Hebrew institutions : social and civil

Front matter

7 ND

SRE . SS

SSS Se S : SS 3 ‘ ‘

Dedication

To the grateful memory of Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney, D.D., LL. D., who fifty years ago taught me the absolute perfection of Old Testament Institutions, this volume is dedicated. ‘‘He being dead yet speaketh.’’

Contents

CHARTER 1

CHAPTER GITt:

Morat Status oF Mosaic INSTITUTIONS,.............-000+- AI CHAPTER iVis

Preface

The whole Christian world is in a state of unrest. New and strange questions are asked everywhere. The ancient foundations seem to be unstable. “If the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do.” What is the family? Who ordained it? What is its object and purpose? What is its constitution? What are the relations of all its members? What are its relations to church and state?

And sociology in its broader aspects. . Is it a science? Where are its facts found? Who has formulated its fundamental principles?

And socialism. Who can-even define it so as to include the wild vagaries of many of its votaries? What standing have the Scriptures in determining its problems?

Or civic Christianity, so called. Are its claims a novelty or are they based on divine authority? What are the relations of the church and the state? Is the state the censor morum to be controlled by “civic circles’?

Or government. What is its origin? What are its fundamental principles? Where are they defined? What are the relations of ruler and people? Is there no divine model to the test of which all may be brought?

Similar questions concerning economics, social ethics,

8 PREFACE civil laws and codes and commercial customs meet us at every turn.

How stand all these questions at the bar of revelation? Are Bible institutions inchoate and semi-barbaric? Or are they relatively excellent when compared with peoples of that day? Do they mark a stage in the progress of the race to something better?

The author does not propose a categorical discussion of all these questions. He proposes to make a’ careful analysis of Hebrew institutions with necessary . definitions. If he shall do this successfully it ought to be accepted as God’s answer to all.

He has no apology to make for his intense traditionalism. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of faith and practice, of doctrine and duty; and all questions must be addressed to the sacred oracles. All the varied forms of human institutions must be brought to the test of their teachings.

J. B. SHEARER.

Davidson, N. C.

HEBREW INSTITUTIONS, SOCIAL AND CIVIL.

CHAPTER:

THE FAMILY.

The family is of Divine origin and sanction. Man was created a pair—‘‘Male and female created He them.” The plural pronoun here makes it necessary to render this passage, ‘“A male and a female created He them’— otherwise it might seem to mean that a number of males and females were created. This, however, would contradict the teaching of the second chapter of Genesis, that Adam and Eve were two persons as they came from the ane or the Creator, Gen. '11..7, 24,22:

Marriage was formally instituted between this pair, for Eve became the “mother of all living”, and she is afterwards called his wife. iii. 20; iv. 1, 25. Adam himself proclaimed the marriage law for his posterity, but did not originate it. When the woman was created and presented to him, he said, “This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh”. ii. 23, 24.

This is the God-given constitution for the family. Christ endorses it as the law from the beginning for the race, and argues from it to define the rights of the parties, as we shall see. Matt. xix. 4-6. Paul also assumes the constitution of the family for all ages, and argues from it the rights of the parties. Rom. vii. 2, 3. Indeed, the Scriptures assume every where that the constitution of the family is fundamental law for the race.

The family meets the necessities of man’s nature and condition from the beginning, and was instituted to meet those necessities. ‘The Lord said it is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a help meet for him,” Gen. ii. 18. There was found no help meet for him among the fowls of the air, nor the cattle, nor the beasts of the field. Gen. ii. 20. Man is a social being, though not gregarious. Social, sentimental and moral bonds are necessary to his very existence, to say nothing of his comfort and happiness. The woman was made meet for him, exactly what he needed. There was a mutuality in the adjustment, so that each is the complement of the other; and each is necessary to the other.

The most obvious purpose of the family is the propagation of-the race in holiness—“‘a Godly seed.” “God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it,’ Gen. i. 28. Malachi teaches that God “sought a Godly seed”, Mal. it. 15. Paul argues that the children are holy in a Godly family, and not unclean, 1 Cor. vil. 14. There were two institutions established in the beginning of the race, the Sabbath and the family. They are both fundamental. The family is the place and the Sabbath is the special time for the training of a holy seed for God.

Monogamy and not polygamy was the law from the beginning. Malachi says, ““The Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he not make one,

HEBREW INSTITUTIONS, SOCIAL AND CIVIL II although he had the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? He sought a Godly seed.” He claims that God made one woman for one man and bases his plea upon it. Mal 1;.14,/15,

Christ argues from the same fact, “Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” “And the twain shall become one flesh.” 1 Matt. xix. 5,\6.

Polygamy arose in Cain’s family. Lamech took two wives, Ada and Zillah, and the relation proved a murderous one. Gen. iv. 19-24. The discussion of polygamy is reserved for another place.

From the beginning marriage was a Divine bond and an indissoluble unity. “They are no more twain but one flesh.” Christ in discussing the divorce law of Moses, says, “From the beginning it was not so.” He says, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” Marriage was an indissoluble bond till divorce was made necessary by “uncleanness’”’ in the marriage relation; by their “hardness of heart”—-evidently perverseness and sin in the marriage relation, which Christ defines as fornication. Compare Deut. xxiv. 1-4; Matt. xix. 2-9.

Marriage is not a sacrament as the Papists claim and teach with a strange inconsistency, for they also teach that celibacy is a holier state than matrimony. This is part of their scheme of priestly domination. They denounce civil marriage, and put the family under ecclesiastical law. They declare all marriages null and void which are not solemnized by an ecclesiastic because it is a sacrament. At the same time they validate a baptism administered by the laity, though it is a real sacrament. The reason of these things is not hard to see.

Marriage is not a matter of ecclesiastical origin, nor dependent on ecclesiastical law. The church originated in

12 Hesrew INSTITUTIONS, SOCIAL AND CIVIL and from the family and not the family in and from the church. The church is composed of families of believers and their seed. The rights and franchises of each are of divine origin. A priesthood originated in the family, for in the patriarchal system, the father was the priest of the family and the responsible religious teacher. How shall the stream control and regulate the fountaine The church may and must conserve the family according to its Scriptural warrant and constitution, but only by proper teaching and discipline. The teaching is only declarative and the discipline only personal as in all other matters of right and morals.

Marriage is not a mere civil institution as has been asserted. This doctrine was a reaction against the tyranny of the Papacy which so long claimed to place marital relations and family rights under the sole jurisdiction of ecclesiastical law. It gained plausibility from the fact that certain property rights belong to members of the family, such as inheritances, support, care of the sick and aged, enforcement of contracts expressed or implied, protection against brutality on one hand and insubordination on the other, and such like. It is the function of the state to protect and defend against wrong, injustice, and oppression in all the relations of life, both in the family and out of it.

The state does not create the rights of men, but protects them. It does not create the family, but conserves it. It does not create its obligations, but recognizes them ~ and enforces them against violation. The Divine law stands behind all civil administration so far as it deals with moral questions. So with the family. Civil law can only foster, conserve, defend or annul it, in accordance with the divine law. In deciding who may or may not marry the Scriptures are supreme authority. So also with mutual obligations in the family. Certain property rights inhere and these must be protected by the civil arm, only because the sword is a terror to evil-doers. The church and the state ought both to stand sponsor and witness the contract of marriage and uphold it, each with its appropriate arm. Marriage did not originate with the state any more than it did with the church.

The state originated in the family. The patriarch was the civil ruler as well as the religious head of the family. It would be interesting to trace the state as the out-growth from the simple headship of the family. The church and the state are both concerned to foster the family and neither should rule the other out so long as the constitution of the family is saved.

Divorce is the greatest enemy of the family—divorce for any and every cause, as was common among Greeks and Romans, and adopted by the Jews from Paganism, and justified by the Pharisees in Christ’s day. Divorce is the burning question in Christian lands to-day. Shall the marriage bond be cancelled at all, and if so, by whom and for what? |

We can here only emphasize the one and only cause named by Christ and by Moses. Matt. v. 31, 32; xix. 3-9; Deut. xxiv. 1-4. We hold that the state only can issue ‘a competent annulling of the marriage contract, and for this sole cause. Annulling for any other cause does not cancel the bond in the eyes of heaven, and the church must uphold the Bible view, both by doctrine and discipline.

The man is the head of the family by right. The manner of the woman’s creation would seem to teach this. She was given for an help meet for him”, and she was built upon a rib taken from his side. Gen. i. 18, 21, 22. Paul says, “The head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man.” “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man.” “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Cor. xi. 3, 8,9. This is evidently the doctrine of the Scriptures, and the practice of Scripture times. Eph. v. 22, 23; Col. iii. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 1. The wife’s vow is to “love, cherish and obey.” We need hardly cite passages to prove that this headship extends to children and servants also.

The man may not surrender this authority. He is held responsible for the conduct of his family. The Fourth Commandment emphasises this responsibility in the matter of the Sabbath. Eli failed on this point and the failure brought untolddisasters to his family and his people. His is the lesson for all families, and for all times. “His sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not.” 1 Sam. iii. I1-14.

When Abraham stood before the Lord looking toward Sodom, the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do? etc. For I know that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” Then the Lord conferred fully with him about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here we note this remarkable thing; Abraham’s righteous rule over his household was not only pleasing to the Lord, but he assigned it as a reason for making him a confidential friend and advisor. Gen. xviii. 19.

We have seen that the family is the primordial unit in church and state and that both are profoundly interested in its integrity. Family corruption and disintegration undermine them both. The two enemies which now threaten the integrity of the family are twin sisters— easy divorce and woman’s rights.

Easy divorce ignores the fact that both husband and wife “are no more twain but one flesh”; it undermines the home; it discounts the strongest human affections in the interest of a sordid selfishness. The child is robbed of its birthright, the supreme united love of father and mother, and falls into the abyss of their mutual hatred and selfishness. It degrades the family to a mere partnership between equals which may be dissolved at the interest or caprice of either party without social stigma or disgrace.

Woman’s rights asserts this same equality of partnership, and denies the headship of the man over the woman. It claims to emancipate woman from a thraldom which they say is heritage from Paganism. It opens up all occupations and ambitions of life to woman equally with man. It makes woman the rival and competitor of man instead of “a help meet for him.” In so far as it makes woman the bread winner it consigns her again to the barbaric thraldom of which they profess to find the remedy.

We say therefore that “woman’s rights” opposes the Divine plan, subverts all law and authority, defeats its own aims, degrades woman and promotes infidelity. More of this anon.

CHAPTER II. LAws oF MARRIAGE AND INCEST.*

The question who may and who may not marry is an important one. We may expect it to be answered in the Scriptures as a part of the God-given constitution of the family. We find the answer in the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus. The forbidden degrees are carefully enumerated in concrete form, rather than by an abstract statement of the relationships which are forbidden. This is the more common Scripture method. We need therefore to make a careful induction of all the prohibitions given in order to define lawful degrees of marriage.

There is apparently a repetition of the same laws in . the twentieth chapter of Leviticus. A careful examination of the context in that chapter indicates that Moses there refers to incestuous immoralities, and not to marriage at all. By comparing the two chapters, however, we see that the forbidden degrees of marriage are the same as the incestuous degrees, so that marriage within the forbidden degrees is incest. It is common therefore to refer to the eighteenth chapter as giving the degrees of marriage and incest. There may be no objection to this, except that it is safest to limit every part of the Scripture to its own proper scope and application.

If the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus does not regulate the degrees of marriage, there are no laws on that subject in the Scriptures. It has always been so understood by the Jewish people and has been so interpreted and accepted. by Christian churches and peoples.

*See note at end of Chapter.

These laws are social laws, and are no part of the Jewish ceremonial and typical system, and therefore did not become null and pass away with things essentially Jewish in their origin and form. |

They certainly antedated Mosaic institutions, how long we do not know. They were in force against the heathen nations who were to be driven out of Canaan. They were to be driven out when the cup of their iniquity should be full. Gen. xv. 16. We learn from Lev. xvili. 3, 24-28, that the violations of these laws were prominent in their wicked abominations, and they were “vomited out” of the land for that reason. Moses also warns his people that they would suffer the same fate if they defiled the land in the same way, “That thy land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you,’ Lev. XVili, 28.

The same laws of marriage and incest seem to have been in force among all nations, both civilized and uncivilized. Paul rebukes the Corinthian Church for tolerating a form of incest—‘‘such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.” 1 Cor. v. 1. The Greeks and Romans and Barbarians alike, have in the main recognized these laws as an unwritten code. So also the Asiatic peoples of ancient and modern times. History records disgraceful violations in certain kingdoms of Central Asia. But even there the violations were confined to the royal families, and originated in supposed political necessities, and, besides, were condoned by a servile priesthood on the principle that the king could do no evil. There is no need to argue further the universality of these laws. Church and state must uphold them without modification.

We do not know when these limitations on marriage were first promulgated nor how widely. The marriage of brothers and sisters and other near relations was a necessity in the family of Adam and Eve, and in the generations immediately subsequent. After the flood Sarah seems to have been the half sister of Abraham, for he said to Abimelech, “And yet indeed she is my sister: the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.” Gen. xx. 12.

These limitations were surely made necessary by man’s sinfulness. They are founded on the necessities of society. Men and women closely related by affinity and consanguinity must needs dwell together in the same home | and family. A “covering for the eyes” is needed for mutual protection against jealousies on the one hand and sins on the other. These limitations furnish that covering to the eyes. They are so deep rooted that they seem to have the force of nature, and a violation is denounced as contrary to nature. The moral and politic reasons for these laws are universal.

Besides, these limitations are guarded by providential visitations on incestuous offspring. We need not suppose that there has been any modification of natural law for this purpose since the curse was pronounced at the Fall, but that these visitations are by and through the natural laws of propagation. The stock breeder says that he finds it necessary to introduce new blood from time to time if he would avoid degeneration in his herds, or if he desires to improve them. Men of science trace the law of degeneration or betterment, and tell us that similar traits, whether good or bad, are accentuated and exaggerated in the offspring, and that the process is more rapid if continued for a few generations,

We are here not so much concerned with the process as we are with the conceded fact that such providential visitations come upon the offspring of parents too closely related in blood. This law of heredity is so obvious that some are bitterly opposed to one or more degrees that are not forbidden in the Scriptures. It does not seem competent for man to add to or take from the divinely appointed degrees.

Nearness of relationship is the principle that determines all the prohibited degrees. ‘None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, etc.” The literal Hebrew says, “remainder of his flesh.” All the authorities agree that it is properly rendered, “near of kin to him.” Now the word “kin” expresses relationship both of consanguinity and affinity, by blood or by marriage. This is the first meaning given in Webster, and the second meaning is relatives, and we find the same two meanings given under the word “kindred.” So we find that the forbidden degrees are relationships both by blood and by marriage. This disposes of the claim made by some that kin is always blood kin, and that persons connected by marriage are relatives only and are not kin. We need only remember further that man and woman in marriage become “one flesh.” Gen. ii. 24.

From a careful examination of the several prohibited degrees as enumerated in Leviticus xvill. 7-17, we deduce regulative rules by necessary generalization.

Rule 1. Degrees of kindred nearer than first cousin are forbidden. We may see at a glance, without citation, that the first cousin is one remove further away than any of the prohibited degrees. This, in turn, allows first cousins to marry, because the prohibitions are based on nearness. It may be conceded, however, that the inter-marriage of cousins from generation to generation does sometimes produce mischievous heredities, especially if there be any serious taint in the family. Some go so far as to forbid the marriage of any person who has a serious bodily or mental taint, lest it be transmitted to posterity by heredity. Such attempts to interpret providence and thereby improve on God’s legislation would in the end overthrow the Scripture family altogether.

There is a materialistic science and philosophy which denies the possibility of regenerating the race on the old Bible methods, through the family and the church. They argue that none but the better specimens of the race should be allowed to propagate themselves. They would stamp out all physical and moral degeneracy in this way.

Rule 2. Prohibition of that which is more remote thereby prohibits all that is nearer, because it is a question of nearness. The more remote prohibitions set the boundaries for all within. This rule is so obvious that it needs no proof.

Rule 3. Special prohibitions given in one sex bind both sexes, for it is still a question of nearness. Besides, this rule applies to all precepts and laws, except where the distinction of sex is of the essence of the precept, and is the ground and reason thereof; and this must plainly appear. If it be said, “A man shall not steal,” it means also that a woman may not steal. There is no need to repeat such precepts for each sex.

Rule 4. Relationships by marriage are recognized as legal and real and stand on the same footing as relationships by blood. Both are equally prohibited if one is prohibited. This agrees with the definition of “kin” which has been given. Verse 14 forbids a man to marry his father’s brother’s wife, “because she is thine aunt’’? She is put on the same footing as his father’s sister. One is aunt by blood, the other by marriage. They are both forbidden because they are both aunts. So says

HEBREW INSTITUTIONS, SOCIAL AND CIVIL at the law. Similarly a man may not take his father’s wife, his son’s wife, nor his brother’s wife, for the reason that the wife occupies the same status of nearness that the husband occupies, and it is so stated as the reason for the prohibitions, verses 8, 15, 16, 6.

This is what we might expect from the oneness of the marriage relation, “The twain are one flesh.” This unit, this one flesh, stands in the same relation to the blood kin of either and each, husband and wife. Divine law makes and declares it so, and human law ought so to recognize it.

Rule 5. It is wickedness to marry the wife’s near kinswoman even to the fourth degree of blood. Verse 17 forbids a man to take his wife’s daughter, or her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, “For they are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.” The marriage of the wife’s near kinswoman is here denounced as wickedness in unmistakable terms. The daughter. is only half the mother’s blood, as every stock raiser understands, and the granddaughter is only one-fourth. This is therefore forbidden? It is a curious fact that the fourth degree is not allowed in regular line of descent but is allowed as the outside limit in collateral line of decent, for first cousins are separated by the fourth degree. The reason for this difference is not given.

‘It may be pertinent to ask here why the Jews have allowed a man to marry his niece, while he may not marry his aunt. They have adopted a system of literalism in their interpretation in which they follow the letter of the law and refuse to see the underlying principle of the law. In this case they allow that which is not definitely mentioned. By this false principle of interpretation they made void the law in Christ’s day.

It is also pertinent to inquire the significance of the

Levirate marriages. The law forbids a man to marry his brother’s wife. Yet it is provided elsewhere that a widow without children might claim her dead husband’s nearest of kin, notably his brother, to take her to wife. He was not compelled to do so though the obligation seems to have been generally recognized. This was the Levirate marriage, from the word levir which means “brother-in-law.” This was the usage among the patriarchs, Gen. xxxviil, 6-8. The full provisions of this law are found in Deut. xxv. 5-10. The case of Ruth is familiar and in point. It seems to have been practiced later (Ci) uke xk 27h 3a:

This was an exception made to the law for a purpose. The first born of a Levirate marriage was counted in law as the son of the dead father and stood in their genealogies as his son and successor. This was part of the patriarchal system and was necessary for birthrights, inheritances, and perhaps other things. This exception to the law was made for a purpose and the exception established the law more firmly where the reason for the ex-: ception did not exist, according to a familiar legal maxim, “the exception establishes the rule.”

The sacred books of India provide for Levirate marriage to this day, but expound it to mean something entirely different from the provision in the Jewish law. They teach that a man’s happiness in the next world is marred if he has no child to represent him in this world, therefore the younger brother or some near kinsman must take his childless widow and raise up seed for him.

This exception shows that these laws of marriage are positive precepts, and are not based on intrinsic moral distinctions. But like all other positive enactments, they have all the force of moral law when once properly enacted, and must be recognized and enforced by all proper jurisdiction.

May a man marry his wife’s sister? The traditional view of the law is that he may not. This was the consensus of all Christendom, both in ecclesiastical and civil legislation until recent times. This matter came to the front in the nineteenth century and gradually the doctrine has won its way, that a man may marry his wife’s sister. Many churches have so altered their standards as to allow it, or, at least, to leave it to the individual conscience, to determine in each case. It is still forbidden through out the British Empire, and in other quarters, or if altered it was done very recently.

The plea is that the Scriptures do not forbid it. They argue that the wife’s sister is not blood kin to her sister’s husband, and that it is most proper that the sister should adopt and rear her dead sister’s children. If this last reason be recognized as good, it puts the man under obligation to take his wife’s sister; and if he fails to do so, he not only puts a slight upon the family, but does his children a great wrong. This view of the case is said to prevail in some quarters and must become more general from the very nature of the case.

If the general exposition of the law in Leviticus is sound it is very easy to settle the question by an application of the five rules above set forth, for such marriage overrides them all.

' Apply Rule 5. It is wickedness to take the wife’s near kinswoman to the fourth degree of blood. The wife’s sister is the nearest possible for she is the whole blood, having the same mother and father.

Apply Rule 4. Relationships by marriage are counted the same as relationships by blood. The nearness of kin includes both these as we have seen.

Apply Rule 3. Special prohibitions in one sex include both sexes. A man shall not take his brother’s wife means also that a woman shall not take her sister’s husband. ©

Rules 1 and 2 need not be commented on in their application to this case.

We conclude therefore that the traditional view stands against all comers.. If the contention of the opposite view prevail, the entire law must fall sooner or later. The son may then marry the father’s widow, for she is not blood kin, and then the father may take the son’s wife because they are not blood kin, and so on. The only escape from this logic would be to adopt the literalism of the Pharisees and stick to the letter while ignoring the spirit or principle which underlies the letter of the law.