Program 176: Polygamy & the Torah

Polygamy is contrary to Yahuwah’s plan and will.

Welcome to WLC Radio, a subsidiary of World’s Last Chance Ministries, an online ministry dedicated to learning how to live in constant readiness for the Savior's return.

For two thousand years, believers of every generation have longed to be the last generation. Contrary to popular belief, though, Christ did not give believers “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, he repeatedly warned that his coming would take even the faithful by surprise. Yahushua urgently warned believers to be ready because, he said, “The Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” [Matthew 24:44]

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Part 1: (Miles & Dave)

Miles Robey: The Bible says that Yahuwah is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, sooo . . . is He okay with polygamy? Scripture records plenty of godly men who had more than one wife, not to mention multiple concubines so, cultural differences aside, is polygamy morally acceptable?

Hello, I’m Miles Robey and you’re listening to World’s Last Chance Radio. I think most Christians today will denounce polygamy as morally wrong. After all, Yahuwah created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Betsy. But what does it say about Yahuwah and the value He places on women if Scripture is silent on this subject? Or is it?

A while ago, I asked Dave Wright if he could prepare a presentation on this subject and I, for one, am looking forward to hearing what he has to say. Dave?

Dave Wright: Thanks, Miles. I think this is an important topic to discuss. We need to have a clear understanding of Scripture’s stance on this because, otherwise, it’s easy to read into it that Yahuwah, perhaps, values women less, and that’s not true.

Before we go on, however, I’d like to add just a word of precaution. Some of the things covered in today’s broadcast may not be appropriate for our younger listeners.

Miles: Good point. I know sometimes home churching families listen to our broadcasts for their worship service, so that’s a good point to make. At the very least, today’s discussion might inspire some questions in younger listeners which the parents aren’t quite ready to answer!

Anyway, you said something I found interesting. You said that the idea that Scripture doesn’t explicitly condemn polygamy might lead some to value women as less-than. What’d you mean by that?

Dave: Well, that realization came about after hearing my daughter ask my wife why Yahuwah allowed polygamy. Most of the Bible’s stories revolve around the men. There aren’t really that many stories around women and girls.

Miles: There’s the story of Esther, of course, and Ruth. Mary. Dorcas and Lydia. But yeah, that’s really about it.

Dave: So my daughter, who was about, I don’t know. Twelve? Fourteen at the time? Was feeling like Yahuwah doesn’t value women as much as men due to the focus on men as well as the apparent discrepancy in how men are treated versus how women are treated.

Miles: Hm. I never really thought about that before. But I suppose I can see how it could come across that way. And just because, as men, we don’t see it that way doesn’t mean that it can’t appear that way to women, that the Bible seems to favor the men.

Dave: Right. Well, the fact of the matter is, I believe the Torah—which is the first five books of the Bible, the books of Moses—does forbid polygamy. We just haven’t recognized it due to an idiomatic phrase we’ve translated literally rather than by definition.

Miles: I honestly hadn’t thought of how it might appear to women. The reason I asked you to prepare this talk is that, as more and more Christians are discovering that the divine law as recorded in Scripture is still binding, more and more are turning to the Old Testament for truths that have been lost or covered up; forgotten.

Believe it or not, there are some people that are actually teaching that polygamy is morally acceptable because it’s in Scripture.

Dave: Well, so is murder, theft, and rape. That doesn’t make it morally acceptable just because it appears in Scripture.

Miles: Well … because it’s allowed, I guess you could say.

Dave: Yes, but it’s not really allowed. I believe there is clear textual and historical evidence that polygamy was forbidden.

Miles: Have you heard of a blog called Biblical Gender Roles?

Dave: Biblical Gen—No. No. That doesn’t sound familiar.

Miles: Larry Solomon, who, I guess, writes the blog, states, and I quote: “God never condemned polygamy, but rather he regulated it which means he approved of it.” Unquote. So that’s the reasoning. Would you like another wife, Dave?

Dave laughs: No! The one I have is all I need.

Miles: Good answer. Good answer. I’ll tell your wife you don’t have to sleep in the doghouse tonight!

In all seriousness, though, I think he’s got a point. Um … listen to this. It’s Exodus 21 verse 10. It says, “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” I mean, it’s a fair point. There are no regulations regarding, say, murder. It’s just forbidden. Would Yah really regulate something if He weren’t okay with it?

Dave: Regulating something doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to Yah. Turn to Deuteronomy, uh … twenty-three. Deuteronomy 23 and read verse 18. This is also talking about something Yahuwah regulated.

Miles: Uhhh … “You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of Yahuwah your Eloah for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to Yahuwah your Eloah.”

Dave: So here is a prohibition, a regulation, if you will. If you’ve vowed to make an offering to Yahuwah, that money is not to be drawn from the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog. Why? Because both are an abomination to Yah. That’s a regulation. So, just because something is regulated doesn’t mean it’s allowable.

Miles: Yeah, okay. That makes sense.

Dave: Besides, there are plenty of scholars who do believe that the Torah condemns polygamy. Let’s look at the evidence. Turn to Leviticus chapter 18. This is a chapter covering the laws of sexual morality. Specifically, it delineates which sexual relations Yahuwah outlawed.

Go ahead and start reading at verse 1. We’ll discuss it as you go along.

Miles:

Yahuwah said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Yahuwah your Eloah. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey My laws and be careful to follow My decrees. I am Yahuwah your Eloah. Keep My decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am Yahuwah.”

Dave: So these are some very firm statements. The Israelites are not to adopt the lax sexual morals of the heathen.

Miles: I find it interesting that in this handful of verses Yahuwah keeps repeating, “I am Yahuwah your Eloah.” It gives gravity to His statements.

Dave: Yes! “I’m your Creator. You are to obey Me.” All right. Keep going.

Miles:

‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am Yahuwah.

‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.’ [Leviticus 18:6-9]

Dave: Marrying a close relative, even a parent or a sibling, was common practice in ancient Egypt, especially among royalty and the upper classes. This kept the inheritance within the family. Yahuwah is telling His people that they are not to engage in such relationships.

We won’t read all of it. But this passage spells out which relationships are to be considered unlawful. And these are commandments. Other translations translate these verses with “Thou shalt not … thou shalt not … thou shalt not.”

All right. Drop down now to verse 18. What does that say?

Miles: “Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.”

Dave: Do you have another translation you can read that in?

Miles: Uh, yeah. Give me just a second . . .

It says, um: “Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.” Another says: “Also thou shalt not take a wife with her sister, during her life to vex her, in uncovering her shame upon her.”

Dave: All right. That’s good. It sounds like what Yahuwah is condemning here is taking sister wives. Don’t marry a woman and her sister because there will be jealousy and competition between them.

Miles: Yeah! Look at what happened when Jacob married Rachel and Leah! They did not have a happy home.

Dave: No. They were constantly squabbling over supremacy. Genesis 30 actually records a negotiation between the sisters as to who got to have sex with Jacob that night versus who had to wait. Basically, Leah bought the right to have Jacob spend the night in her tent in exchange for doing Rachel a favor. In fact, those are the very words Leah uses when she tells Jacob he’s spending the night with her. She tells him that she’s “hired” him.

Miles: That’s messed up.

Dave: It really is. But the truth is, the dynamic would still have been just as messed up if the wives hadn’t been sisters.

Now, traditionally, Leviticus 18 verse 18 has been interpreted as a prohibition against sororal polygamy. In other words, you can’t marry women who are sisters. If that is really what this text is saying, what’s the implied extrapolation?

Miles: Well, that polygamy itself is all right as long as your wives aren’t sisters.

Dave: Right. That’s the implication, and that’s what some people today who are trying to claim that polygamy is Biblical are using to try and bolster their claim.

The point I want to make, however, is that there is both textual and historical evidence that this verse is actually outlawing polygamy itself. It’s not just outlawing polygamy with sisters; it’s prohibiting more than one wife at all.

Miles: Where are you getting that? Not that I want to go take on another wife, but I’m not seeing that in this verse.

Dave: We’ll get to that. First, though, I want to look at the historical evidence. The Jews have commentaries stemming from ancient times on all the Old Testament passages, particularly the Torah. These were originally oral traditions that were later written down.

There is at least one Jewish community from around the time of Christ that interpreted this passage as outlawing polygamy.

Miles: And where there’s one, you know there’s likely more. Which community was it?

Dave: Have you heard of the Qumran?

Miles: Yeah …

Yeah! Wasn’t that where the Dead Sea scrolls were found? There in some caves?

Dave: Yeah, but there’s more. There was also a Jewish community there on a plateau. I’m guessing they were the ones who buried the scrolls in the caves when they became too old and fragile for handling. Anyway, some scholars believe that the community was home to some Essenes. The Essenes were a conservative sect of Jews. According to the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, the Essenes numbered in the thousands throughout Judea.

Among the Dead Sea scroll collection, there’s one called the “Temple Scroll.” In this scroll, the commentary points to Leviticus 18:18 as proof that polygamy has always been unlawful in Yahuwah’s estimation.

Do you see that white book there with the photo of some scroll fragments on it?

Miles: This one?

Dave: Yes. Turn to where it’s paper clipped. This is a translation of the Dead Sea scrolls by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook. Go ahead and read the bracketed quote.

Miles: “He may not take a wife from any of the nations. Rather, he must take himself a wife from his father’s house—that is, from his father’s family. He is not to take another wife in addition to her; no, she alone shall be with him as long as she lives. If she dies, then he may take himself another wife from his father’s house, that is, his family.”

Dave: This passage is, again, from the Temple Scroll and is actually expounding upon Deuteronomy 17 verses 14 to 20, but he’s pointing to Leviticus 18:18 as supporting evidence that polygamy is wrong.

Miles: What does Deuteronomy 17 say?

Dave: Why don’t you go ahead and read it? Verses 14 to 20.

Miles: All right … uh,

When you enter the land Yahuwah your Elohim is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you a king Yahuwah your Elohim chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for Yahuwah has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere Yahuwah his Eloah and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

Dave: Okay, now read the marked passage from the Temple Scroll again.

Miles: “He may not take a wife from any of the nations. Rather, he must take himself a wife from his father’s house—that is, from his father’s family. He is not to take another wife in addition to her; no, she alone shall be with him as long as she lives. If she dies, then he may take himself another wife from his father’s house, that is, his family.”

Dave: Do you see the similarities? When it says he should marry from his father’s family, it’s not suggesting that literally. It’s not advocating incest. It’s an expansion of Deuteronomy 17 which states that the kings were to marry Israelites, not foreign women who would lead their hearts astray.

Miles: Which is precisely what happened with Solomon. Didn’t he have, like, 700 wives and 300 concubines?

Dave: That sounds about right. And what did they do?

Miles: They turned his heart away from Yah.

Dave: Right. David Instone-Brewer wrote a fascinating essay entitled “Jesus’ Old Testament Basis for Monogamy.” In there, he refers to this very passage in the Temple Scroll. I’d like you to read what he says. His essay was published in a book called The Old Testament in The New Testament. Turn to page 83 and read where it’s marked. What does Instone-Brewer have to say on the subject?

Miles: Umm … “the Temple Scroll says, the king may only marry an Israelite and may only take one wife. In order to justify the interpretation ‘one wife’ rather than ‘few wives,’ the Temple Scroll alludes to Lev. 18.18 with the phrase ‘all the days of her life.’”

Dave: Or, as our modern translations phrase it, “Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.”

“All the days of her life,” “while she’s still living.” Means the same thing.

Now, what’s interesting, is that in the Damascus Document, which was found in Cave 4 at Qumran, the Qumran community accuses their foes of being guilty of a variety of sins, one of which was … wait for it … polygamy.

Miles: Really! They referred to polygamy as a sin?

Dave: They did. Here … read this. Again, it’s from the Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, and Edward Cook translation. What does it say?

Miles: “They are caught in two traps: fornication, by taking two wives in their lifetimes although the principle of creation is ‘male and female He created them.’”

Dave: In order to consider the taking of two wives—or bigamy—as a sin, you’d have to interpret Leviticus 18:18 as a command against all polygamy, not just the taking of sister wives.

David Instone-Brewer has another comment I want you to read. Bottom of page 85, the bracketed paragraph. It goes on to page 86.

Miles:

The law of Lev. 18.18 (according to the Qumran exegetes) concerns a man who has a wife and wants to take another, which is prohibited unless the first wife has died … We can see that this interpretation was in the minds of the Qumran exegetes in the way they summarize the teaching of Lev. 18.18 with the words “taking two wives during their lives.” This phrase reminds the reader that Lev. 18.18 is emphatically speaking about being married to two wives at once … This explanation is confirmed considerably by the Qumran texts which show that divorce was permitted. Therefore this exegetical argument does not prohibit divorce or remarriage at Qumran, but is directed solely at the practice of polygamy which the Qumran exegetes considered to be unlawful.

Dave: An “exegete” is a person, typically a Bible scholar, who skillfully and knowledgeably interprets or expounds on Scripture. Instone-Brewer is saying that the ancient Qumran scholars of Christ’s day and before were opposed to polygamy as being unlawful. This has led modern scholars to take another look at Leviticus 18 to see if it’s consistent with Scripture.

Angelo Tosato is an Italian scholar who believes that the Qumran interpretation is valid. I’d like you to read what he has to say. This is from his article, “The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination.” What does that say?

Miles: It says, quote: “Qumran’s interpretation of Leviticus 18:18 is not only correct but even more faithful to the original sense than the interpretation commonly given today.” Unquote. Huh! That’s really interesting. He says it’s more faithful to the original than how we interpret it today.

Dave: So that’s the historical evidence.

Miles: Okay, I’ve got to stop you for just a moment. We’re going to take a quick break but when we come back, let’s get into the textual evidence you said you had. We’ll be right back.

* * *

Advertisement

Romans 1 verse 6 states that the gospel is “for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” Has that ever struck you as just . . . wrong somehow? Like perhaps Yahuwah plays favorites?

Of course, we know that Yahuwah loves everyone and, as our Creator, He knows just how to reach each person on an individual level. Romans, chapters 6 to 11, reveal an interesting play the Father has set in motion to win the Jews for Him. Of course, as with everyone, not all will choose to be saved. However, the descendants of Abraham are not lost just because some of their ancestors rejected the Messiah 2,000 years ago. There is still hope for them yet!

To learn more about Yahuwah’s loving plan to lead the Jews to salvation, look for the radio episode entitled “Does Yahuwah Play Favorites?” [Program 174] Learn what the divine plan is, so you can cooperate with Heaven in leading many more souls to salvation. Once again, that’s “Does Yahuwah Play Favorites?” Look for it on our website at WorldsLastChance.com. You can also listen to it on YouTube!

* * *Part 2: (Miles & Dave)

Miles: Okay, I’m looking forward to this. We believe you should take the Bible just as it reads, and, if we’re being honest, you have to admit that Leviticus 18:18, when taken just as it reads, says literally not to take to wife two women who are sisters. So what is this textual evidence that proves Leviticus 18:18 is actually a prohibition of polygamy itself, not just sororal polygamy?

Dave: You know what an idiom is, right?

Miles: Of course. It’s an expression used in a specific language that can’t necessarily be understood by the definitions of the individual words. It’s a phrase or an expression that’s uniquely understood to mean something.

Dave: Right. For example, Russian has an idiom that, literally translated, is “to look through one’s fingers.”

Miles: What does that mean? To be embarrassed?

Dave: See? It’s difficult to understand idioms that are translated directly. No, to “look through one’s fingers” means to ignore something or, as we would say in English, “To turn a blind eye” to something.

That’s what we’re dealing with in Leviticus 18:18. When the translators came to this verse, they translated the words, not the meaning. That’s what has confused our understanding because this verse contains an idiom.

Miles: What’s the idiom?

Dave: I’m probably mangling the pronunciation, but the phrase is ishah el-achotah. In English, we read it as “thou shalt not take a wife with her sister, during her life to vex her.” The idiom is “a wife with her sister.”

Miles: What does that mean?

Dave: It’s an idiom that refers to all women. To females in general.

Richard Davidson wrote a book called Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. In there, he points out that this idiom is used elsewhere in Scripture and everywhere else it appears it’s always, quote, “used idiomatically in the distributive sense of ‘one in addition to another’ and nowhere else refers to literal sisters.”

Miles: Does he give any examples?

Dave: Uh … yeah. Exodus 26, verses 3, 5, 6 and 17. You want to read those? Now, just so you know, in Exodus 26, it’s not speaking about women at all, but the feminine form of the idiom is used because, in context, that’s what is grammatically correct. Go ahead and read them. Look for phrases that are talking about “one in addition to another.” That’s where you’ll find the idiom in the original.

Miles:

Five curtains shall be coupled one to another: and the other five curtains shall be coupled one to another.

Fifty strings shalt thou make in one curtain, and fifty strings shalt thou make in the edge of the curtain, which is in the second coupling: the strings shall be one right against another.

Thou shalt make also fifty taches of gold, and couple the curtains one to another with the taches, and it shall be one Tabernacle.

Dave: That’s enough. You don’t have to read all of it. You get the idea.

Another passage is the first chapter of Ezekiel. Read verses 9 and uh … 23.

Miles: All right. Verse 9: “They where joined by their wings one to another, and when they went forth, they returned not, but every one went straight forward.”

Dave: And verse 23?

Miles: “And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two which covered them, and every one had two which covered their bodies.”

Dave: Ezekiel 3:13 says, quote: “I heard also the noise of the wings of the beasts, that touched one another, and the rattling of the wheels that were by them, even a noise of a great rushing.” Unquote.

So we’ve got this idiom that, everywhere else, simply means “one in addition to another” and yet in Leviticus 18, we take that literally to mean two literal sisters? That doesn’t make sense!

Miles: It’s not consistent.

Dave: The phrase has a masculine equivalent which is ishel-akiw, or something like that. It means, literally, “a man to his brother.” But, again, it’s an idiom that simply means “one in addition to another.”

The phrase is used quite a number of times, but let’s look at just one. Exodus 16 verse 15. This is where the Israelites encounter manna for the first time. What does it say? See if you can discover which English phrase comes from the idiom. Go ahead.

Miles: “So when the children of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.”

Dave: They’re commenting to each other. “What is this?” It’s not literally every man and his brother saying this to each other because not everyone saying that to each other were brothers!

So, if we’re going to be consistent with how this phrase is used multiple other places, we have to interpret the phrase in Leviticus 18 as simply meaning, don’t marry any woman in addition to another, not just sisters.

Miles: Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Not to mention, that it’s more consistent with what we know of Yah’s character.

Dave: A point we’re going to come back to.

Dr. Jay Sklar is an Old Testament scholar and Dean of Faculty at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri in the United States. He wrote a commentary on the book of Leviticus. I’d like you to read his comment on Leviticus 18:18. Do you see it there? If we interpret this Hebrew idiom in a way consistent with every other place it’s used in the Old Testament, then, quote—?

Miles: “Verse 18 would be prohibiting polygamy in general: ‘Do not marry one woman in addition to another.’” Unquote.

Dave: Right.

Now, another point to take into consideration is the reason for prohibiting taking another wife in Leviticus 18:18 is to prevent rivalry between the two women. And that would occur anyway between any two wives, sisters or not. So, that’s also consistent with the interpretation of this text as being against polygamy in general, not just sororal polygamy.

Miles: Well, look at Hannah, wife of Elkanah, mother of Samuel. The Bible is clear that Peninnah, the second wife, was very cruel to Hannah because she had no children.

Dave: Yes! In fact, the very words used in Leviticus 18:18—"Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister”—is the very same word used in 1 Samuel 1 verse 6 to describe Peninnah’s treatment of Hannah. Why don’t you read that for us? 1 Samuel 1 verse 6.

Miles: “And her adversary vexed her sore, forasmuch as she upbraided her, because Yahuwah had made her barren.”

Dave: There’s not even a hint that Peninnah was Hannah’s literal, blood-sister, but she is described as “vexing” Hannah, the very reason given in Leviticus 18:18 as to why a man should not take another wife.

Here’s another quote from Angelo Tosato’s “The Law of Leviticus 18:18.” Go ahead and read it.

Miles:

This motivation shows that the act legislated against is deemed criminal, not in itself (and thus it is not a case of an incestuous union; nor more generally of a sexual union retained intrinsically perverse), but is deemed criminal in relation to the man’s first wife who would be damaged. In addition, the harm which the law wants avoided is such (rivalry, enmity) that any woman (and not necessarily a sister of the first wife) is capable of causing.

Dave: One point that has caused confusion is that the verses immediately preceding verse 18 are all focused on prohibiting incest. You’re not to have sex with your daughter, your step-daughter, your sister, your step-sister, your mom, or your step-mom. These are all prohibited relationships. So, when we come to verse 18, it’s been easy to assume that the “sister” being referred to is a literal sister.

Miles: Yeah, I can see that. Especially when you can’t tell, from the translation, that an idiom is being used. So, knowing the previous verses are talking about close, familial relationships, could you argue that, despite the use of the idiomatic phrase, in this instance, it’s talking about literal sisters?

Dave: You could … but … Hebrew scholars tell us that in the original Hebrew, there is a clear literary break between verse 17 and verse 18. It doesn’t appear in our modern English translation, but it’s there in the original.

Miles: So, what you’re saying is that Leviticus 18 covers two separate sets of laws.

Dave: Precisely. The first set of laws, up through verse 17, are commandments prohibiting all the different kinds of incestuous relationships. The second set of commands deal with laws regulating sexual morality in general. Verse 18 is part of this set of laws.

In fact, let’s take a moment to read through that second set of laws and you’ll see the difference. The first set, again, was prohibiting incest. The second set prohibits fornication of any sort. Go ahead. Verses 19 through 24.

Miles:

Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your Elohim. I am Yahuwah.

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.

Dave: These prohibitions, along with verse 18, all follow the literary break. You can see how they cover a different sort of prohibition.

Paul Copan wrote an intriguing book called Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.

Miles: Sounds interesting. I’d like to read it. Do you have it?

Dave: Sure. You can borrow it. Anyway, it’s interesting because I think a lot of Christians view Yahuwah in the Old Testament as being this harsh being. And He’s not. Anyway, in his book, Copan’s got some real insight into Leviticus 18. I’ve printed it off here. Would you read that for us?

Miles:

Each verse in 7-17 begins identically, starting with the noun “the nakedness (of),” and it leads up to the command, “You shall not uncover [so-and-so’s] nakedness.” Also, in each of these verses (except v. 9) an explanation is given for the prohibition (e.g., “she is your mother”); this explanation isn’t found in verse 18, which we would expect if it were an incest prohibition.

By contrast, each verse in 18-23 begins with a different construction. Even if you don’t read Hebrew, you can truly just glance at the text and immediately see the difference in structure starting with verse 18. Verses 18-23 each begin with what’s called the waw conjunctive (like our word “and”) followed by a different word than “nakedness” (erwat); also, instead of the consistent use of the negative (lo) plus the verb “uncover” (tegalleh, from the root galah), as in 7-17, here the negative particles are used before verbs other than uncover.

Dave: Then he asks a penetrating question: “Why are these contrasts important?”

And what’s his answer? Next sentence.

Miles: Uhhh … quote: “In verses 6-17, we’re dealing with kinship bonds while verses 18-23 address prohibited sexual relations outside of kinship bonds.” Unquote.

Ahh, I see. That makes sense.

Dave: Now. Ready for some grammar? If Moses meant for Leviticus 18 verse 18 to be included in the prohibitions of incestuous relationships, not only would there not have been a literary break there, but he would have phrased it differently.

Miles: What do you mean?

Dave: He would have been clearer by using the conjunction “and” instead of the preposition “to.” He had the vocabulary to simply say, “You shall not marry a woman AND her sister.” In fact, that’s what he said in verse 17! “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman—AND—her daughter.” “Uncover the nakedness,” of course, being a euphemism for having sex. “You shall not have sex with a woman—AND—her daughter.” He could have used that same phraseology in verse 18. But he didn’t.

Here. Here’s another quote from Jay Sklar. What’s he say?

Miles: Uh … he “uses the phrase ‘a woman in addition to her sister,’ which was a common expression that did not refer to relatives, except by coincidence.” Unquote.

Dave: He’s talking about the idiom there. Moses didn’t need to use an idiom. In fact, he wouldn’t have if he’d been speaking of literal sisters.

Okay. Last point. And this is a big one. Verse 18 contains a time limitation. Read verse 18 again and this time pay particular attention to the last phrase.

Miles: “Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.”

Dave: That’s a time limitation. You can marry again once the first wife has died, but not until then. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the preceding verses that say you can have sex with your daughter or sister after a certain point in time. Instead, the prohibition is forever. Not so with verse 18. This supports the argument that verse 18 is a general prohibition against all polygamous relationships.

Miles: That makes a lot of sense.

Let me ask you this, though, if the Torah in verse 18 were indeed prohibiting polygamy, why wasn’t there any specified punishment for breaking that command? There are clear punishments for fornication, adultery, breaking the Sabbath, etc. Why not for polygamy?

Dave: That’s a fair question. However, just because a civil punishment is not listed does not mean you can twist that into Yah giving permission or allowance for a certain act.

For example, turn to the very next chapter, Leviticus 19, and read verses 17 and 18.

Miles: All right, uh … “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am Yahuwah.”

Dave: There is no punishment prescribed for the sin of hating your brother, but that doesn’t mean it’s lawful. How about the tenth commandment? Exodus 20:17?

Miles: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Dave: This is one of the Ten Commandments! And yet, there’s no civil punishment recorded for the transgression of coveting. But that doesn’t invalidate it as a divine command.

Miles: That’s a good point. Truth is so logical! When you just sit down and look at all the evidence, it’s so logical and consistent. It really makes sense that Yahuwah would indeed condemn polygamy.

Don’t go away folks. When we return, Dave will be answering a question about how to break generational curses. Stay tuned.

* * *

You are listening to World's Last Chance Radio.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.

* * *Advertisement

Some of the most precious promises in Scripture are assurances of Yahuwah’s loving care for His children, even during times of persecution, trial, and heart-breaking sorrow. When your entire world seems to be crashing down around your ears, words validating Yahuwah’s love and watch care can be very comforting.

In a world of sin, suffering is inevitable. As Christians, we can be Yahuwah’s voice of comfort when others are struggling. The problem is, sometimes when a friend, acquaintance, or even a loved one is dealing with an overwhelming situation, it can be difficult to know what to say or how to comfort. We want to somehow “fix” the situation or make it all right . . . and we can’t. There are definitely things that can help and comfort as well as things that should never be said.

To learn how you can cooperate with Yahuwah in comforting and encouraging those who are going through a difficult time, look for the radio program called “How to comfort the sorrowing (and how not to!)” [Program 175] Knowing how to comfort someone who is hurting is an important skill that can have a real impact on your witness for Yah. Look for “How to comfort the sorrowing (and how not to!)” on WorldsLastChance.com. You can also find it on YouTube!

* * *Daily Mailbag

Miles: Today’s daily mailbag question is coming from the country that has one of the world’s slowest internet download speeds.

Dave: Ahhhh … Madagascar.

Miles: Pulling a name out of a hat, I see.

Dave: Well, it’s kind of far from everything, isn’t it? About 400 kilometers off the coast of Africa?

Miles: About that, but . . . no. This country’s download speed is even slower than Madagascar. It’s also slower than Kazakhstan and Vanuatu.

Dave: Really! Uh … wow. I really have no idea.

Miles: Well, I doubt you’d ever guess it so I’ll just tell you: Australia.

Dave: Seriously? Australia’s internet download speed is slower than Kazakhstan or Madagascar?

Miles: Australia’s a wonderful country with many amazing, beautiful, one-of-a-kind things going for it, but internet download speed isn’t one of them.

Dave: Huh! Interesting. Wonder why that is. So, what’s today’s question?

Miles: Well, Samantha Hall from Cairns has this to say. She writes: “My cousin recently shared with me that she’s been studying all about generational curses and how to break them. She’s really focused on that and is concerned that evil angels will continue to harass a family line unless and until a generational curse is broken. She says demons attach themselves to sinning parents and can, from that attachment, attach themselves to the next generation. What are your thoughts on generational curses? Is this a real thing? Is this something believers should be concerned about?”

Dave: Hmmm. What an interesting question. Well, uh, there are two parts to my answer. First, yes. There is Biblical precedent for a belief in generational curses, but secondly they aren’t something we need to fear because Yahuwah has all the power in the universe to break those curses.

Miles: I’m glad to hear you say that. It never helps anyone to live in fear of the devil.

Dave: No, it doesn’t. And, in fact, focusing on our fears can have a very detrimental effect on our Christian walk. We’ll talk more about that in a minute, but to start with let’s take a look at what Scripture has to say about generational curses because ignorance doesn’t help us, either.

Would you please turn to Exodus 20 and read the second commandment for us.

Miles: Okay, that’s, uh, verses 4 to 6. It says:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, Yahuwah your Elohim, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Dave: Here we have what you could call an explanation of a generational curse. Yahuwah is saying He visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation” of those who hate Him. This is where we get the idea of a generational curse from, so, in a limited sense, I agree with Samantha’s sister-in-law.

Miles: You say in a limited sense. What do you mean? Are you defining generational curses differently from her cousin?

Dave: Yes, I believe so. Samantha’s cousin believes that demons attach themselves to sinning parents and, from that attachment, if the curse isn’t broken, attach themselves to the children, and so on and so forth from there, forming a multi-generational curse. I don’t believe that’s how generational curses work. In fact, that definition of a generational curse actually contradicts other passages of Scripture.

Let’s take a look at some of those passages. Would you please turn to Ezekiel 18 and read verse 20. There are a number of passages that teach this point, but Ezekiel 18:20 is probably the clearest. Go ahead.

Miles: “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”

Dave: So here Yahuwah is explaining that children will not share the guilt of the parents’ sins. Another translation is even more explicit. It says that the child shall not bear the iniquity of the parent. Iniquity is premeditated sin.

So, to live in fear that a demon that attached itself to your parents, or grandparents . . . or even your great-grandparents, is somehow still attached to you through no fault of your own other than to be born into that lineage, is to contradict the principle that Scripture is teaching here.

Miles: Yeah, this idea that demons would attach to a particular family line just doesn’t sit right with me. We know that Yahuwah is a God of justice. How’s it just to allow demons to harass later generations because of the choices of an ancestor?

Dave: It’s not just or fair at all. What does Jeremiah 9 verses 23 and 24 say of Yahuwah?

Miles: Give me just a moment and I’ll tell you … uh …

This is what Yahuwah says:

“Let not the wise boast of their wisdom
or the strong boast of their strength
or the rich boast of their riches,
but let the one who boasts boast about this:
that they have the understanding to know me,
that I am Yahuwah, who exercises kindness,
justice and righteousness on earth,
for in these I delight,”
declares Yahuwah.

Dave: Not only does Yahuwah delight in justice, but He actively exercises justice! He’s not going to allow demonic attachments of the sort that is scaring Samantha’s cousin.

You’re in Jeremiah. Go to chapter 31 and read verses … uh … 29 and 30. This has an interesting turn of phrase but it still makes the point. Go ahead.

Miles:

In those days people will no longer say,

‘The parents have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.

Dave: So, again, the point is made that people are responsible for their own decisions and not held accountable for the sins of others.

Miles: Well, I have to admit, that’s more consistent with Yah’s character of love than saying demons can attach themselves to children. That’s just—that doesn’t seem right.

But then, what does the second commandment mean when it talks about visiting the iniquity of the fathers unto the third and fourth generation?

Dave: Well, I think an excellent example that explains what Exodus 20 is talking about is found in the fact that children of alcoholics are at a greater risk of becoming alcoholics themselves, than children whose parents aren’t alcoholics. Studies claim the risk is two to four times higher, even though fewer than half of the children actually do become alcoholics.

Miles: Perhaps because they’ve seen and experienced for themselves how devastating it is.

Dave: Certainly. And there are many factors involved. It’s more than just a chemical imbalance in the brain. Families tend to pass down their coping strategies to the next generation, both healthy and unhealthy. That’s why things like child and spousal abuse, verbal abuse, obesity, and drug abuse can run in families.

This has to do with psychological and even scientific factors, rather than demons. Will Satan take advantage? Sure. But we don’t need to live in fear of him, and that brings me to my next point. I see too many people living in fear of the devil and his demons. Are they more powerful than us?

Miles: Yeah!

Dave: Of course. But Yahuwah is on our side. We don’t need to live in fear of a fallen foe and that’s exactly what the devil and his evil angels are: fallen foes. When we have surrendered our hearts and our wills to our heavenly Father, we don’t need to live in fear of the devil and his power.

Turn to Romans chapter 8. This is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. Romans 8 and read verses, uh, well, start at verse 31.

Miles:

What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If [Yahuwah] is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own son, but gave him up for us all—how will He not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom [Yahuwah] has chosen? It is [Yah] who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Yahushua who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of [Yah] and is also interceding for us

Dave: Satan and his minions can speak the words of condemnation, they can tempt, but they have no real power to actually condemn. Yahuwah’s power is so much greater, we have nothing to fear.

Miles: James 4 verse 7: “Submit yourselves, then, to [Yah]. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”

Dave: Exactly.

Miles: So, with the definitions clarified of just what constitutes a “generational curse,” is there anything we can do to cooperate with Yahuwah in breaking these, uh, tendencies I guess you could say. These tendencies or “curses” that run through some lineages. Because you have to admit that certain things do tend to run in some families.

Dave: Sure! Obesity runs in some families, and it’s not all due to eating too much sugar. Some of it can be due to unhealthy coping mechanisms; comfort eating, that sort of thing.

Well, prayer of course. Pray and ask Yahuwah to lead your understanding in what specifically you can do to cooperate with Him in learning how to disrupt dysfunctional behaviors and habits.

Then, education. Don’t be afraid to look up information online or read books that specifically address your individual situation. It doesn’t honor Yahuwah for His people to be ignorant. If you grew up in a home where one parent beat the other, where inappropriate displays of anger were the norm, study up on anger management skills.

If a parent—or both parents—were abusive to you and you know you don’t want to pass that kind of parenting on to your kids, read books on parenting. Of course, not all the advice in there is always good. So, again, pray. Ask Yahuwah to impress on your mind the right information for your situation. Listen to that still, small voice of His spirit within.

Miles: Take what is good and lay aside the rest.

Dave: Exactly.

Sin causes damage. It causes hurt. Dysfunction abounds, even among believers. But the thing I want to emphasize is that, #1, Yahuwah is there to help. We don’t have to be defined by our past. Yahuwah can lead us, guide us, bring us the information we need so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past—including mistakes made by our parents and grandparents. And, #2, we don’t have to live in fear of the devil. He can’t attach demons to you based on the mistakes of your ancestors. He’s a defeated foe, so let us rejoice in that.

You still have Romans 8 there?

Miles: Yeah.

Dave: Why don’t you finish the chapter on out? Uh … verse 35.

Miles:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of [Yahuwah] that is in Christ Yahushua our Lord. [Romans 8: 35, 37-39]

Amen.

Up next: Elise O’Brien with today’s daily promise.

* * *Daily Promise

Hello! This is Elise O’Brien with today’s daily promise from Yah’s Word.

On November 2, 1734, a little boy was born in Pennsylvania colony in New England. He was the sixth of what would eventually be 11 siblings. When he was 12, he was given his first rifle. By the time he was 15, Daniel—or Dan, as his father called him—was known for his superior shooting skills. While still a young teen, he shot his first bear, a dangerous feat even for experienced hunters. When the local teacher expressed concern over how much school young Dan was missing, his father shrugged. “Let the girls do the spelling,” he said. “And Dan will do the shooting.”

It was a skill he would use throughout his life. When Dan was 21, he married a tall, black-haired, black-eyed girl named Rebecca. As their family grew to eventually 10 children, Dan supported the family with his skills as a hunter and trapper. Like the sea captains who would leave for extended voyages, Dan would be gone on long hunting trips for months at a time. He would leave almost every autumn, returning in the spring with piles of pelts to be sold. On one such expedition, a tribe of Shawnee Indians adopted Dan and he lived with them for a couple of years. He always had great respect for Indians.

Dan’s wide-ranging explorations made him very knowledgeable of previously unexplored terrain. Dan was the first to blaze a trail through the mountains at the Cumberland Gap, opening up what would later become the state of Kentucky to settlers on the eastern seaboard who wanted to move West.

Dan, or Daniel Boone as he’s widely known, became famous even within his own lifetime for his exploits. Legends, not all of them accurate, grew up around him and became the basis for the mythos of the western frontiersman that has spread beyond the borders of the United States. In fact, I have a friend, an elderly German man, who grew up reading stories of the American west, totally fascinated by the idea of the Wild West and the men who “tamed the wilderness.”

Once, Daniel Boone was asked if he’d ever been lost. “I have never been lost, but I was bewildered once for three days,” was his humorous response. I had to laugh when I read his reply. It’s a great response, an empowering response and I think that, as Christians, we can learn from it. There are times in life when we get bewildered. We’re confused and don’t know which path to take. Whether it’s an issue at school or work that we don’t know how to handle, or maybe even a new concept we’re not sure is true or false, we often find ourselves perplexed. When that happens, we need to: Stop. Look. Listen . . . and Go!

Stop what you’re doing. Don’t keep barging ahead. Take the time, even if it’s just a moment, to pray for guidance. Then, look. Look at Yah’s leading and guidance in your past experiences. This will strengthen your faith that He who has brought you thus far won’t abandon you. It’s important to remember how Yahuwah has led us in the past. Then, you’re ready to listen. Listen for the gentle promptings of the still, small voice. It will never lead you astray because that is the spirit of Yahuwah Himself guiding you. Then, you are ready to go. Step out in faith, knowing you can trust Yahuwah to keep you safe.

Before Joshua led the Children of Israel into Canaan, he was bewildered. The task seemed overwhelming, but the word from Yahuwah was encouraging, and it contains promises for believers today. Yahuwah told Joshua:

Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their ancestors to give them.

Be strong and very courageous. … Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for Yahuwah your Eloah will be with you wherever you go.” [See Joshua 1:6-9.]

We have been given great and precious promises. Go and start claiming!

* * *Part 3: (Miles & Dave)

Miles: I just want to say I appreciate today’s discussion. While polygamy has never been a temptation to me, my wife confessed to me that the fact that Yah seems okay with it has always bothered her. And not just Solomon. David had, how many wives?

Dave: Eight.

Miles: And he was a “man after Yah’s own heart”! And Abraham. He had three wives.

Dave: Not all at once.

Miles: No, no. That’s true. But he had plenty of concubines. So, yeah. I can see why it could appear that Yahuwah was all right with polygamy. It’s really nice to see that He actually forbade it.

Dave: Of course. Yahuwah doesn’t need an apologist. He doesn’t need us to twist the facts and make excuses for Him. What’s true today, was true 500 years ago; was true 3,000 years ago. And that truth is that Yahuwah is a God that delights in justice, in fairness. The divine law is consistent with that and if we want to be happy, we will surrender to bring our lives into alignment with His revealed will.

Polygamy is inconsistent with Yah’s original plan for marriage, so it’s not really surprising, then, to find that the Torah condemns it.

Miles: That’s true. Well, our time’s up. We hope you can join us again tomorrow, and until then, remember: Yahuwah loves you . . . and He is safe to trust!

* * *

You have been listening to WLC Radio.

This program and past episodes of WLC Radio are available for downloading on our website. They're great for sharing with friends and for use in Bible studies! They're also an excellent resource for those worshipping Yahuwah alone at home. To listen to previously aired programs, visit our website at WorldsLastChance.com. Click on the WLC Radio icon displayed on our homepage.

In his teachings and parables, the Savior gave no “signs of the times” to watch for. Instead, the thrust of his message was constant … vigilance. Join us again tomorrow for another truth-filled message as we explore various topics focused on the Savior's return and how to live in constant readiness to welcome him warmly when he comes.

WLC Radio: Teaching minds and preparing hearts for Christ's sudden return.