατρὶ τῆς νεάνιδος πεντήκοντα δίδραχμα ἀργυρίου καὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσται γυνή ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτήν οὐ δυνήσεται ἐξαποστεῗλαι αὐτὴν τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον δώσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ κοιμηθεὶς μετ᾿ αὐτῆς τῷ πατρὶ τῆς νεάνιδος πεντήκοντα δίδραχμα ἀργυρίου, καὶ αὐτοῦ ἔσται γυνή, ἀνθ᾿ ὧν ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτήν· οὐ δυνήσεται ἐξαποστεῖλαι αὐτὴν τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον

Deuteronomy 22:29 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 22:29 (English Elpenor)
the man who lay with her shall give fifty silver didrachmas to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife.  Because he humbled her, he shall not be able to send her away for all time. the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the damsel fifty silver didrachms, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he shall never be able to put her away.

2 Samuel 13:21 (Tanakh)

 2 Samuel 13:21 (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:21 (NET)
But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. But when king David heard of all these things, he was very wroth. Now King David heard about all these things and was very angry.

2 Samuel 13:21 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Kings 13:21 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυιδ πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ἐθυμώθη σφόδρα καὶ οὐκ ἐλύπησεν τὸ πνεῦμα Αμνων τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν καὶ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Δαυὶδ πάντας τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ἐθυμώθη σφόδρα· καὶ οὐκ ἐλύπησε τὸ πνεῦμα ᾿Αμνὼν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν, ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν

2 Reigns 13:21 (NETS)

2 Kings 13:21 (English Elpenor)
And King Dauid heard all these words and was very angry, but he did not grieve the spirit of Amnon his son, for he kept loving him, for he was his firstborn. And king David heard of all these things, and was very angry; but he did not grieve the spirit of his son Amnon, because be loved him, for he was his first-born.

1 Kings 1:6 (Tanakh)

 1 Kings 1:6 (KJV)

1 Kings 1:6 (NET)
And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly man; and his mother bare him after Absalom. And his father had not displeased him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so? and he also was a very goodly man; and his mother bare him after Absalom. (Now his father had never corrected him by saying, “Why do you do such things?”  He was also very handsome and had been born right after Absalom.)

1 Kings 1:6 (Septuagint BLB)

3 Kings 1:6 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκώλυσεν αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ οὐδέποτε λέγων διὰ τί σὺ ἐποίησας καί γε αὐτὸς ὡραῗος τῇ ὄψει σφόδρα καὶ αὐτὸν ἔτεκεν ὀπίσω Αβεσσαλωμ καὶ οὐκ ἀπεκώλυσεν αὐτὸν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ οὐδέποτε λέγων· διατὶ σὺ ἐποίησας; καί γε αὐτὸς ὡραῖος τῇ ὄψει σφόδρα, καὶ αὐτὸν ἔτεκεν ὀπίσω ᾿Αβεσσαλώμ

3 Reigns 1:6 (NETS)

3 Kings 1:6 (English Elpenor)
And his father did not ever hinder him, saying, “For what reason did you act?”  And indeed he was very youthful in appearance, and he begot him after Abessalom. And his father never at any time checked him, saying, Why hast thou done [thus]? and he was also very handsome in appearance, and his mother bore him after Abessalom.

Exodus 21:22 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 21:22 (KJV)

Exodus 21:22 (NET)
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. “If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the one who hit her will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides.

Exodus 21:22 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 21:22 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσιν γυναῗκα ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαν καὶ ἐξέλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται καθότι ἂν ἐπιβάλῃ ὁ ἀνὴρ τῆς γυναικός δώσει μετὰ ἀξιώματος ἐὰν δὲ μάχωνται δύο ἄνδρες καὶ πατάξωσι γυναῖκα ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσαν καὶ ἐξέλθῃ τὸ παιδίον αὐτῆς μὴ ἐξεικονισμένον, ἐπιζήμιον ζημιωθήσεται· καθότι ἂν ἐπιβάλῃ ὁ ἀνὴρ τῆς γυναικός, δώσει μετὰ ἀξιώματος

Exodus 21:22 (NETS)

Exodus 21:22 (English Elpenor)
Now if two men fight and strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth not fully formed, he shall be punished with a fine.  According as the husband of the woman might impose, he shall pay with judicial assessment. And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman’s husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.

Exodus 21:23 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 21:23 (KJV)

Exodus 21:23 (NET)
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life,

Exodus 21:23 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 21:23 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ἦν δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ, δώσει ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς

Exodus 21:23 (NETS)

Exodus 21:23 (English Elpenor)
But if is is fully formed, he shall pay life for life, But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,

Exodus 21:25 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 21:25 (KJV)

Exodus 21:25 (NET)
burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Exodus 21:25 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 21:25 (Septuagint Elpenor)
κατάκαυμα ἀντὶ κατακαύματος τραῦμα ἀντὶ τραύματος μώλωπα ἀντὶ μώλωπος κατάκαυμα ἀντὶ κατακαύματος, τραῦμα ἀντὶ τραύματος, μώλωπα ἀντὶ μώλωπος

Exodus 21:25 (NETS)

Exodus 21:25 (English Elpenor)
burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Exodus 21:26 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 21:26 (KJV)

Exodus 21:26 (NET)
And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. “If a man strikes the eye of his male servant or his female servant so that he destroys it, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the eye.

Exodus 21:26 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 21:26 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δέ τις πατάξῃ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τοῦ οἰκέτου αὐτοῦ ἢ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τῆς θεραπαίνης αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκτυφλώσῃ ἐλευθέρους ἐξαποστελεῗ αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ αὐτῶν ἐὰν δέ τις πατάξῃ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τοῦ οἰκέτου αὐτοῦ ἢ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν τῆς θεραπαίνης αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκτυφλώσῃ, ἐλευθέρους ἐξαποστελεῖ αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ αὐτῶν

Exodus 21:26 (NETS)

Exodus 21:26 (English Elpenor)
Now if someone strikes the eye of his male domestic or the eye of his female attendant and cause blindness, he shall send them away free in exchange for their eye. And if one smite the eye of his man-servant, or the eye of his maid-servant, and put it out, he shall let them go free for their eye’s sake.

Exodus 21:27 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 21:27 (KJV)

Exodus 21:27 (NET)
And if he smite out his bondman’s tooth, or his bondwoman’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake. If he knocks out the tooth of his male servant or his female servant, he will let the servant go free as compensation for the tooth.

Exodus 21:27 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 21:27 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δὲ τὸν ὀδόντα τοῦ οἰκέτου ἢ τὸν ὀδόντα τῆς θεραπαίνης αὐτοῦ ἐκκόψῃ ἐλευθέρους ἐξαποστελεῗ αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀδόντος αὐτῶν ἐὰν δὲ τὸν ὀδόντα τοῦ οἰκέτου ἢ τὸν ὀδόντα τῆς θεραπαίνης αὐτοῦ ἐκκόψῃ, ἐλευθέρους ἐξαποστελεῖ αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀδόντος αὐτῶν

Exodus 21:27 (NETS)

Exodus 21:27 (English Elpenor)
Now if he knocks out the tooth of a male domestic or the tooth of his female attendant, he shall send them away free in exchange for their tooth. And if he should smite out the tooth of his man-servant, or the tooth of his maid-servant, he shall send them away free for their tooth’s sake.

Leviticus 24:19 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 24:19 (KJV)

Leviticus 24:19 (NET)
And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; If a man inflicts an injury on his fellow citizen, just as he has done it must be done to him—

Leviticus 24:19 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 24:19 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ἐάν τις δῷ μῶμον τῷ πλησίον ὡς ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὡσαύτως ἀντιποιηθήσεται αὐτῷ καὶ ἐάν τις δῷ μῶμον τῷ πλησίον, ὡς ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ, ὡσαύτως ἀντιποιηθήσεται αὐτῷ

Leviticus 24:19 (NETS)

Leviticus 24:19 (English Elpenor)
And if anyone should a blemish to his neighbor—as he did to him, so also shall it be done to him in return: And whosoever shall inflict a blemish on his neighbour, as he has done to him, so shall it be done to himself in return;

Leviticus 24:21 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 24:21 (KJV)

Leviticus 24:21 (NET)
And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; and he that killeth a man shall be put to death. And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. One who beats an animal to death must make restitution for it, but one who beats a person to death must be put to death.

Leviticus 24:21 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 24:21 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ὃς ἂν πατάξῃ ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀποθάνῃ θανάτῳ θανατούσθω ὃς ἂν πατάξῃ ἄνθρωπον καὶ ἀποθάνῃ, θανάτῳ θανατούσθω

Leviticus 24:21 (NETS)

Leviticus 24:21 (English Elpenor)
Whoever strikes a person, and he dies, by death let him be put to death. Whosoever shall smite a man, and he shall die, let him die the death.

Leviticus 24:22 (Tanakh)

 Leviticus 24:22 (KJV)

Leviticus 24:22 (NET)
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am HaShem your G-d.’ Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God. There will be one regulation for you, whether a resident foreigner or a native citizen, for I am the Lord your God.’”

Leviticus 24:22 (Septuagint BLB)

Leviticus 24:22 (Septuagint Elpenor)
δικαίωσις μία ἔσται τῷ προσηλύτῳ καὶ τῷ ἐγχωρίῳ ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν δικαίωσις μία ἔσται τῷ προσηλύτῳ καὶ τῷ ἐγχωρίῳ, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν

Leviticus 24:22 (NETS)

Leviticus 24:22 (English Elpenor)
There shall be one judgment for the guest and for the inhabitant of the country; for it is I who am the Lord your God. There shall be one judgment for the stranger and the native, for I [am] the Lord your God.

Deuteronomy 19:16 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:16 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:16 (NET)
If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him; If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; If a false witness testifies against another person and accuses him of a crime,

Deuteronomy 19:16 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:16 (Septuagint Elpenor)
ἐὰν δὲ καταστῇ μάρτυς ἄδικος κατὰ ἀνθρώπου καταλέγων αὐτοῦ ἀσέβειαν ἐὰν δὲ καταστῇ μάρτυς ἄδικος κατὰ ἀνθρώπου καταλέγων αὐτοῦ ἀσέβειαν

Deuteronomy 19:16 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:16 (English Elpenor)
But if an unjust witness comes forward against a person, alleging impiety against him, And if an unjust witness rise up against a man, alleging iniquity against him;

Deuteronomy 19:17 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:17 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:17 (NET)
then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before HaShem, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days. Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; then both parties to the controversy must stand before the Lord, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days.

Deuteronomy 19:17 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:17 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ στήσονται οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι οἷς ἐστιν αὐτοῗς ἡ ἀντιλογία ἔναντι κυρίου καὶ ἔναντι τῶν ἱερέων καὶ ἔναντι τῶν κριτῶν οἳ ἐὰν ὦσιν ἐν ταῗς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ στήσονται οἱ δύο ἄνθρωποι, οἷς ἐστιν αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀντιλογία, ἔναντι Κυρίου καὶ ἔναντι τῶν ἱερέων καὶ ἔναντι τῶν κριτῶν, οἳ ἂν ὦσιν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις

Deuteronomy 19:17 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:17 (English Elpenor)
then the two persons between whom is the dispute shall stand before the Lord and before the priests and before the judges, who may be in those days, then shall the two men between whom the controversy is, stand before the Lord, and before the priests, and before the judges, who may be in those days.

Deuteronomy 19:18 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:18 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:18 (NET)
And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused,

Deuteronomy 19:18 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:18 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ἐξετάσωσιν οἱ κριταὶ ἀκριβῶς καὶ ἰδοὺ μάρτυς ἄδικος ἐμαρτύρησεν ἄδικα ἀντέστη κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξετάσωσιν οἱ κριταὶ ἀκριβῶς, καὶ ἰδοὺ μάρτυς ἄδικος ἐμαρτύρησεν ἄδικα, ἀντέστη κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ

Deuteronomy 19:18 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:18 (English Elpenor)
and if the judges make a thorough inquiry and, look, an unjust witness has testified unjustly, he has stood up against his brother, And the judges shall make diligent inquiry, and, behold, [if] an unjust witness has borne unjust testimony; [and] has stood up against his brother;

Deuteronomy 19:19 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:19 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:19 (NET)
then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. you must do to him what he had intended to do to the accused. In this way you will purge the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 19:19 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:19 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτῷ ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσατο ποιῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξαρεῗς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτῷ ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσατο ποιῆσαι κατὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐξαρεῖς τὸ πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν

Deuteronomy 19:19 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:19 (English Elpenor)
then you shall do to him just as he connived to do to his brother.  And you shall remove the evil one from yourselves. then shall ye do to him as he wickedly devised to do against his brother, and thou shalt remove the evil from yourselves.

Deuteronomy 19:20 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:20 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:20 (NET)
And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. The rest of the people will hear and become afraid to keep doing such evil among you.

Deuteronomy 19:20 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:20 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ οἱ ἐπίλοιποι ἀκούσαντες φοβηθήσονται καὶ οὐ προσθήσουσιν ἔτι ποιῆσαι κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῗν καὶ οἱ ἐπίλοιποι ἀκούσαντες φοβηθήσονται καὶ οὐ προσθήσουσιν ἔτι ποιῆσαι κατὰ τὸ ρῆμα τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν

Deuteronomy 19:20 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:20 (English Elpenor)
And the rest, when they hear, shall be afraid and will not add to act again according to this evil thing among you. And the rest shall hear and fear, and do no more according to this evil thing in the midst of you.

Deuteronomy 19:21 (Tanakh)

 Deuteronomy 19:21 (KJV)

Deuteronomy 19:21 (NET)
And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. You must not show pity; the principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot.

Deuteronomy 19:21 (Septuagint BLB)

Deuteronomy 19:21 (Septuagint Elpenor)
οὐ φείσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος χεῗρα ἀντὶ χειρός πόδα ἀντὶ ποδός οὐ φείσεται ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ· ψυχὴν ἀντὶ ψυχῆς, ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ, ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, χεῖρα ἀντὶ χειρός, πόδα ἀντὶ ποδός

Deuteronomy 19:21 (NETS)

Deuteronomy 19:21 (English Elpenor)
Your eye shall not be sparing against him: soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Thine eye shall not spare him: [thou shalt exact] life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

2 Samuel 13:20 (Tanakh)

 2 Samuel 13:20 (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:20 (NET)
And Absalom her brother said unto her: ‘Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but now hold thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; take not this thing to heart.’  So Tamar remained desolate in her brother, Absalom’s house. And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing.  So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house. Her brother Absalom said to her, “Was Amnon your brother with you?  Now be quiet, my sister.  He is your brother.  Don’t take it so seriously!”  Tamar, devastated, lived in the house of her brother Absalom.

2 Samuel 13:20 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Kings 13:20 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὴν Αβεσσαλωμ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτῆς μὴ Αμνων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἐγένετο μετὰ σοῦ καὶ νῦν ἀδελφή μου κώφευσον ὅτι ἀδελφός σού ἐστιν μὴ θῇς τὴν καρδίαν σου τοῦ λαλῆσαι εἰς τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο καὶ ἐκάθισεν Θημαρ χηρεύουσα ἐν οἴκῳ Αβεσσαλωμ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτὴν ᾿Αβεσσαλὼμ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτῆς· μὴ ᾿Αμνὼν ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἐγένετο μετὰ σοῦ; καὶ νῦν, ἀδελφή μου, κώφευσον, ὅτι ἀδελφός σού ἐστι· μὴ θῇς τὴν καρδίαν σου τοῦ λαλῆσαι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. καὶ ἐκάθισε Θημὰρ χηρεύουσα ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ᾿Αβεσσαλὼμ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῆς

2 Reigns 13:20 (NETS)

2 Kings 13:20 (English Elpenor)
And Abessalom her brother said to her, “Amnon your brother wasn’t with you, was he?  And now, my sister, be quiet, for he is your brother; do not set your heart to speak abut this thing.”  And Themar stayed as a widow in her brother Abessalom’s house. And Abessalom her brother said to her, Has thy brother Amnon been with thee? now then, my sister, be silent, for he is thy brother: be not careful to mention this matter.  So Themar dwelt as a widow in the house of her brother Abessalom.

2 Samuel 13:22 (Tanakh)

 2 Samuel 13:22 (KJV)

2 Samuel 13:22 (NET)
And Absalom spoke unto Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar. And Absalom spake unto his brother Amnon neither good nor bad: for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar. But Absalom said nothing to Amnon, either bad or good, yet Absalom hated Amnon because he had humiliated his sister Tamar.

2 Samuel 13:22 (Septuagint BLB)

2 Kings 13:22 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ οὐκ ἐλάλησεν Αβεσσαλωμ μετὰ Αμνων ἀπὸ πονηροῦ ἕως ἀγαθοῦ ὅτι ἐμίσει Αβεσσαλωμ τὸν Αμνων ἐπὶ λόγου οὗ ἐταπείνωσεν Θημαρ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐλάλησεν ᾿Αβεσσαλὼμ μετὰ ᾿Αμνὼν ἀπὸ πονηροῦ ἕως ἀγαθοῦ,ὅτι ἐμίσει ᾿Αβεσσαλὼμ τὸν ᾿Αμνὼν ἐπὶ λόγου, οὗ ἐταπείνωσε Θημὰρ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτοῦ

2 Reigns 13:22 (NETS)

2 Kings 13:22 (English Elpenor)
And Abessalom did not speak with Amnon, from evil to good, for Abessalom kept hating Amnon on account of which he had humiliated Themar his sister. And Abessalom spoke not to Amnon, good or bad, because Abessalom hated Amnon, on account of his humbling his sister Themar.

1 2 Samuel 13:15 (NET)

2 2 Samuel 13:16 (NET)

3 Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 (NET)  See also: Fury

4 1 Corinthians 13:4-8a (NET)

5 2 Samuel 13:21 (NET)

6 1 Kings 1:6 (NET)

8 Exodus 21:22-27 (NET)

9 Leviticus 24:19-22 (NET)

10 Deuteronomy 19:16-21 (NET)

11 2 Samuel 13:20, 22 (NET)

12 2 Samuel 13:28, 29a (NET)