Objection: The following verse speaks metaphorically of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is rejoiced over by God as His bride and His bride is married to men. According to Tom’s logic, this supports a wife getting husbands! In other words, it overturns the law against adultery. In addition, those husbands are the woman’s own sons! In other words it overturns the law that is also found in Leviticus 18 of a man marrying his mother. Tom’s logic supports incestuous polyandrous marriage by a man’s own wife!
Isaiah 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee. – Critic
Answer: I remain open to all serious criticism of my writings, and will not hesitate to change my position on Leviticus 18:18 based on sound exposition. Leviticus 18:18 is not integral to my thesis, which is one of the reasons it is treated as a miscellaneous item.
The problem here with Critic’s criticism is that he mangles the metaphor/allegory from Isaiah 62:5. He confuses and mixes the metaphor/allegory with the literal reality it represents. His logic here is quite flawed. This is very much unsound exposition. My logic in no way supports a wife getting husbands nor incestuous polyandry in that passage. Critic is clearly wrong in this accusation. This is unbridled emotion at work and not sound exposition of God’s holy Word.
Moreover, Critic has given no rejoinder to the actual and specific exposition I made in my book, M&WIBL.; To wit, why does the text of Leviticus 18:18 say to not take the second sister to vex “her” instead of “them?” Or, to ask the question from the other direction, why does not the text of Leviticus 18:18 ban taking the second sister so as not to vex them instead of to vex “her”? I ask, as I asked in the book, why does the situation addressed vex only the one sister and not both? If we take every word of God seriously, then must demonstrate a conclusive answer to this question, or he has not established his point. I contend that the situation addressed only vexes the one sister, as the text clearly states, because 1) the second sister is, indeed, not “vexed” by the marriage and 2) the REASON the second sister is not vexed by the marriage is because she is not contemplated as barren and childless. If, in fact, there were an inherent vexing of this sisterly relationship based upon the act of marrying two sisters constituting sin, then BOTH sisters would be vexed by the situation.
Again, I assert, the situation remedied by the ban is the potential spoiling of the sisterly relationship by taking a second sister to bear children in the presence of a barren and childless sister. In other words, this is a qualified prohibition. As I pointed out in my book, it is the only ban in Leviticus 18 which is qualified in any way. All of the other prohibitions are stated without qualification of any kind. Why? Critic, apparently, has no answer to this question. I believe I have a very sound answer to the question.
One strength of this proposition is that it has precedent by way of examples given to us by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God regarding 1) Hagar’s vexing of Sara regarding her childlessness in Genesis 16, 2) the vexing of Rachel by her sister Leah because of Rachel’s childlessness in Genesis 30 and 3) the vexing of Hannah by Penninah because of Hannah’s childlessness in I Samuel 1. This is a very strong and repeated theme in Scripture, that is, of a childless wife being vexed by the presence of a second wife who has children. Providing an heir to a husband was a central concern of the Israelite family. It is, in fact, the overarching raison d’etre for the Hebrew family in Scripture.
Secondly, attempts to empty the metaphors/allegories of Ezekiel and Jeremiah of their significance. Is God confused or inconsistent with Himself? should re-read both my and Jay E. Adams’ arguments in regard to this issue. On ‘s premise, the Biblical metaphors picture God as committing iniquity. Is this really rational? Is this biblical?
Accusations are one thing. Backing them up with valid exposition of the Word of God is quite another. I would submit to you that Critic has been weighed in the balances in this regard and found wanting.
God bless you.
Tom